Fuji X Series

ethan · 27 Jul 2016 at 00:55

First comprehensive review from Rico Pfirstinger: http://www.fujirumors.com/first-look-review-fujifilm-x-t2/

xaldub · 27 Jul 2016 at 13:14

ethan said:
First comprehensive review from Rico Pfirstinger: http://www.fujirumors.com/first-look-review-fujifilm-x-t2/

Nice comprehensive review.

ethan · 27 Jul 2016 at 17:56

xaldub said:
Nice comprehensive review.

Still waiting for a "in the field" focussing test though

xaldub · 27 Jul 2016 at 18:51

ethan said:
Still waiting for a "in the field" focussing test though

True, but his AF tracking test for video was reasonably reassuring at least. I'm still of the belief that if someone shoots mostly fast action/BIF then the D500 is the camera to get, but for more general use, from what I've seen thus far, the X-T2 is going to be more than capable.

Richdog · 27 Jul 2016 at 19:30

ethan said:
Still waiting for a "in the field" focussing test though

There have already been some linked. The camera store did school a test in their New York video.

ethan · 28 Jul 2016 at 01:15

Richdog said:
There have already been some linked. The camera store did school a test in their New York video.

I'm cautiously optimistic but if it is anything like what is said here pre release and unoptimised I'll be happy:

The X-T2 has continuous autofocus that is potentially some six times more capable than the X-T1. As an example, Fujifilm demonstrated how the boost in processing, reduced shooting interval, blackout time and shutter time-lag would free-up more time in a 3fps burst to allow six opportunities to refocus in the X-T2, compared to the X-T1's one opportunity (because of slower processing, and longer interval/blackout/lag times).

As the burst speed increases the number of opportunities for refocus to be possible within a burst are reduced, but Fujifilm still cites that 5fps on the X-T2 is twice as capable as in the X-T1. We're talking accuracy here, as the system has those additional opportunities to refocus on a moving subject.

Richdog · 28 Jul 2016 at 09:57

ethan said:
I'm cautiously optimistic but if it is anything like what is said here pre release and unoptimised I'll be happy:

I think it will be at least up to the standards of an average DSLR Nikon D5XXX series, and better than any Nikon in video.

Richdog · 4 Aug 2016 at 10:38

Guys do you think it is worth it to get the 18-55mm at the discounted price when buying a body combo? Not sure I would use it so much, but it is half price or so...

I have never used one so even though I have heard (and seen) good things, and I guess it would be useful as a travel zoom for when space is really tight...

PS: The X-E2 performed well in Lisbon and it was amazing how much easier it was to make candid shots on the street. I just need better/faster autofocus, and this wait for the X-t2 is killing me...

xaldub · 4 Aug 2016 at 15:20

Richdog said:
Guys do you think it is worth it to get the 18-55mm at the discounted price when buying a body combo? Not sure I would use it so much, but it is half price or so...

I have never used one so even though I have heard (and seen) good things, and I guess it would be useful as a travel zoom for when space is really tight...

PS: The X-E2 performed well in Lisbon and it was amazing how much easier it was to make candid shots on the street. I just need better/faster autofocus, and this wait for the X-t2 is killing me...

It's definitely a great kit lens : compact, light, in-built image stabilisation,good colour rendition and sharpness. Did you feel you were lacking something in that focal length when you were on holiday ? If you think that you might only use it occasionally I'd probably recommend picking up a refurbished/ used one for a lower price.

MichaelAwkward · 4 Aug 2016 at 16:01

The 16-50 is also worth considering if it's just for travel. Optically it's not far off. The main reason to buy the 18-55 is for the better build quality, aperture dial, speed.

Richdog · 5 Aug 2016 at 09:18

Does anyone here have the 100-400 and can provide any feedback? I have googled a ton of reviews and seen a lot of youtube vids, but some practical experience from fellow OCUK'ers would be appreciated.

xaldub said:
It's definitely a great kit lens : compact, light, in-built image stabilisation,good colour rendition and sharpness. Did you feel you were lacking something in that focal length when you were on holiday ? If you think that you might only use it occasionally I'd probably recommend picking up a refurbished/ used one for a lower price.

