The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

garryknight said:
Yes. You can help the camera get accurate photos by changing a setting for the particular lens. On my X-E2 it's at Menu - 3 - Mount Adaptor Setting. Here's what you can change there:

MOUNT ADAPTOR SETTING

A website for FUJIFILM digital camera manuals. Learn how to use the FUJIFILM X-T10 X-series premium compact camera.
fujifilm-dsc.com fujifilm-dsc.com
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that by doing this it has no effect whatsoever on the image recorded within the camera. So I understand it only adds the focal length used to the metadata. So for future reference if you use any lens correction software during PP that correction can be added which in most cases can be done with any presets that might be included in the software.

I've done this many times when using my old manual Nikon lenses on my Fuji-X units and have found no adverse effects or improvements when setting or not setting the various focal lengths I have used.
 
Last edited:
G.K.Jnr. said:
I'm pretty sure that by doing this it has no effect whatsoever on the image recorded within the
Click to expand...

The page I linked to mentions distortion correction, colour shading correction, and peripheral illumination correction as if it's being done in the camera. I've only used it with a 55mm and a 35mm lens, neither of which seem to need any correction.
 
A close up of some foliage from the Eden Project today ...



X-Pro2; XF16-55 @ 55mm; f2.8; ISO 640; 1/180
 
Last edited:
Quick one after dropping my new to me Xpro2, acquired just last week. How easy is it to replace the bottom plate? A little ding only thankfully but it will annoy me no doubt :mad:(y)
 
Can anyone recommend a strap for an X100,
i know there are some about that are over £50 that are probably a joy to have
but i was think more like £20 - £35 but still very well made.
 
I’ve bought from 595 strapco many times. I believe they make to order. Below is wrist straps but they do neck straps too

595strapco.com

Wrist Straps

Leather Camera Wrist Straps hand made in the UK, ideal for the seasoned pro or enthusiastic amateur looking for a secure way to carry their camera. Shop Now!
595strapco.com 595strapco.com
 
fujilover said:
Can anyone recommend a strap for an X100,
i know there are some about that are over £50 that are probably a joy to have
but i was think more like £20 - £35 but still very well made.
Click to expand...
I used the Peak Design Cuff for years and found it great tbh.
 
fujilover said:
Can anyone recommend a strap for an X100,
i know there are some about that are over £50 that are probably a joy to have
but i was think more like £20 - £35 but still very well made.
Click to expand...

If you're after a neck strap the peak design slide lite is nice. I've got the standard slide but i feel it's a bit oversized - it's essentially a seatbelt with clips on the end.
 
fujilover said:
Can anyone recommend a strap for an X100,
i know there are some about that are over £50 that are probably a joy to have
but i was think more like £20 - £35 but still very well made.
Click to expand...
I use a Cordweaver strap with Peak Design attachments when using my X-Pro2 and X-E2s with small primes. Lightweight, discreet and comfy. The Peak Design attachments mean I can swap for a Peak Design Cuff or Slide Lite as and when required.
 
weebleswobble said:
I drive past these crows every morning, and caught them when there was a great sunrise (and still made it to work on time). It reminds me of notes on a song sheet, but I wonder what the song is…
View attachment 342389
Click to expand...
This would make a fabulous album cover...!

mac
 
Not been out much with mine which has prompted a re-think on kit.

How does the 16-80 compare to the 16-55. I love the 16-55 but it can seem a bit heavy, especially if I have a few other bits in my camera bag! It also gives a longer range and would be a good walkabout camera (I often just take the X100F if want to travel light). That said the 16-55 is excellent, so much so that I then rarely use the 35mm.

Also, how are people finding the 70-300. Have the 55-200 which is great but only normally use occasionally (mainly airshows, so reach is all important) so thinking of swapping for that.
 
cambsno said:
Not been out much with mine which has prompted a re-think on kit.

How does the 16-80 compare to the 16-55. I love the 16-55 but it can seem a bit heavy, especially if I have a few other bits in my camera bag! It also gives a longer range and would be a good walkabout camera (I often just take the X100F if want to travel light). That said the 16-55 is excellent, so much so that I then rarely use the 35mm.

Also, how are people finding the 70-300. Have the 55-200 which is great but only normally use occasionally (mainly airshows, so reach is all important) so thinking of swapping for that.
Click to expand...

I made some comments on the 70-300 a few pages back.

In short, it's excellent.

It may be plastic construction but it feels way more solid and robust than the 55-200. It's optically great at all lengths, even wide open. Aperture-wise, it's almost identical to the 55-200 at comparable lengths, it just has that extra bit of range. It also has a crazy close focus distance!

I traded my 55-200mm and haven't regretted it at all. It fits the same slot in my bag and I haven't noticed a weight difference.

The only negative about it i've seen in reviews is some choppy bokeh, but i've uet to see any in practice, even during christmas light season.

I definitely recommend it if you can find one.
 
cambsno said:
Not been out much with mine which has prompted a re-think on kit.

How does the 16-80 compare to the 16-55. I love the 16-55 but it can seem a bit heavy, especially if I have a few other bits in my camera bag! It also gives a longer range and would be a good walkabout camera (I often just take the X100F if want to travel light). That said the 16-55 is excellent, so much so that I then rarely use the 35mm.

