The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

imattersuk said:
The point you're missing is that Fuji is the most enjoyable system to use for many people, personally i'd only entertain the X100V and when i've had them in the past i'm instantly drawn to considering the WCL & TCL which defeats the object somewhat.

Sony is clinically efficient and boring.

MFT is frustrating, poor AF, noisy images and not much lighter than Fuji.

X-H1 and a zoom or a couple of primes is probably the most satisfying camera i've ever used.
Click to expand...

I'm not missing the point at all.

With this hobby there are many ways to go and gear fondling is definitely a part of it but faced with the choice of FF and APS-C systems of similar sizes and wight and assuming reasonable handling from both I'd rather have the FF system especially if I already had that FF system and more kit to go with it.

Your emotional comments about Fuji are understandable but I think your comments about Sony are mostly nonsense not because I'm defending Sony as despite owning Sony kit I have no brand loyalty, I just think your comments would be mostly nonsense if directed against any marque. This is an example of the fanboy talk that does put me off and despite your comments about boring efficiency you'll probably be one of the ones enthusing about some new Fuji camera with better focusing and tracking or a lens with better faster focus and better across the frame sharpness unless you remain true to your principles and reject these boring things.

MFT may be frustrating and/or poor in some situations but the same could be said of APS-C Fuji but both are good enough for many people especially when people take a more realistic view about their needs and there's no denying that some get excellent results from MFT. The bulk and weight argument has to be based on specific body and lens combinations, for example there doesn't appear to be anything in Fuji land to match the bulk and weight savings offered by the smaller MFT body and lens combinations and any performance advantage the Fuji APS-C system may have might be mitigated at least to a degree by the smaller MFT having smaller faster lenses.

I'm glad you're happy with your kit but other options and opinions are available, for other people, obviously.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'm not missing the point at all.

With this hobby there are many ways to go and gear fondling is definitely a part of it but faced with the choice of FF and APS-C systems of similar sizes and wight and assuming reasonable handling from both I'd rather have the FF system especially if I already had that FF system and more kit to go with it.

Your emotional comments about Fuji are understandable but I think your comments about Sony are mostly nonsense not because I'm defending Sony as despite owning Sony kit I have no brand loyalty, I just think your comments would be mostly nonsense if directed against any marque. This is an example of the fanboy talk that does put me off and despite your comments about boring efficiency you'll probably be one of the ones enthusing about some new Fuji camera with better focusing and tracking or a lens with better faster focus and better across the frame sharpness unless you remain true to your principles and reject these boring things.

MFT may be frustrating and/or poor in some situations but the same could be said of APS-C Fuji but both are good enough for many people especially when people take a more realistic view about their needs and there's no denying that some get excellent results from MFT. The bulk and weight argument has to be based on specific body and lens combinations, for example there doesn't appear to be anything in Fuji land to match the bulk and weight savings offered by the smaller MFT body and lens combinations and any performance advantage the Fuji APS-C system may have might be mitigated at least to a degree by the smaller MFT having smaller faster lenses.

I'm glad you're happy with your kit but other options and opinions are available, for other people, obviously.
Click to expand...
Well you’ve proved you’re talking nonsense because I don’t have any Fuji kit and you talk from the perspective of someone using older equipment with zero experience of actually purchasing and using newer models regardless of manufacturer.
 
imattersuk said:
Well you’ve proved you’re talking nonsense because I don’t have any Fuji kit and you talk from the perspective of someone using older equipment with zero experience of actually purchasing and using newer models regardless of manufacturer.
Click to expand...

I seem to have irked you. Oh dear. Sorry about that :D I perhaps shouldn't have used the word "nonsense" but you seemed to be heading more into the sweepingly emotional and possibly more negative fanboy side of things than I'm usually comfortable with and that got my fingers typing. I'm brand agnostic. I really honest truly do not care if I own a Sony made in Thailand (or wherever) or a Fuji made in Japan (or wherever) and I see little to be gained in being overly negative about any marque especially over subjective issues. I'll try and restrain myself for a day or too :D

It doesn't matter if you don't have Fuji kit now as you did say you used a X-H1 and a zoom or a couple of primes and it's probably the most satisfying camera you've ever used and you did say mention boring clinical efficiency and MFT being poor noisy and not much lighter than Fuji kit so my comments seem perfectly valid enough for a forum thread.

