The Official Fuji X10/X20/X30/XF1/XQ1 Thread

Phall82 said:
Does anybody know the discount code? I'm struggling to find it in this huge thread :)
Click to expand...

Ignore me, I've just googled it. It's P10FEB15 for anybody else who was wondering.
 
popped into the pompeii thing at the british museum earlier so had to get this snap. Not bad in panorama mode considering the left hand side was right into the sun. There's life in the old dog yet.

 
Your British Museum shot has worked well. I tried the panorma mode when I was at ground level... the central part was OK, but none of the panels in the roof aligned properly. So I took a couple of still then stitched them together in PS Elements instead. It did work on the display of the Elgin Marbles.

I've had some good landscape shots outdoors, but I tried capturing a room of people this week and it would not work for me at all, must have tried 5-6 times.
 
nigelwill said:
Your British Museum shot has worked well. I tried the panorma mode when I was at ground level... the central part was OK, but none of the panels in the roof aligned properly. So I took a couple of still then stitched them together in PS Elements instead. It did work on the display of the Elgin Marbles.

I've had some good landscape shots outdoors, but I tried capturing a room of people this week and it would not work for me at all, must have tried 5-6 times.
Click to expand...

Nigelwill,

When you say "it would not work for me at all", do you mean that the resulting indoor shots failed to 'stitch' accurately, or that the camera refused to complete the necessary 'pan'? If the latter, Dave (Ed Sutton) and I communicating on this thread, found sometime ago that using the viewfinder was preferable to attempting to 'keep level' with the guide on the screen.

Until last Monday, I had not encountered a 'stitching' problem, and so it might just be that small perturbations in an otherwise smooth pan - not enough to cause a 'refusal' from the X10 - could encourage associated discontinuities in the subsequent image.

Last Monday, then, saw me investigating for the first time in nearly 40 years the enticingly named "Pagans Hill" which, if not a stone's throw from the cottage, might be in range of a Chris Gayle's 'six'! (Why do I ignore the interesting stuff on my doorstep?)


DSCF3915 by wylyeangler, on Flickr

Well, nothing too dramatic about this shot, even though the 'lumps and bumps' at the summit of the hillock are consistent with the 1950s' excavation of a 3rd/4th century Romano-British Temple which overlooked the Chew Valley (there is a glimpse of the lake). More interestingly perhaps, is that in PP I was disappointed to see that the apparent UFOs (top RH side) coincide with the discontinuity in the fence-line vertically below. This is the first 'stitching' error I've experienced, and the 'mysterious' effect appears to be a dissolving fair-weather cumulus replicated over the 'fault-line'.

This next shot, taken from the site of the temple itself, was hi-jacked by a couple of walkers, the male partner of which appears to be travelling close to the speed of light and thus suffering the effects of Special Relativity. His friend and her dog, however, have merely lost limbs. Not a fault of the camera of course, and had I been panning in the couple's direction of travel, might have got away with it.


DSCF3908 by wylyeangler, on Flickr


DSCF3908-2 by wylyeangler, on Flickr

I'm finding that a high percentage of the very few photos I take are with the panoramic feature. I know from a 'real' photographer's point of view the X10's version is not a 'pure' form, eliminating as it does, many of the usual parameters over which the serious exponent of the art likes to have control. However, being new to this, the panorama seems to open up opportunities I'd not suspected; my main difficulty with it being control over framing. For example, with no other technique have I been able to include substantial views of the cathedral (well - OK - hidden by a tree!) and the Bishop's Palace defences; an added bonus was a lady who walked belatedly into the shot to read the plaque explaining all that is before her and us. The downside is that the luck is only partial: the photo is actually ruined by her legs being cut off, there being no room for adjustment once the pan is initiated:


DSCF3887 by wylyeangler, on Flickr

Pete
 
Last edited:
nigelwill,
Nigel, another likeable silhouette. I think the smoke from the stack is a bit of a distraction though and the Eye could you not clone it to appear in front of the sun, but hey that’s just me being picky.
A cracking picture never the less, it would make a lovely long wall hanging.

essexash, like it, like it a lot.

Piscator Pete,
Pete, that’s a cracking post.

Rhodese.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I haven't tried any digital alteration of this image, it's shot using the sunset mode which is great for increasing the dynamic without me having to use HDR as I've done in the past. I was lucky it was a clear evening, but the bright sun does obliterate the Eye itself. A few of my friends on Facebook have suggested my photos should be converted into postcards :)

As for the panorama, I think I was getting the "interruption, sweep faster" error, something like that anyway. I was taking pictures inside at the AGM of a charity I help out with, thought it might make an interesting pic.
 