Also, how are people finding the 70-300. Have the 55-200 which is great but only normally use occasionally (mainly airshows, so reach is all important) so thinking of swapping for that.
Click to expand...
I always wonder about replacing my 18-55 and 55-200 with the 16-80 and 55-200 respectively. However, I worry that in both cases I would miss out on the wider aperture at the wide end. On the 55-200 particularly most of my shots are f3.5 @ 55mm.
 
Craikeybaby said:
I always wonder about replacing my 18-55 and 55-200 with the 16-80 and 55-200 respectively. However, I worry that in both cases I would miss out on the wider aperture at the wide end. On the 55-200 particularly most of my shots are f3.5 @ 55mm.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you need a 56mm 1.2.... ;)
 
cambsno said:
Not been out much with mine which has prompted a re-think on kit.

How does the 16-80 compare to the 16-55. I love the 16-55 but it can seem a bit heavy, especially if I have a few other bits in my camera bag! It also gives a longer range and would be a good walkabout camera (I often just take the X100F if want to travel light). That said the 16-55 is excellent, so much so that I then rarely use the 35mm.

Also, how are people finding the 70-300. Have the 55-200 which is great but only normally use occasionally (mainly airshows, so reach is all important) so thinking of swapping for that.
Click to expand...
I have both the 16-80 and 16-55. I wouldn’t replace the 16-55 for the more serious photography but I use the 16-80 occasionally when I need a general ‘walk-about’ lens. The 16-80 gives you f4 vs the f2.8 of the 16-55 fully open which, depending on the photography you do, may not matter. The 16-80 also has a reputation for being slightly soft at anything above 50mm. On mine it’s not all that noticeable but that may be due to copy variation.

The 70-300 is an excellent lens, way better than my 55-200 but that may just be down to copy variation but overall people seem to rave more about the 70-300 than they did with the 55-200. The 70-300 is a marginally slower lens but it weighs the same as the 55-200, is only slightly longer when extended and is compatible with the Fujifilm teleconvertors. I sold my 55-200.
 
Craikeybaby said:
I always wonder about replacing my 18-55 and 55-200 with the 16-80 and 55-200 respectively. However, I worry that in both cases I would miss out on the wider aperture at the wide end. On the 55-200 particularly most of my shots are f3.5 @ 55mm.
Click to expand...
I presume you mean replacing the 55-200 with the 70-300. If so, the speed difference, in my view, is marginal. F3.5 vs f4.0 at the short end and f4.8 vs f5.6 on the long end but in my view the 70-300 is a better lens overall.

I have tried lots of 18-55‘s and although they are fine lenses, I’ve yet to find one that will beat the 16-80 over the same focal length range. The 16-80 is a bit slower than the 18-55 though (F2.8-f4 vs f4 only).
 
MDH6D said:
I have both the 16-80 and 16-55. I wouldn’t replace the 16-55 for the more serious photography but I use the 16-80 occasionally when I need a general ‘walk-about’ lens. The 16-80 gives you f4 vs the f2.8 of the 16-55 fully open which, depending on the photography you do, may not matter. The 16-80 also has a reputation for being slightly soft at anything above 50mm. On mine it’s not all that noticeable but that may be due to copy variation.

The 70-300 is an excellent lens, way better than my 55-200 but that may just be down to copy variation but overall people seem to rave more about the 70-300 than they did with the 55-200. The 70-300 is a marginally slower lens but it weighs the same as the 55-200, is only slightly longer when extended and is compatible with the Fujifilm teleconvertors. I sold my 55-200.
Click to expand...

That's the thing - I used to love primes (and still do) but the IQ from the 16-55 is very hard to beat!
 
cambsno said:
That's the thing - I used to love primes (and still do) but the IQ from the 16-55 is very hard to beat!
Click to expand...

This is true, the 16-55 is like having a set of primes, but at the wide end, it isn't as sharp as the 16mm F1.4, and of course you are limited to F2.8 (F4 in real DOF terms) whereas the primes are a lot faster. (I have owned 16mm F1.4, 23mm F1.4, 35mm F1.4, 56mm F1.2 and 16-55mm!!!)

Regarding the 55-200 v 70-300 discussion up above in this thread, I always found the bokeh on the 55-200 a bit busy, the images I've seen online for the 70-300 show a marked improvement, so I think I would sacrifice a lit of light/DOF for nicer bokeh
 
I kinda want the 70-300, not shot much outside of family pics in a long while now and looking to get back into it. I have the excellent Laowa 65mm 2.8 2:1 macro here and I just have the time I used to for that kind of patient shooting. Been pondering on selling that and going for something like the 70-300, I think I'd get a lot more use out of it. I have a Nikon 200 F4 up for sale atm, if or when that goes I think it'll be a go to put the Laowa up
 
MDH6D said:
I presume you mean replacing the 55-200 with the 70-300. If so, the speed difference, in my view, is marginal. F3.5 vs f4.0 at the short end and f4.8 vs f5.6 on the long end but in my view the 70-300 is a better lens overall.

I have tried lots of 18-55‘s and although they are fine lenses, I’ve yet to find one that will beat the 16-80 over the same focal length range. The 16-80 is a bit slower than the 18-55 though (F2.8-f4 vs f4 only).
Click to expand...

I've never had the 16-55, but I do have the 50-140 f2.8, which has relegated my 90mm f2 to the lens cupboard, and it hardly ever goes out. Yes it's a lot lighter, and better than the zoom at 90mm, but that becomes insignificant because the 50-140 performs so well across it's focal lengths, it's a brilliant lens. I just wish it would focus a bit closer, but the 90mm isn't great in that regard either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top