Fuji X Series

Rojin said:
Nice :)

I'm not a massive fan of the 18-55 but it's handy to have.


Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I like pretty much all your stuff, but this one in particular is great.

In terms of focal length, well, I've always used 18-55's in the past on crop sensors. Going to take a look through the library and see what length I've most used but i think it'll be closer to the 35mm than 23mm. Does anyone know an easy was of finding this out in Lightroom?

Looks like you can get the 35mm for some great prices second hand too.
 
Yeah it's a great photo, out of interest did you do much with the image to make it look like this? if so what does the image look like with say default jpg settings?
 
It's just a Lightroom preset from OnOne called vintage grandma's lemonade. They give them out free now and then. I may have tweaked it from the original as I've had it so long! You have to give them your details though:

http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/lightroom-presets/

This was the standard edit using the Fuji Provia colour profile. Small tweaks with the main one being to bring the highlights down for the window:


Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
In the library view of Lightroom, in the grid view mode, you can use the filters to select focal length (and camera, lens etc if needed).
 
The X-T1 does okay with tracking an object coming right at you, where you can keep the AF frame on subject nicely. These were with the 56 f1.2, wide open as well.

From a sequence of 15 shots; the first was back focused, the second is just about there, the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth are fine. The ninth is slightly back focused. The tenth is front focused. The eleventh is okay. The twelfth is slightly front focused. The thirteenth is fine. The fourteenth and fifteenth are just slightly out but would be okay processed to web sized.

Shots from the sequence numbered (shots that were in focus but omitted are due to the unflattering nature of my daughters chubby little cheeks when the bounce down when she runs!):

#3:

Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr

#5:

Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr

#6

Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr

#8

Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr

#11

Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr

#13

Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr

Other runs were similar with one being a complete loss (all out of focus).
 
SAM81 said:
What settings do you use for tracking? The XE2 seems completely useless at it
Click to expand...

Pretty standard settings to be honest:

  • Continuous AF
  • Continuous High fps
  • AF point two sizes up from the smallest (I think, it wasn't the smallest or largest that I do know!)
  • AF-C priority set to Focus
  • High Performance On
  • Pre-AF Off

I just used the shutter button, no back button focusing (I don't like how it works). Just keeping the AF box on the face whilst she ran towards me.

I was very impressed with how many keepers it produced, especially at f1.2. Likewise when I took some shots of her on a swing. I got at least if not more keepers than using the 1Ds2 and 85mm. Where the X-T1 tracking falls down is with random movement, it can't react quick enough especially if you lose your subject from the AF point (on a DSLR you can set the sensitivity for this). Even with panning which is less taxing, the EVF blackout makes keeping the subject properly AF framed difficult. More so when shooting high fps like I do with motorsports panning at low shutter speed.
 
Hi guys, I'm thinking of buying myself an x100s. I'm a pretty experienced photographer and will normally be found wielding a 5DII with L lenses.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexandermoore/

I've recently found myself getting really fed up with carrying around heavy equipment on days out. Of course I wont be jacking in the DSLR and lenses as I know I cant live without them for paid work, or when I want to shoot some more heavily premeditated personal projects.

The x100s looks to be a great size for me to take on days out, but my concern is the quality of the images it produces. I cant expect it to compete with my DSLR, but will I be disappointed by the images produced by this camera? And is it at all capable in low light?

Anyone in a similar situation with any advise??

Thanks
 
T0pPredator said:
Hi guys, I'm thinking of buying myself an x100s. I'm a pretty experienced photographer and will normally be found wielding a 5DII with L lenses.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexandermoore/

I've recently found myself getting really fed up with carrying around heavy equipment on days out. Of course I wont be jacking in the DSLR and lenses as I know I cant live without them for paid work, or when I want to shoot some more heavily premeditated personal projects.

The x100s looks to be a great size for me to take on days out, but my concern is the quality of the images it produces. I cant expect it to compete with my DSLR, but will I be disappointed by the images produced by this camera? And is it at all capable in low light?

Anyone in a similar situation with any advise??

Thanks
Click to expand...

I love my X100s, it's one of the best cameras I've ever brought.

In short, you won't be disappointed with the pictures it takes, while it's as capable as any other crop camera in low light, full frame is still leagues ahead. For me the icing on what is already a fantastic cake is the inbuilt ND filter and the simple one button switch between OVF with parallax framing and the EVF exposure preview.

Here's a random test Image I took a few weeks back using my X100s on a hike, was shot using the in camera panoramic mode, handheld at around 900ft with a fair amount of wind.

https://i.imgur.com/qkmWq6j.jpg
 
nolimit said:
The image quality of x100 is just as good as the Canon 5D Mark II with similar lens.
Click to expand...

I'm in no way saying that the subjective image quality isn't stunning for an APS-C (it is) but I will say that my X-Trans 16MP X-E2 doesn't seem to resolve quite as much ultimate pixel-peeping detail as my Bayer 15MP Canon 50D.

There's a simple solution though, I just don't pixel peep any more. The pleasure of looking at the photos themselves makes up for any deficit.
 
CGrieves said:
I'm in no way saying that the subjective image quality isn't stunning for an APS-C (it is) but I will say that my X-Trans 16MP X-E2 doesn't seem to resolve quite as much ultimate pixel-peeping detail as my Bayer 15MP Canon 50D.