I do get the gear fondling experience thing and I do buy kit to satisfy that side of me, I have boxes full of it. I also have a technical side and to write kit off as clinically efficient and boring just seems far too emotionally based and yes, silly, to me. For example one of my most used lenses is a Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and that lens is definitely a tactile user experience and character lens but I'd never dismiss the 35mm f1.4 GM as clinically efficient and boring, each to their own though I suppose.

I'm reasonably happy with my kit and it mostly does everything I want so why should I buy newer kit? Well, because I sometimes want to and I can afford to :D and I do indeed buy stuff just because I want to and can afford it, lenses and cameras, when they're appealing enough to me.
 
Oh dear Pete.

I like banter and I'll debate but throwing in a laugh is just, childish, so I'll keep out of this thread and away from you for a while.

No particular offence meant or taken but this isn't what I come here for and I really do have better ways to spend my time than on this.
 
I am still finding older files that haven't been processed, as well as a few newer ones, so here are a few recently-processed images.

I seem to be enjoying B&W at the moment so here are a couple. X-T3 with 16-55:

White Bridge by Andrea Thrussell, on Flickr

X-T3 with 18-55:

Walking into the Light by Andrea Thrussell, on Flickr

And a couple where I opted for unashamed colours :) X-T3 with 18-55:

Leaves on the Line by Andrea Thrussell, on Flickr

X-T3 with 18-55:

Dublin at Night by Andrea Thrussell, on Flickr
 
this may or may not be a good place to ask this question, can anyone recommend lens for scanning film using an XP3? doesn't need to be anything fancy, so manual and old if it works. I'm just getting into film, so a total newbie and wouldn't mind having a go a dev/scanning myself, so just trying to work out what I need and how much cash to budget
 
benc98 said:
this may or may not be a good place to ask this question, can anyone recommend lens for scanning film using an XP3? doesn't need to be anything fancy, so manual and old if it works. I'm just getting into film, so a total newbie and wouldn't mind having a go a dev/scanning myself, so just trying to work out what I need and how much cash to budget
Click to expand...
You might find it easier to use a desktop scanner that allows you to scan directly from film into/onto your computer.
I know a lens seems like an easy option, but you then need a copy stand, light box, film holder and all the other bits and pieces to be able to do it well.
Cheap scanners for just film are USB connected and easy to set up.
Plustek film scanner will get you results.

Alternatively if you have a good camera shop near you Jessops used to do a film/slide copy device that fitted into a T mount and onto the camera.
 
jknights said:
You might find it easier to use a desktop scanner that allows you to scan directly from film into/onto your computer.
I know a lens seems like an easy option, but you then need a copy stand, light box, film holder and all the other bits and pieces to be able to do it well.
Cheap scanners for just film are USB connected and easy to set up.
Plustek film scanner will get you results.

Alternatively if you have a good camera shop near you Jessops used to do a film/slide copy device that fitted into a T mount and onto the camera.
Click to expand...
thanks :)
 
I have a flash compatability question.
Does anyone know if a flashgun for an X-H1 will work on the X-H2s without any problems?
I also have a couple of remote releases for the 1 which I could try but again, anyone know if they'll be fine if the 2?
Many thanks!
 
Paulie-W said:
All I`m getting is a blank page from the download site (bookmarked), and your link :thinking:
Click to expand...
That’s odd!
So do I? Try again later.
 
Updating now, cheers mate (y)
 
All done, all good. Settings haven`t changed as far as I can see :)
 
Tom30 said:
Bit of a mix of recently processed shots, x-t30 and xf 23mm F2.