Rhodese said:
...Piscator Pete,
Pete, that’s a cracking post.

Rhodese.
Click to expand...

Many thanks, Rhodese - kind as usual, even though the post was largely about failure!


...As for the panorama, I think I was getting the "interruption, sweep faster" error, something like that anyway. I was taking pictures inside at the AGM of a charity I help out with, thought it might make an interesting pic.

Nigel, for some reason I find that using the viewfinder seems to eliminate that protest from the X10 too, although I think you might have problems (such as I did with the 'phantom walkers' in my post) unless the AGM were actually in session with everyone seated, or at least holding position.

Pete
 
I know this has been asked before but We're on to 213 pages now so I don't fancy trawling through them :D

What aperture do you guys recommend for landscapes with the x10? i.e. deep depth of field but very sharp?

I seem to remember people mentioning f/8 being the sharpest of the range, is this right?

Cheers!
 
AESamuel said:
I know this has been asked before but We're on to 213 pages now so I don't fancy trawling through them :D

What aperture do you guys recommend for landscapes with the x10? i.e. deep depth of field but very sharp?

I seem to remember people mentioning f/8 being the sharpest of the range, is this right?

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Asa,

I, too, would like 'them what knows' to repeat the info about this one, and for the same reason - it's a hefty thread!

The smaller the stop the greater the depth of field and the lesser the effects of lens aberration - all standard stuff; but as I understand it, with the short focus lenses of modern compact cameras, the tiny absolute apertures necessary to achieve even modestly large f-numbers introduce significant loss of definition owing to the diffraction of light accounted for by one Herr Doktor Heisenberg and his 'Uncertainties'! I think it was Duncan who reckoned that the optimal 'trade-off' for image definition between the conflicting requirements of aberration/DOF and diffraction, was around f4.5 for the X10 lens. Anyway, acting on this advice, this is my default setting for such shots.

Sorry about the wordiness of the above, but I'm hoping someone will give this an airing, and help the understanding of someone like me, used to old 35mm rangefinder cameras, who for landscapes used to stop down to as much as I could get away with in terms of exposure - diffraction didn't seem to be discussed in the old days.

Pete
 
Last edited:
I usually lock the ISO to 100 then get the maximum aperture possible for around 1/100th or better. So yes, f8 to f10 seems to work well for me, better with a monopod or supported.
 
Piscator Pete said:
Asa,

I, too, would like 'them what knows' to repeat the info about this one, and for the same reason - it's a hefty thread!

The smaller the stop the greater the depth of field and the lesser the effects of lens aberration - all standard stuff; but as I understand it, with the short focus lenses of modern compact cameras, the tiny absolute apertures necessary to achieve even modestly small f-numbers introduce significant loss of definition owing to the diffraction of light accounted for by one Herr Doktor Heisenberg and his 'Uncertainties'! I think it was Duncan who reckoned that the optimal 'trade-off' between aberration/DOF and diffraction, was around f4.5 for the X10 lens. Anyway, acting on this advice, this is my default setting for such shots.

Sorry about the wordiness of the above, but I'm hoping someone will give this an airing, and help the understanding of someone like me, used to old 35mm rangefinder cameras, who for landscapes used to stop down to as much as I could get away with in terms of exposure - diffraction didn't seem to be discussed in the old days.

Pete
Click to expand...

Ah, the old 1/50th @ f8 and sunny 16 days!
I still use up to f8 and get nice sharp images. Over that and I start noticing I start to lose detail.
Allan
 
allanm said:
Ah, the old 1/50th @ f8 and sunny 16 days!
I still use up to f8 and get nice sharp images. Over that and I start noticing I start to lose detail.
Allan
Click to expand...

Yes, I stop down to f9 or f11 to get that starburst effect from shots direct into sun, and don't notice much loss of definition. It's all very marginal in the sizes I print at anyway.

By the way, I see you've 'deserted' us for the X20. Maybe it's my monitor, but the colours I see on that thread seem quite different from those on this. Is this just down to how the camera is used?

Pete
 
Well its been a while so i thought i would drop in, looks like everybody else has had similar ideas to me and is posting panoramic landscapes :D

I'm not a landscape photographer by any means, so any critique would be much appreciated, if anybody has any processing tips i would be greatly appreciated!

This one has a personal meaning for me as my Mum has recently been doing the family tree, and discovered that going back generations and generations it was on this stretch of the Leeds-Liverpool canal that alot of my family used to live as boatpeople. It's a nice thought because to my knowledge the recent generations have all lived in farms and farmed the surrounding countryside for all their lives. My grandfather and his brother's family still live around a mile away and there are alot of the family buried at Halsall Church, also about a mile away.

I plan to surprise my Mum with a framed print of this for their wall as she has been hassling me for years for some nice pictures around Halsall :)


Halsall Hill by andyroberts1868, on Flickr
 
AESamuel said:
I know this has been asked before but We're on to 213 pages now so I don't fancy trawling through them :D

What aperture do you guys recommend for landscapes with the x10? i.e. deep depth of field but very sharp?

I seem to remember people mentioning f/8 being the sharpest of the range, is this right?

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Piscator Pete said:
Asa,

I, too, would like 'them what knows' to repeat the info about this one, and for the same reason - it's a hefty thread!



The smaller the stop the greater the depth of field and the lesser the effects of lens aberration - all standard stuff; but as I understand it, with the short focus lenses of modern compact cameras, the tiny absolute apertures necessary to achieve even modestly large f-numbers introduce significant loss of definition owing to the diffraction of light accounted for by one Herr Doktor Heisenberg and his 'Uncertainties'! I think it was Duncan who reckoned that the optimal 'trade-off' for image definition between the conflicting requirements of aberration/DOF and diffraction, was around f4.5 for the X10 lens. Anyway, acting on this advice, this is my default setting for such shots.

Sorry about the wordiness of the above, but I'm hoping someone will give this an airing, and help the understanding of someone like me, used to old 35mm rangefinder cameras, who for landscapes used to stop down to as much as I could get away with in terms of exposure - diffraction didn't seem to be discussed in the old days.

Pete
Click to expand...

Have a look at pages 20, 68. (y) I use f4 a lot.
Rhodese.
 
Last edited:
Piscator Pete said:
By the way, I see you've 'deserted' us for the X20. Maybe it's my monitor, but the colours I see on that thread seem quite different from those on this. Is this just down to how the camera is used?

Pete
Click to expand...

Not deserted, still popping back to see whats going on. I think we should merge the X20 thread, its so similar, apart from the viewfinder and a few bits that are different.....
I dont think there is much of a difference in colours between the two either, I have been comparing my photos and colourwise, they look similar.

Allan
 
allanm said:
Not deserted, still popping back to see whats going on. I think we should merge the X20 thread, its so similar, apart from the viewfinder and a few bits that are different.....
I dont think there is much of a difference in colours between the two either, I have been comparing my photos and colourwise, they look similar.

Allan
Click to expand...

I thought the same quite a while ago (post as link) but no one else made comment & Duncan never responded so I let it be. I still wonder if it is the way to go & still to include the XF1 as Nod tells me the 'insides' are the same as the X10 but .....



http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=5474187&postcount=6108
 
Rhodese said:
Have a look at pages 20, 68. (y) I use f4 a lot.
Rhodese.
Click to expand...

Rhodese - many thanks for that; I was just too lazy to search!

I was pondering Allan's reference to our old rule of thumb (with FP3 or similar) of 1/50th at f16 on a sunny day when we couldn't be bothered to use (or didn't have) an exposure meter. Why weren't we bothered by diffraction at such large f-numbers in the 'old days'?

Well, ferreting about in what remains of my memory, I recalled that f-number = focal length/effective lens diameter, or f = F/d, and transposing, d = F/f.

So, for the X10 perhaps being used for a landscape at minimum focal length and f4, d = 7.1/4 = 1.78 mm!

I didn't believe this, and so have just checked my X10, and f4 really does look that tiny! It's only pinhole at f11!

Now for my old Agfa coupled rangefinder job with its 45mm lens and at f16, the calculation becomes d = 45/16 = 2.81 mm.

So there you have it - unless I've made a glaring error - if diffraction with the X10 is no problem when the actual aperture has a diameter of 1.78mm, it was never going to be a problem with our 35mm film jobs even at f16 which only needed effective apertures close to 3mm!

I suspect all this is old hat to most of you, but it really opened my eyes!