Well not really "lacking anything", but I think any shooter would be lying if they said they occasionally missed the versatility of a zoom and not having to change lenses at inopportune times. However on the other hand, if I had a zoom on the camera I know I would also lose out on some quality shots that only a prime can provide. However, an 18-55mm for half price brand new seems a better deal than a used one?

MichaelAwkward said:
The 16-50 is also worth considering if it's just for travel. Optically it's not far off. The main reason to buy the 18-55 is for the better build quality, aperture dial, speed.

The 16-50mm is the same price new as a 18-55mm would be with the kit. I don't think I would bother with a 16-50mm as part of a kit.

MichaelAwkward · 5 Aug 2016 at 09:32

Richdog said:
The 16-50mm is the same price new as a 18-55mm would be with the kit. I don't think I would bother with a 16-50mm as part of a kit.

I wasn't suggesting buying it new, and it only makes sense as part of a kit with the X-T10 where it's less than half the new price, and cheaper than buying it used.

Regarding the 18-55, definitely makes sense to buy it with the camera as the price is essentially the same as used prices, but you're still paying £250~ for a lens that you might not use that often, hence my suggestion for the cheaper lens.

xaldub · 5 Aug 2016 at 10:07

Richdog said:
Does anyone here have the 100-400 and can provide any feedback? I have googled a ton of reviews and seen a lot of youtube vids, but some practical experience from fellow OCUK'ers would be appreciated.

Well not really "lacking anything", but I think any shooter would be lying if they said they occasionally missed the versatility of a zoom and not having to change lenses at inopportune times. However on the other hand, if I had a zoom on the camera I know I would also lose out on some quality shots that only a prime can provide. However, an 18-55mm for half price brand new seems a better deal than a used one?

Absolutely, if you can get a new 18-55mm lens for a significantly discounted price then I'd say go for it, even if you only plan to use it for going on holiday, travelling light etc. Would be better than getting a used copy, for sure.

I have the 100-400mm zoom, too. Great lens, well constructed, and although heavy is much lighter than a full-frame equivalent. In normal daylight I haven't had any issues with AF, but I would add that I tend not to shoot BIF or anything that I would consider too taxing to track. For relatively static objects at distance, motorsports, football ... those sorts of things it has been more than adequate.

I haven't used it with the 1.4 x teleconverter, so can't comment on that. I'd imagine that AF might start to become an issue then, particularly at maximum focal length, but feedback on some fora suggests that it still performs quite well.

ethan · 5 Aug 2016 at 12:24

I have the 100-400mm zoom, too. Great lens, well constructed, and although heavy is much lighter than a full-frame equivalent. In normal daylight I haven't had any issues with AF, but I would add that I tend not to shoot BIF or anything that I would consider too taxing to track. For relatively static objects at distance, motorsports, football ... those sorts of things it has been more than adequate.

I haven't used it with the 1.4 x teleconverter, so can't comment on that. I'd imagine that AF might start to become an issue then, particularly at maximum focal length, but feedback on some fora suggests that it still performs quite well.

One of my reasons for purchasing the XT2 is its reported superb focussing with this lens. Saying that, Ben Cherry had no difficulty photographing Sea Eagles on Skye using the XT1 (unlike myself). With me it was lack of enough experience coupled with being on a boat.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...B30vI4&usg=AFQjCNHlLqalb7u6EVj3bbhi__pIBqDvDA

xaldub · 5 Aug 2016 at 12:54

ethan said:
One of my reasons for purchasing the XT2 is its reported superb focussing with this lens. Saying that, Ben Cherry had no difficulty photographing Sea Eagles on Skye using the XT1 (unlike myself). With me it was lack of enough experience coupled with being on a boat.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...B30vI4&usg=AFQjCNHlLqalb7u6EVj3bbhi__pIBqDvDA

Yeah, I've seen that video with Ben before. I didn't think the captures of the sea eagles he displayed were all that flattering .... which implies, to me at least, that he did struggle a bit with AF tracking on the X-T1 and had many missed shots.

However, Fuji have since released a video of Ben using the X-T2 with the 100-400mm and the captured images are much better, in my opinion.

