The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

acrobatic_Citron said:
I'm late to the party but is the X-T30II a dick move by Fuji? Effectively paying lots of cash for a firmware upgrade? I'd be much more likely to keep buying glass for my current x-t30 body if I had a bump in focus speed and face/eye detect
Click to expand...

It is a bit more than a firmware upgrade. However if like me you have the XT30 it is most likely not worth moving up.
However it has made a long wait for the XT40.

What could be added by a firmware upgrade has been given to the XT30.
 
Surely the X-S10 is the X-T40?

I am interested to see if Fuji continue with their top of the range sensors in their mid-level bodies.
 
Finally got out with the camera again. This time a quick trip to Langford Lakes, and 30 minutes in one of the hides produced a mixed bag of perching birds.....

Robin 2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Dunnock by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Chaffinch 2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Blue Tit 2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

All shot on the T3 with the 100-400 + 1.4TC at 1600 ISO.


I've now got a full time job again (start in March) so opportunities are not going to come so easily for a while.
 
Jelster said:
Finally got out with the camera again. This time a quick trip to Langford Lakes, and 30 minutes in one of the hides produced a mixed bag of perching birds.....

Robin 2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Dunnock by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Chaffinch 2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Blue Tit 2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

All shot on the T3 with the 100-400 + 1.4TC at 1600 ISO.


I've now got a full time job again (start in March) so opportunities are not going to come so easily for a while.
Click to expand...
Excellent results and a fantastic mix of birds.
Ps. Congratulations on the new job.
 
Jelster said:
Finally got out with the camera again. This time a quick trip to Langford Lakes, and 30 minutes in one of the hides produced a mixed bag of perching birds.....

Robin 2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Dunnock by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Chaffinch 2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Blue Tit 2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

All shot on the T3 with the 100-400 + 1.4TC at 1600 ISO.


I've now got a full time job again (start in March) so opportunities are not going to come so easily for a while.
Click to expand...

Great set of images Steve, loving the Blue Tit shot.
 
Fuji Dave said:
Great set of images Steve, loving the Blue Tit shot.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dave. The trip was quite important for me, as for a few years now my wife would ask "What's that bird?" when she heard a call, but I couldn't hear it at all. So some months ago I had a hearing test and I had lost quite a bit of the higher frequencies, which is why I couldn't hear the birds. So, on Wednesday I picked up some hearing aids and the trip to the lakes was to see (or hear) if I had regained the ability to hear the birds calling. The joy to hear the birds again was wonderful.

It is a double edged sword though.... I can now hear squeaks & rattles in my car that weren't present until this week :rolleyes: and trying to have a conversation in a busy cafe is difficult. I still can't hear the wife, apparently :LOL:
 
Jelster said:
Thanks Dave. The trip was quite important for me, as for a few years now my wife would ask "What's that bird?" when she heard a call, but I couldn't hear it at all. So some months ago I had a hearing test and I had lost quite a bit of the higher frequencies, which is why I couldn't hear the birds. So, on Wednesday I picked up some hearing aids and the trip to the lakes was to see (or hear) if I had regained the ability to hear the birds calling. The joy to hear the birds again was wonderful.

It is a double edged sword though.... I can now hear squeaks & rattles in my car that weren't present until this week :rolleyes: and trying to have a conversation in a busy cafe is difficult. I still can't hear the wife, apparently :LOL:
Click to expand...
Every cloud and all that..
 
Viltrox 75 now in stock.

www.avmphoto.com

Viltrox 75mm F1.2 Pro Level Autofocus Lens, Compatible with Fuji X-mount Mirrorless Cameras X-A7 X-E2S X-E3 X-E4 X-H1 X-H2 X-H2S X-Pro2 X-Pro3 X-S10 X-T1 X-T1 IR X-T10 X T100 X-T2 X-T20 X-T200 X-T3

Viltrox PRO Level 75mm F1.2 XF Auto Focus Large Aperture Prime Lens Designed for Fujifilm X-mount CamerasFeatures:Large Aperture F1.2: Bright f/1.2 maximum aperture suits working in low lighting conditions, bringing more possibilities, with a higher shutter speed and a lower IOS, and the images
www.avmphoto.com www.avmphoto.com
 
I've been a little quiet on the photography front lately but last week I did something that I've been meaning to do for ages and picked up a 100-400mm lens. Main reason was for local wildlife which is a fairly new genre for me but I've taken more interest since moving to sticks a couple of years ago. Particularly in a couple of local barn owls that I see from time to time. My 50-140, even with 1.4x just wasn't cutting it. A big appeal of having a longer lens was also to open up some new options in terms of landscapes which is my normal arena.

But.... I have to admit, I just didn't appreciate how big the 100-400mm lens is. It's been a long time since I've had a lens like this and I'm starting to think I might have made an error. I really like the reach and IQ seems good but I just cannot see me carrying this anywhere. I bought it used for a reasonable price so I have a chance to persevere for a little while and if it's still not working, I can probably get most of my money back selling it on again so I'll not rush any decision but I did wonder if anyone had used this and a 70-300mm? I initially didn't opt for that lens because I wanted the reach but looking at the numbers for the two lenses I can see that the 70-300mm is far smaller and lighter and that might make it much more suitable for me. In fact, for landscape, it could sit in my bag instead of my 50-140. And it seems to do a good impression of a macro lens as well. But how limiting would 70-300 be for wildlife? I have a 1.4x TC as well.
 
gad-westy said:
I've been a little quiet on the photography front lately but last week I did something that I've been meaning to do for ages and picked up a 100-400mm lens. Main reason was for local wildlife which is a fairly new genre for me but I've taken more interest since moving to sticks a couple of years ago. Particularly in a couple of local barn owls that I see from time to time. My 50-140, even with 1.4x just wasn't cutting it. A big appeal of having a longer lens was also to open up some new options in terms of landscapes which is my normal arena.