Pete

PS A "glaring error" indeed! The argument above is WRONG - I had failed to consider the lens/image distance which increases with focal length. Consequently a diffraction pattern apparently diminishing with larger focal length is then magnified in exact proportion to the increased path length to the film or sensor. Loss of image definition due to diffraction is dependent on f-number only!
 
Last edited:
allanm said:
Not deserted, still popping back to see whats going on. I think we should merge the X20 thread, its so similar, apart from the viewfinder and a few bits that are different.....
I dont think there is much of a difference in colours between the two either, I have been comparing my photos and colourwise, they look similar.

Allan
Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments Allan. If the two cameras produce much the same image under the same conditions, I like John think a merger would be sensible.

Pete
 
Piscator Pete said:
Rhodese - many thanks for that; I was just too lazy to search!

I was pondering Allan's reference to our old rule of thumb (with FP3 or similar) of 1/50th at f16 on a sunny day when we couldn't be bothered to use (or didn't have) an exposure meter. Why weren't we bothered by diffraction at such large f-numbers in the 'old days'?

Well, ferreting about in what remains of my memory, I recalled that f-number = focal length/effective lens diameter, or f = F/d, and transposing, d = F/f.

So, for the X10 perhaps being used for a landscape at minimum focal length and f4, d = 7.1/4 = 1.78 mm!

I didn't believe this, and so have just checked my X10, and f4 really does look that tiny! It's only pinhole at f11!

Now for my old Agfa coupled rangefinder job with its 45mm lens and at f16, the calculation becomes d = 45/16 = 2.81 mm.

So there you have it - unless I've made a glaring error - if diffraction with the X10 is no problem when the actual aperture has a diameter of 1.78mm, it was never going to be a problem with our 35mm film jobs even at f16 which only needed effective apertures close to 3mm!

I suspect all this is old hat to most of you, but it really opened my eyes!

Pete
Click to expand...

Thanks for working that one out Pete. A bit of an eye opener, if you'll excuse the pun. No wonder we never bothered about diffraction
Allan
 
AESamuel said:
I know this has been asked before but We're on to 213 pages now so I don't fancy trawling through them :D

What aperture do you guys recommend for landscapes with the x10? i.e. deep depth of field but very sharp?

I seem to remember people mentioning f/8 being the sharpest of the range, is this right?

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Sharpest photos I get are all f/4-f/5.6. Above f/5.6, diffraction starts to creep in.
 
In reference to apertures and DOF, X10 v 35mm.

It's took me ages to find it…, but I knew "Duncan" had put up a comparison chart for 35mm - X10 . Page 132, post #3933 and post #3946.

Rhodese.
 
Last edited:
allanm said:
Not deserted, still popping back to see whats going on. I think we should merge the X20 thread, its so similar, apart from the viewfinder and a few bits that are different.....
I dont think there is much of a difference in colours between the two either, I have been comparing my photos and colourwise, they look similar.

Allan
Click to expand...

DayDreamer said:
I thought the same quite a while ago (post as link) but no one else made comment & Duncan never responded so I let it be. I still wonder if it is the way to go & still to include the XF1 as Nod tells me the 'insides' are the same as the X10 but .....



http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=5474187&postcount=6108
Click to expand...

Piscator Pete said:
Thanks for your comments Allan. If the two cameras produce much the same image under the same conditions, I like John think a merger would be sensible.

Pete
Click to expand...

:plus1: :agree: (y)

Rhodese.
 
Last edited:
Rhodese said:
In reference to apertures and DOF, X10 v 35mm.

It's took me ages to find it…, but I knew "Duncan" had put up a comparison chart for 35mm - X10 . Page 132, post #3933 and post #3946.

Rhodese.
Click to expand...

Many thanks, Rhodese, for your assiduous attention to these matters. Very interesting stuff which I had missed - belated thanks to Duncan too.

Pete
 
One just to bump the thread, bottom of page three, come on you lot, where's all those pictures/questions/ snippets of wisdom?

TERRY-GARVEY-WEB.jpg


Rhodese.
 
Last edited:
Rhodese said:
...where's all those pictures/questions/ snippets of wisdom?
Click to expand...

I still look in here, but the X10's viewfinder finally got to me and I've jumped ship to a Panasonic G2 as my 'pocket' camera. :crying:

The X10 sensor seems to me to produce better files, but I find the G2 easier to operate - just handles better for me.
 
How do I shoot in sports mode? I've set it in the advanced menu but it doesn't seem to quick fire?
 
Riz said:
How do I shoot in sports mode? I've set it in the advanced menu but it doesn't seem to quick fire?
Click to expand...

I've just checked my X10, and in "sports mode" as well as in most others, pressing the top of the selector button (marked "DRIVE") briefly allows you to set "SH", which as far as I can tell, keeps the shutter firing away for as long as the release button is depressed.

Pete
 
Rhodese said:
One just to bump the thread, bottom of page three, come on you lot, where's all those pictures/questions/ snippets of wisdom?

Rhodese.
Click to expand...

Having read the piece below copied from a 'Duncan link', which Rhodese reminded us of, and which I failed to read right through, my post 6380 on the previous page, 213, is wrong - I had made that "glaring error"! I overlooked the increasing image distances as focal length increases, and any diffraction pattern will increase in size proportionately. Apologies!

''Technical Note: Independence of Focal Length
Since the physical size of an aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/4 has a 50 mm diameter at 200 mm, but only a 25 mm diameter at 100 mm), why doesn't the airy disk become smaller? This is because longer focal lengths also cause light to travel further before hitting the camera sensor -- thus increasing the distance over which the airy disk can continue to diverge. The competing effects of larger aperture and longer focal length therefore cancel, leaving only the f-number as being important (which describes focal length relative to aperture size).''

Allan, that then heightens the mystery of why we didn't bother about diffraction in the old days! Perhaps lenses and film grain were so poor, we didn't notice.

Pete
 
Last edited:
Piscator Pete said:
Having read the piece below copied from a 'Duncan link', which Rhodese reminded us of, and which I failed to read right through, my post 6380 on the previous page, 213, is wrong - I had made that "glaring error"! I overlooked the increasing image distances as focal length increases, and any diffraction pattern will increase in size proportionately. Apologies!

''Technical Note: Independence of Focal Length
Since the physical size of an aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/4 has a 50 mm diameter at 200 mm, but only a 25 mm diameter at 100 mm), why doesn't the airy disk become smaller? This is because longer focal lengths also cause light to travel further before hitting the camera sensor -- thus increasing the distance over which the airy disk can continue to diverge. The competing effects of larger aperture and longer focal length therefore cancel, leaving only the f-number as being important (which describes focal length relative to aperture size).''

Allan, that then heightens the mystery of why we didn't bother about diffraction in the old days! Perhaps lenses and film grain were so poor, we didn't notice.

Pete
Click to expand...

:thinking: :shrug: :notworthy:

Rhodese.
 
Another bump.
Where have all the X10s gone, long time ago.(X20s maybe)

ladymoor-bench-1.jpg


Rhodese.
 
Piscator Pete said:
...that then heightens the mystery of why we didn't bother about diffraction in the old days! Perhaps lenses and film grain were so poor, we didn't notice.
Click to expand...

Possibly it's because we didn't have our photos on computers where we can easily zoom in to 100% or more to inspect them in far too much detail. Instead we made a print (often small) and viewed at it from a sensible distance to look at the picture.

Some people spend more time worrying about their pixels than their pictures.

Just my thinking on it.
 
A snap of a friends dog taken in Velvia with fill flash.


marley-3608 by hppygolucky, on Flickr

The X10 still surprises me, don't think I'll be selling it soon as I stand to lose a few quid already if I did, noticed one sold for £170 a couple of days ago :thumbsdown:
 
Two nice one’s there Andrew, the mono would look good as a wall hanging.

Rhodese.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Possibly it's because we didn't have our photos on computers where we can easily zoom in to 100% or more to inspect them in far too much detail. Instead we made a print (often small) and viewed at it from a sensible distance to look at the picture.

Some people spend more time worrying about their pixels than their pictures.

Just my thinking on it.
Click to expand...

I still remember examining negatives with a loupe before I printed and enlarged them. Things were simpler and if it looked sharp where you wanted it to, it was fine.
I think people took fewer pictures then, it was more about quality not quantity and more time was spent composing the image.
I remember my first slr had manual focus and a manual lens. You set the speed and aperture using the light meter, focused, closed the aperture ring to the required setting, took the picture, then waited a few hours or days to see how it turned out.

Now, if your camera AF isnt lightning fast and you cant take noise free pictures in a darkened room at iso above 12000, then your camera is useless!

Allan
 
Maybe there's something about small sensor cameras having such a great depth of focus that some people now expect to get everything sharp from front to back? Unless they are in the ultra fast lens shot wide open camp and want exactly the opposite!

Digital can look a bit clinical at time, to my eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top