Here is the link if you haven't seen the newer video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmzPI0-1LZY

Richdog · 5 Aug 2016 at 20:58

MichaelAwkward said:
I wasn't suggesting buying it new, and it only makes sense as part of a kit with the X-T10 where it's less than half the new price, and cheaper than buying it used.

Regarding the 18-55, definitely makes sense to buy it with the camera as the price is essentially the same as used prices, but you're still paying £250~ for a lens that you might not use that often, hence my suggestion for the cheaper lens.

I get you, but overall quality matters to me, and the 18-55mm is of significantly better build quality, and noticeably better image quality. I think I'd rather get it if I was going to have any "kit" zoom.

xaldub said:
Absolutely, if you can get a new 18-55mm lens for a significantly discounted price then I'd say go for it, even if you only plan to use it for going on holiday, travelling light etc. Would be better than getting a used copy, for sure.

I have the 100-400mm zoom, too. Great lens, well constructed, and although heavy is much lighter than a full-frame equivalent. In normal daylight I haven't had any issues with AF, but I would add that I tend not to shoot BIF or anything that I would consider too taxing to track. For relatively static objects at distance, motorsports, football ... those sorts of things it has been more than adequate.

I haven't used it with the 1.4 x teleconverter, so can't comment on that. I'd imagine that AF might start to become an issue then, particularly at maximum focal length, but feedback on some fora suggests that it still performs quite well.

Awesome, do you have any photos with the 100-400mm that you would be willing to share?

xaldub said:
Yeah, I've seen that video with Ben before. I didn't think the captures of the sea eagles he displayed were all that flattering .... which implies, to me at least, that he did struggle a bit with AF tracking on the X-T1 and had many missed shots.

However, Fuji have since released a video of Ben using the X-T2 with the 100-400mm and the captured images are much better, in my opinion.

Here is the link if you haven't seen the newer video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmzPI0-1LZY

The detail with the X-T2 and that 100-400mm is staggering... it is sharp as a razor and all in such a lighter and more compact package than a DSLR + Sigma 150-600mm. :eek:

ethan · 6 Aug 2016 at 13:40

xaldub said:
Yeah, I've seen that video with Ben before. I didn't think the captures of the sea eagles he displayed were all that flattering .... which implies, to me at least, that he did struggle a bit with AF tracking on the X-T1 and had many missed shots.

However, Fuji have since released a video of Ben using the X-T2 with the 100-400mm and the captured images are much better, in my opinion.

Here is the link if you haven't seen the newer video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmzPI0-1LZY

Thanks for the link. I was surprised to find on watching the video it opened another set of videos I hadn't seen before. Beautiful images backed by a camera with remarkable capabilities further down the following page:
http://fujifilm-x.com/cameras/x-t2/

xaldub · 6 Aug 2016 at 18:44

Here's another couple of links which raise some further optimism on the AF performance of the X-T2 :

http://macleancomms.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/testing-x-t2-autofocus-system-on-bass.html

http://macleancomms.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/capturing-puffins-in-flight-with.html

Richdog · 7 Aug 2016 at 17:47

Some of my friends are bewildered with how good the X-E2 / 35mm f2 photos are, I had a few amusing comments like: "How do you take bad pictures with this camera?". Fact is the 35mm f2 is a stunning little lens and ridiculously sharp when stopped down a little, you can take some lovely candids and portraits with it and with a bit of Lightroom tweaking they just look divine.

I am so desperate to get my hands on the X-T2 and that 24MP sensor so I can have more cropping headroom for landscapes etc, as well as see how it performs at higher ISO's vs the "humble" X-E2.

xaldub said:
Here's another couple of links which raise some further optimism on the AF performance of the X-T2 :

http://macleancomms.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/testing-x-t2-autofocus-system-on-bass.html

http://macleancomms.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/capturing-puffins-in-flight-with.html

Yeah, I'm confident it will do well, although I am more interested in how it works in "modeless" default mode in all of these general situations too.

ethan · 21 Aug 2016 at 00:39

Can't hide my elation. (The light and detail in that American flag). XT2 at the Abbotsford air show:
http://falconer.photo/2016/08/14/at-the-airshow-with-the-fuji-x-t2/