DSCF5940 by Thomas A, on Flickr

DSCF5905 by Thomas A, on Flickr

DSCF5967 by Thomas A, on Flickr

DSCF5885 by Thomas A, on Flickr

DSCF6077 by Thomas A, on Flickr

DSCF6338 by Thomas A, on Flickr

DSCF6304 by Thomas A, on Flickr

DSCF6290 by Thomas A, on Flickr



1, 2, 3, 4 Prague
5 Edinburgh
6, 7, 8 Halloween at Tivoli Gardens
Click to expand...
I'll second the earlier comment, the processing on these is excellent. Are you starting with a film simulation (maybe Classic Neg?) as a base or starting from scratch?
 
Last edited:
Just doing some idea pondering here at the minute regarding longer lens.

I currently have the 55-200 which I personally find to be a decent little lens. However, I am quite enjoying a bit of birding and wildlife these days and in most situations it's just not enough without heavy cropping or lucky occurrences where said birds/wildlife are comfortable being close.

Would like the 150-600 but a bit expensive right now and could end up a waste if I don't get the use out of it which once back at work properly is a real risk.
100-400 similar thoughts at present re cost and use.
The Tamron 150-500 probably falling into the same thought process as the two Fuji lens re cost etc right now.

So I'm left wondering then whether the 70-300 is a worthy step up over the 55-200?

There the added reach certainly which whilst not huge I'm sure could be useful and just give me that bit more and a bit less cropping as needed. It's also WR for what its worth and can also take the TC if I'm prepared to accept the trade offs.

Obvious initial negative to the 70-300 is slightly worse aperture at each end.

So my question then really is have any of you used/owned both. Pro's and con's of either. Anything really you may feel inclined to add.
It is available from Fuji to hire for a week at £37 so will likely do that when I know I have a window to test, bit would be nice to ave some thoughts first if possible.

Like I say idle pondering at present. I'm not about to rush out and buy but certainly the way my thoughts are running.

Cheers.
 
Lost_Manc said:
Just doing some idea pondering here at the minute regarding longer lens.

I currently have the 55-200 which I personally find to be a decent little lens. However, I am quite enjoying a bit of birding and wildlife these days and in most situations it's just not enough without heavy cropping or lucky occurrences where said birds/wildlife are comfortable being close.

Would like the 150-600 but a bit expensive right now and could end up a waste if I don't get the use out of it which once back at work properly is a real risk.
100-400 similar thoughts at present re cost and use.
The Tamron 150-500 probably falling into the same thought process as the two Fuji lens re cost etc right now.

So I'm left wondering then whether the 70-300 is a worthy step up over the 55-200?

There the added reach certainly which whilst not huge I'm sure could be useful and just give me that bit more and a bit less cropping as needed. It's also WR for what its worth and can also take the TC if I'm prepared to accept the trade offs.

Obvious initial negative to the 70-300 is slightly worse aperture at each end.

So my question then really is have any of you used/owned both. Pro's and con's of either. Anything really you may feel inclined to add.
It is available from Fuji to hire for a week at £37 so will likely do that when I know I have a window to test, bit would be nice to ave some thoughts first if possible.

Like I say idle pondering at present. I'm not about to rush out and buy but certainly the way my thoughts are running.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
I had both, and the 70-300mm was definitely a better lens for me. It renders really nicely, I don't miss the 55-70 range since it's covered with other lenses, and having that extra reach to 300mm is really useful. I have a Tamron 150-600mm in Canon mount with a Fringer adapter for when I really want reach, but for most cases the 300 is good enough!
 
Lost_Manc said:
Just doing some idea pondering here at the minute regarding longer lens.

I currently have the 55-200 which I personally find to be a decent little lens. However, I am quite enjoying a bit of birding and wildlife these days and in most situations it's just not enough without heavy cropping or lucky occurrences where said birds/wildlife are comfortable being close.

Would like the 150-600 but a bit expensive right now and could end up a waste if I don't get the use out of it which once back at work properly is a real risk.
100-400 similar thoughts at present re cost and use.
The Tamron 150-500 probably falling into the same thought process as the two Fuji lens re cost etc right now.

So I'm left wondering then whether the 70-300 is a worthy step up over the 55-200?

There the added reach certainly which whilst not huge I'm sure could be useful and just give me that bit more and a bit less cropping as needed. It's also WR for what its worth and can also take the TC if I'm prepared to accept the trade offs.

Obvious initial negative to the 70-300 is slightly worse aperture at each end.

So my question then really is have any of you used/owned both. Pro's and con's of either. Anything really you may feel inclined to add.
It is available from Fuji to hire for a week at £37 so will likely do that when I know I have a window to test, bit would be nice to ave some thoughts first if possible.

Like I say idle pondering at present. I'm not about to rush out and buy but certainly the way my thoughts are running.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

I've had both. I had both at the same time for a brief period.

Optically, there isn't much in it at all. Both are pretty damn good. The aperture isn't too different either - although the 70-300mm is slower (5.6) at the long end, it is longer than the 55-200mm. At 200mm, the 70-300mm is f5 as opposed to the 55-200mm f4.8 - not really worth mentioning. I don't have the 55-200mm anymore but I'm betting if you set it to 70mm, it would be f4 or slower.

To me, at least optically, it felt like they just took a 55-200mm, and just allowed the zoom mechanism to move further. The only real difference optically is the crazy close focus distance. This thing is practically a macro lens.

At 300mm, while focusing at infinity, I have noticed some softness or ghosting but nothing too bad. Focusing any closer than infinity seems to get rid of the problem, and then you'll find it is sharper than a sharp thing, even wide open at 300mm. If you absolutely need to focus at infinity and wide open (birds?), then easing back even to 280mm or so sorts it out.

So far, a bit of a nothing-burger, right? Practically identical but with some extra reach? Well, on to the build quality....

The 70-300mm is built like a tank. Honestly, it feels like a Tonka toy or something. While the 55-200 felt like good quality, it feels fragile - it might be metal, but thin metal that could easily dent/scratch etc. I feel like I could drop the 70-300mm down the stairs and my only concern would be losing the lens cap. It's like comparing some fine Italian loafers to some Caterpillar boots. There's quality, and then there's build quality.

Everything is tight, and well dampened. The hood doesn't wiggle at all. The aperture ring is stiff with solid clicks like the primes rather than the loose ones on the older zooms, and the click you get from the locking button is suuuuuuuuuper satisfying.

Plus of course, it's weather sealed and the OIS is MUCH better...

I kept the 70-300mm. The two lenses are optically similar, but the 70-300mm is just better in every other way.
 
@Lost_Manc

One day you’ll wish you’d saved up for the Fuji 150-600. Yeah, I know it’s f8. So what. Internal zoom. Well balanced. Sharp. A perfect match for the X-H2S
 
Tom30 said:
X-T5 now for sale on e-infinity, at £1599, same price as the X-H2.
Click to expand...
it's showing as £1559 now. Park cameras were giving a free sandisk CF card worth £250 up until yesterday which was a better deal imo.
trevorbray said:
@Lost_Manc

One day you’ll wish you’d saved up for the Fuji 150-600. Yeah, I know it’s f8. So what. Internal zoom. Well balanced. Sharp. A perfect match for the X-H2S
Click to expand...
I was close to ordering the 150-600 but then saw a shop selling a mint boxed 100-400 for £770 all in. They seem great value when buying used considering the new price.
 
Really like #1, Nick. But both are very nice, with super flare (y)
 
Tatts said:
I was close to ordering the 150-600 but then saw a shop selling a mint boxed 100-400 for £770 all in. They seem great value when buying used considering the new price.
Click to expand...

Te 100-400 & 1.4TC gives you 560mm, and a full range wide open (f8), it's still stunningly sharp. This was at 1600 ISO

Greenfinch by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Garden Duck (Male) by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Cuchulainn said:
I had both, and the 70-300mm was definitely a better lens for me. It renders really nicely, I don't miss the 55-70 range since it's covered with other lenses, and having that extra reach to 300mm is really useful. I have a Tamron 150-600mm in Canon mount with a Fringer adapter for when I really want reach, but for most cases the 300 is good enough!
Click to expand...
Thank you.
likewise in use my 55-200 generally sits in the 100-200 range so I won’t miss the initial portion of the zoom.

jimmyjamjojo said:
I've had both. I had both at the same time for a brief period.

Optically, there isn't much in it at all. Both are pretty damn good. The aperture isn't too different either - although the 70-300mm is slower (5.6) at the long end, it is longer than the 55-200mm. At 200mm, the 70-300mm is f5 as opposed to the 55-200mm f4.8 - not really worth mentioning. I don't have the 55-200mm anymore but I'm betting if you set it to 70mm, it would be f4 or slower.

To me, at least optically, it felt like they just took a 55-200mm, and just allowed the zoom mechanism to move further. The only real difference optically is the crazy close focus distance. This thing is practically a macro lens.

At 300mm, while focusing at infinity, I have noticed some softness or ghosting but nothing too bad. Focusing any closer than infinity seems to get rid of the problem, and then you'll find it is sharper than a sharp thing, even wide open at 300mm. If you absolutely need to focus at infinity and wide open (birds?), then easing back even to 280mm or so sorts it out.

So far, a bit of a nothing-burger, right? Practically identical but with some extra reach? Well, on to the build quality....

The 70-300mm is built like a tank. Honestly, it feels like a Tonka toy or something. While the 55-200 felt like good quality, it feels fragile - it might be metal, but thin metal that could easily dent/scratch etc. I feel like I could drop the 70-300mm down the stairs and my only concern would be losing the lens cap. It's like comparing some fine Italian loafers to some Caterpillar boots. There's quality, and then there's build quality.

Everything is tight, and well dampened. The hood doesn't wiggle at all. The aperture ring is stiff with solid clicks like the primes rather than the loose ones on the older zooms, and the click you get from the locking button is suuuuuuuuuper satisfying.

Plus of course, it's weather sealed and the OIS is MUCH better...

I kept the 70-300mm. The two lenses are optically similar, but the 70-300mm is just better in every other way.
Click to expand...
Excellent info. Thank you. Feels like a pretty resounding (y) and will probably fit the bill for my initial needs whilst deciding my future direction.
trevorbray said:
@Lost_Manc

One day you’ll wish you’d saved up for the Fuji 150-600. Yeah, I know it’s f8. So what. Internal zoom. Well balanced. Sharp. A perfect match for the X-H2S
Click to expand...
Possibly Trevor but right now it’s a need vs want and whilst I want the 150-600 it’s a very expensive gamble on the need side. Especially considering the amount of time I actually get to go out and chase some shots.

I want and will use the 50-140 possibly with the TC (which if I get the 70-300 I’ll also pick up at a later date) as it’s a range I like for my landscape and portraits of the kids and imo still of a size I can hike with comfortably so this one will join my kit before any super zoom.

The ‘super’ zoom/tele though I’m unsure about just yet. I am really enjoying a bit of wildlife but I don’t know if that’ll last or if I will get the time to justify an £1800+ lens.

My current thinking is a bit of extra reach whilst I continue to explore my desire to do more wildlife/bird photograph.
The 70-300 gives me the extra reach, although I accept nowhere likely near adequate, but with potential for more with the TC whilst still covering the range I want for landscapes etc.

If I do feel that I want to spend more time in that direction and needing that extra extra reach I will, when getting the 50-140 also see about picking up the 150-600 too. An expensive day that will be!

I have ‘wasted’ so much money chasing ideas in other hobbies though that these days I like to think I’m much more considered and £1800+ is too much on an off chance although one I do feel will be used.

Cheers for the input so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top