But.... I have to admit, I just didn't appreciate how big the 100-400mm lens is. It's been a long time since I've had a lens like this and I'm starting to think I might have made an error. I really like the reach and IQ seems good but I just cannot see me carrying this anywhere. I bought it used for a reasonable price so I have a chance to persevere for a little while and if it's still not working, I can probably get most of my money back selling it on again so I'll not rush any decision but I did wonder if anyone had used this and a 70-300mm? I initially didn't opt for that lens because I wanted the reach but looking at the numbers for the two lenses I can see that the 70-300mm is far smaller and lighter and that might make it much more suitable for me. In fact, for landscape, it could sit in my bag instead of my 50-140. And it seems to do a good impression of a macro lens as well. But how limiting would 70-300 be for wildlife? I have a 1.4x TC as well.
Click to expand...

My ability to carry heavy gear is pretty reduced to what it used to be. I do however manage the T3 & 100-400 for a few hours while at local wildlife reserves. Even with the 1.4TC it is a great lens and it's all I have for wildlife. At one time I had a 6D + 70-200 f2.8 & a 7D2 + 150-600 and I carried that all day... My main interest is wildlife, and a 300 is too short for birds unless they're bigger than pigeons, or you are a very short distance away in a hide. 400mm is the shortest I can go for garden birds, and usually have the TC on, even when shooting the birds on my feeders.

I find it difficult to crop my bird shots if I shoot at under 400mm. If they don't fill 2/3 of the frame, then sharpness seems to fall off.
 
gad-westy said:
I've been a little quiet on the photography front lately but last week I did something that I've been meaning to do for ages and picked up a 100-400mm lens. Main reason was for local wildlife which is a fairly new genre for me but I've taken more interest since moving to sticks a couple of years ago. Particularly in a couple of local barn owls that I see from time to time. My 50-140, even with 1.4x just wasn't cutting it. A big appeal of having a longer lens was also to open up some new options in terms of landscapes which is my normal arena.

But.... I have to admit, I just didn't appreciate how big the 100-400mm lens is. It's been a long time since I've had a lens like this and I'm starting to think I might have made an error. I really like the reach and IQ seems good but I just cannot see me carrying this anywhere. I bought it used for a reasonable price so I have a chance to persevere for a little while and if it's still not working, I can probably get most of my money back selling it on again so I'll not rush any decision but I did wonder if anyone had used this and a 70-300mm? I initially didn't opt for that lens because I wanted the reach but looking at the numbers for the two lenses I can see that the 70-300mm is far smaller and lighter and that might make it much more suitable for me. In fact, for landscape, it could sit in my bag instead of my 50-140. And it seems to do a good impression of a macro lens as well. But how limiting would 70-300 be for wildlife? I have a 1.4x TC as well.
Click to expand...
I was having just that quandary this morning - and had both virtually mounted on an X-T2 on camerasize.com. I also came to the conclusion that the 100-400 was too big for me (and particularly my camera bag, which only just about manages a 50-140). The 70-300 looked like a good bet.
Jelster said:
My ability to carry heavy gear is pretty reduced to what it used to be. I do however manage the T3 & 100-400 for a few hours while at local wildlife reserves. Even with the 1.4TC it is a great lens and it's all I have for wildlife. At one time I had a 6D + 70-200 f2.8 & a 7D2 + 150-600 and I carried that all day... My main interest is wildlife, and a 300 is too short for birds unless they're bigger than pigeons, or you are a very short distance away in a hide. 400mm is the shortest I can go for garden birds, and usually have the TC on, even when shooting the birds on my feeders.

I find it difficult to crop my bird shots if I shoot at under 400mm. If they don't fill 2/3 of the frame, then sharpness seems to fall off.
Click to expand...
However, I expect that this is the answer I did not want to hear...
 
Jelster said:
My ability to carry heavy gear is pretty reduced to what it used to be. I do however manage the T3 & 100-400 for a few hours while at local wildlife reserves. Even with the 1.4TC it is a great lens and it's all I have for wildlife. At one time I had a 6D + 70-200 f2.8 & a 7D2 + 150-600 and I carried that all day... My main interest is wildlife, and a 300 is too short for birds unless they're bigger than pigeons, or you are a very short distance away in a hide. 400mm is the shortest I can go for garden birds, and usually have the TC on, even when shooting the birds on my feeders.

I find it difficult to crop my bird shots if I shoot at under 400mm. If they don't fill 2/3 of the frame, then sharpness seems to fall off.
Click to expand...

Cheers. I think the trouble for me is that birds/wildlife is only ever likely to be a small part of my photography. So even though a large dedicated lens for those trips would be okay, I probably need something that does more than just that otherwise it will likely gather dust.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Recieved my Viltrox 75mm f1.2 today! Going to take it out in a bit for a few test snaps, much bigger than I realised it was though! Seems nicely build though!
Click to expand...
Sounds good. My initial enthusiasm has waned slightly. I’m thinking the 90mm does a good enough job. Although the lure of f1.2 is still there..
 
trevorbray said:
Sounds good. My initial enthusiasm has waned slightly. I’m thinking the 90mm does a good enough job. Although the lure of f1.2 is still there..
Click to expand...

I really picked it up as a "longer" than 55mm option - I've never really liked 90mm and didn't think that 56mm was different enough (although I appreciate its faster than the 16-55).
 
Evening all. Just in case anyone has a black x-t20 they’re looking to sell, i have a wanted post for one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top