There's a simple solution though, I just don't pixel peep any more. The pleasure of looking at the photos themselves makes up for any deficit.
Click to expand...

How are you doing RAW conversation?

The Fuji sensors suffers from lack of good RAW support and most converters out there don't get the best out of the sensor
 
It sounds positive, I unfortunately am a bit of a pixel peeper and put a lot into capturing technically strong images when I am doing serious work.
But all I am hoping for is a camera which is portable, fun to use and good enough to shoot images I can publish and put my name to.

I guess I should bite the bullet or see if I can borrow one from a friend to be sure. Thanks for the responses folks!

The "lack of good RAW support" sounds concerning tho..
 
Raw support

D.P. said:
How are you doing RAW conversation?

The Fuji sensors suffers from lack of good RAW support and most converters out there don't get the best out of the sensor
Click to expand...

This was an issue ages ago.

It hasn't really been a problem for some time. Adobe handles great as does aperture and has done for the last 18-24 months.
 
There is an interesting, if lengthy and detail, discussion here:
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2012/05/demosaicing-fuji-x-pro1-and-its-x-trans.html

Basically the nature of the Fuji sensor makes processing RAW much harder, plus it is so different to every other camera that the process is much less optimized and tweaked.
The Fuji sensor also ends up being prone to certain types of image issues that regular sensors don't have (on the flip side there is no moire).

Basically there is no free lunch, the Fuji sensors have some pros and they have some cons. A lot of people are raving about incredible high ISO performance but this is mostly relating to jpegs. Most detailed tests have shows slightly worse performance than the latest Sony sensors, which still means they are very good.
 
Real world use

D.P. said:
There is an interesting, if lengthy and detail, discussion here:
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2012/05/demosaicing-fuji-x-pro1-and-its-x-trans.html

Basically the nature of the Fuji sensor makes processing RAW much harder, plus it is so different to every other camera that the process is much less optimized and tweaked.
The Fuji sensor also ends up being prone to certain types of image issues that regular sensors don't have (on the flip side there is no moire).

Basically there is no free lunch, the Fuji sensors have some pros and they have some cons. A lot of people are raving about incredible high ISO performance but this is mostly relating to jpegs. Most detailed tests have shows slightly worse performance than the latest Sony sensors, which still means they are very good.
Click to expand...

Yeah I've read all sorts of stuff too. I guess my point is that outside pixel-peeping I have noticed very little if any issue with my x pro 1 and raw conversion in the last 2 years. Nor have I noticed any real world issue with x100 or x100s. No camera will be "perfect" but frankly, the notion that there is any 'problem' with the raw conversion is not a real issue in-use.
 
AtticusFinch said:
Yeah I've read all sorts of stuff too. I guess my point is that outside pixel-peeping I have noticed very little if any issue with my x pro 1 and raw conversion in the last 2 years. Nor have I noticed any real world issue with x100 or x100s. No camera will be "perfect" but frankly, the notion that there is any 'problem' with the raw conversion is not a real issue in-use.
Click to expand...

well I never said there was a problem, I said there isn't great support and the converters don't get the best out of the sensor. That isn't to say there is a big problem, I was more attempting to give a reason why CGrieves felt his Canon 50D gave better results.
If it isn't related to the RAW conversion then it must be something more severe such as worse lenses (but I hear Fuji lenses are fantastic?) or a physical sensor deficiency such as poor micro-lens array. Or maybe CGrieves is mistaken (perhaps to due to lenses used or technique), I haven't heard of any softness issues with the Fuji sensors, just that they are a pain to process and have some unique artifacts (at the same time don't suffer from artifacts we are accustomed to like moire).
 
D.P. said:
well I never said there was a problem, I said there isn't great support and the converters don't get the best out of the sensor. That isn't to say there is a big problem, I was more attempting to give a reason why CGrieves felt his Canon 50D gave better results.
If it isn't related to the RAW conversion then it must be something more severe such as worse lenses (but I hear Fuji lenses are fantastic?) or a physical sensor deficiency such as poor micro-lens array. Or maybe CGrieves is mistaken (perhaps to due to lenses used or technique), I haven't heard of any softness issues with the Fuji sensors, just that they are a pain to process and have some unique artifacts (at the same time don't suffer from artifacts we are accustomed to like moire).
Click to expand...


Nono, you misunderstand- the Canon 50D doesn't give me better results at all. In fact, the reason I love my Fuji is because the pictures that come out seem to be exactly what I had in mind when I took the shot, or close enough to require no tweaking. The results are fantastic. However at a pixel-peeping level the 50D seems to resolve more ultimate detail. I suspect that it's a by-product of the "semi-random" X-Trans colour array- the pixels you see rendered on a monitor are simply bigger with the Fuji. Up until you hit that pixel level, everything is pleasingly sharp, so I believe the lenses are outresolving the sensor.

The vast majority of the time I shoot JPEG for exactly the reasons above- I have no illusions about the fact that the pleasing results are probably entirely due to Fuji's in-camera processing and JPEG engine. But I really don't care- the results are all I need, the process behind is irrelevant. If I don't have to tweak in post, bonus.

In summary, if I was to spend my time shooting test charts, I'd use the Canon. But out and about enjoying shooting all the beautiful things there are to see, and hoping for results that make me happy, I use the Fuji.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom