|
  The only two pictures I took this weekend. Both on the X-T1 with the 'kit' lens.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
Nice shots. The 18-55mm is such a good "kit" lens that I sometimes question why I bother buying prime lenses. If it was a fixed f2.8 through its zoom it would be flawless
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
still stoked on the performance/ease-of-use of my x100t. I took it hiking yesterday w/ a goon friend who has an x100s. these are all jpegs sent via wifi to my iPad w/ 2 minutes worth of processing in VSCO Cam. There's some compression since the wifi app doesn't send full-res jpegs so far as I can tell... but it's a wonderful workflow for being on the road traveling w/out a laptop.    
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:still stoked on the performance/ease-of-use of my x100t. You can set it to send the full jpgs under the wireless settings in the menu
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Animal posted:Nice shots. The 18-55mm is such a good "kit" lens that I sometimes question why I bother buying prime lenses. If it was a fixed f2.8 through its zoom it would be flawless Well the 16-55/2.8 will be released soon, so there's your flawless lens haha.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Well the 16-55/2.8 will be released soon, so there's your flawless lens haha. It's a monster though in both size and cost, though. Very much a professional application lens (yet lacking OIS  ). Eventually I'll pick up the 2.8 out of necessity, but the size/performance/cost package of the 18-55 is really something else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:You can set it to send the full jpgs under the wireless settings in the menu amazing, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:amazing, thanks! NP. The one thing Fuji doesn't do is allow you to grab a raw and do the default JPEG conversion for it via wifi automagically - my canon does that and it's great to not have to run to in camera processing first to grab a pic off there quickly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:NP. The one thing Fuji doesn't do is allow you to grab a raw and do the default JPEG conversion for it via wifi automagically - my canon does that and it's great to not have to run to in camera processing first to grab a pic off there quickly. Yeah, with my canon I shoot only raw but then it doesn't have wifi so it's not an issue. With the x100t though I've been shooting either raw+JPEG fine or just JPEG fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:It's a monster though in both size and cost, though. Very much a professional application lens (yet lacking OIS Yeah it's a shame they're leaving out OIS in order to improve image quality, which is also the same thing Canon said about their new 24-70/2.8 II.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
quote:Nice shots. The 18-55mm is such a good "kit" lens that I sometimes question why I bother buying prime lenses. Weight and handling. At least on the X-E1, I feel like the kit lens feels a little unbalanced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
numtini posted:Weight and handling. At least on the X-E1, I feel like the kit lens feels a little unbalanced. Also the primes really are just that loving good
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
numtini posted:Weight and handling. At least on the X-E1, I feel like the kit lens feels a little unbalanced. What do you mean? You think the lens is too big or too small?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
quote:What do you mean? You think the lens is too big or too small? I assume it's the size it needs to be, but to me, it pushes the center of gravity a bit further forward than I'd prefer. Feels like the balance point is past the body, if that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
numtini posted:I assume it's the size it needs to be, but to me, it pushes the center of gravity a bit further forward than I'd prefer. Feels like the balance point is past the body, if that makes sense. I've had this combo and would agree. It's combined as that kit for obvious reasons, but I almost wish they shipped it with the 35 or a slower version of the 23.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
I used the XF 18mm f/2 last night and was quickly reminded it is a bad lens and if it weren't so small I would sell it  OTOH Classic Chrome is really a wonderful preset
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Classic Chrome forever. So I am finding that a lot of the flaws in my images are because I think they look fine and in focus on the small X-E2 viewfinder but then things dont turn out as sharp as I thought. I have a big face big nose big hands. I need a bigger nicer viewfinder that wont hold me back and that means X-T1. But I just plunked $850 on the 56mm f/1.2. I was watching a video in which Zack Arias scolds amateur photographers for getting a ton new gear without mastering what they have. So I am thinking of returning the 56mm, selling the X-E2 body for the same price I bought it (a steal), and getting an X-t1 while the rebate still lives. Then focus on that body, the 23mm f/1.4 and the kit 18-55mm until I feel I've got them mastered. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Sounds good to me. XT-1 and a fast prime is really great. You can pack the kit when you need flexibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Animal posted:Classic Chrome forever. It's good and smart. 35mm(equivalent) is truly the best focal length.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Does Fuji still fix the sticky aperture blade problem out of warranty for free? It finally manifested on my early production X100.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Animal posted:Classic Chrome forever. Try using a single AF point and selecting exactly what you want to be in focus. Learn when and if you need to use AF-C and AF-S. Be sure to set your shutter to at least 1/(focal length * crop factor) to eliminate camera shake. Having a big viewfinder will help you get stuff in focus but not having a big viewfinder shouldn't prevent you from getting correct focus once you've practiced some with the AF system. Plus, doesn't the X-E2 have the zoom in focus peaking stuff? There's no reason to ever miss focus if you've got that. My camera's viewfinder (D7000) is absolutely not big enough to be used for determining if I have critical focus. Nonetheless, with some practice with the AF system and review of the images after they are taken I can get good results. Fart Car '97 posted:It's good and smart. 35mm(equivalent) is truly the best focal length. God's own focal length.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Dren posted:Try using a single AF point and selecting exactly what you want to be in focus. Learn when and if you need to use AF-C and AF-S. Be sure to set your shutter to at least 1/(focal length * crop factor) to eliminate camera shake. Why would it be 1/(focal length * crop) instead of 1/f? I mean, a 20mm lens has the same magnification regardless of crop. Put differently, cropping half of the image taken with a full frame camera wouldn't affect your focus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
mulls posted:Why would it be 1/(focal length * crop) instead of 1/f? I mean, a 20mm lens has the same magnification regardless of crop. Crop factor can effect "apparent" blur from handshake. Basically, a 20mm FOV photo will look more acceptable with a a tiny bit of blur than a 50mm FOV crop (or actual shot). It's not a hard and fast rule at all just a guideline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Crop factor can effect "apparent" blur from handshake. Basically, a 20mm FOV photo will look more acceptable with a a tiny bit of blur than a 50mm FOV crop (or actual shot). It's not a hard and fast rule at all just a guideline. This. Additionally, when the aim is sharpness handheld it's best to err on the side of too fast when it comes to shutter speed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Dren posted:This. Additionally, when the aim is sharpness handheld it's best to err on the side of too fast when it comes to shutter speed. Or just cheat and add grain in post to increase apparent sharpness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Dren posted:Try using a single AF point and selecting exactly what you want to be in focus. Learn when and if you need to use AF-C and AF-S. Be sure to set your shutter to at least 1/(focal length * crop factor) to eliminate camera shake. I do use single AF and select exactly what I want, and I use AF-C on moving subjects. Knowing how to use auto-focus is not the problem, the problem is that with a tiny EVF and very shallow depths of field its very hard for me to see which areas around the focus point are out of focus. The zoom-in doesn't help because it zooms on exactly whats in focus. For example, if I wanna take a shot of two persons with an aperture of f/1.2, and I focus right between the eyes of the person on the left, the person on the right may or may not be out of focus, I don't know, because the viewfinder is so tiny that in the few seconds before I press the shutter I have a hard time catching it. So I either take the shot and evaluate it zoomed on image preview to keep it or try again, increase the aperture from the get-go (and decrease subject isolation thus defeating the purpose of a fast lens), or do what I've been doing which is use AF+MF to auto focus and then focus peak with the focus ring to make sure its all sharp, but that takes precious seconds. I know all of this is First World Problems, but these issues kinda defeat the purpose of a EVF if I cant use it to compose my image correctly. I was playing with a friends A7 II with a large fast and very clear viewfinder and these distractions were immediately gone, I could concentrate on my subject, composition, and exposure and thats exactly what I got. So anyways I've decided that I need a bigger, clearer viewfinder with a higher refresh rate, because whats the point of owning a fancy fast prime if I can't leverage it. The EVF on the X-E2 was great while I shot with the kit lens but I started having these issues when I moved to fast primes and needed more precision. I'm returning the 56mm f/1.2 (thats gonna be a sad moment), sell the X-E2, and get the body that is gonna allow me to improve my lovely skills and be more tuned to my big clumsy face, eye, and hands. Then I will stick to the kit I have and polish myself with that instead of buying more more MORE lenses. I hope I am making sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Animal posted:So I am thinking of returning the 56mm, selling the X-E2 body for the same price I bought it (a steal), and getting an X-t1 while the rebate still lives. Then focus on that body, the 23mm f/1.4 and the kit 18-55mm until I feel I've got them mastered. Thoughts? Everyone's needs are different but I'd keep the 56/1.2, sell the X-E2 and 18-55, then get the X-T1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Everyone's needs are different but I'd keep the 56/1.2, sell the X-E2 and 18-55, then get the X-T1. This is a valid point, the problem is that I am left without a wider angle than my 23mm when I am traveling. At least with the 18-55mm I can get by for both portraits and scenery. -edit- The more I think about this, the more I like the idea. I do have a Canon Powershot S120 which takes nice wide angle shots and does RAW. I could use that until I can afford to get a wide angle prime and then I'd have the trifecta of fast primes: 14mm, 23mm, 56mm. Anyone wants to buy an X-E2 + 18-55mm? 
Animal fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
The 56mm1.2 is an incredible lens but I have always found the focal length to be very awkward for anything other than portraits
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Have you also considered that f/1.2 isn't a great aperture for taking portraits of two people at once? You have like 3 inches of depth to work with, and you can still get tons of background isolation if you stop it down to f/2.8 or even f/4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Animal posted:This is a valid point, the problem is that I am left without a wider angle than my 23mm when I am traveling. At least with the 18-55mm I can get by for both portraits and scenery. You can just shoot with the 23mm and stitch up the photos in Photoshop or panorama software. Although I prefer the 14mm over the 23mm. From what I seen on flickr, I don't think the 23mm is that sharp at wide open/infinite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Animal posted:I do use single AF and select exactly what I want, and I use AF-C on moving subjects. Knowing how to use auto-focus is not the problem, the problem is that with a tiny EVF and very shallow depths of field its very hard for me to see which areas around the focus point are out of focus. The zoom-in doesn't help because it zooms on exactly whats in focus. For example, if I wanna take a shot of two persons with an aperture of f/1.2, and I focus right between the eyes of the person on the left, the person on the right may or may not be out of focus, I don't know, because the viewfinder is so tiny that in the few seconds before I press the shutter I have a hard time catching it. So I either take the shot and evaluate it zoomed on image preview to keep it or try again, increase the aperture from the get-go (and decrease subject isolation thus defeating the purpose of a fast lens), or do what I've been doing which is use AF+MF to auto focus and then focus peak with the focus ring to make sure its all sharp, but that takes precious seconds. I know all of this is First World Problems, but these issues kinda defeat the purpose of a EVF if I cant use it to compose my image correctly. I was playing with a friends A7 II with a large fast and very clear viewfinder and these distractions were immediately gone, I could concentrate on my subject, composition, and exposure and thats exactly what I got. A bigger viewfinder isn't really going to help you take a picture of two people wide open unless it's a studio environment where you can move the two subjects exactly where they need to be. Just because f/1.2 is there doesn't mean you always shoot at the widest possible aperture for everything. Not saying that the X-T1 isn't a loving awesome camera and that the EVF isn't basically the second coming because it really is, but plenty of people have made the X-E1 and the X-E2 work plenty well for all kinds of photos. Not to be rude but I haven't seen you post very many photos but I see you posting about new stuff you bought all the time. Of course it's your money and lord knows I've not yet climbed out of the gearlust hole myself but it seems you swapped an X-E1 for an X-E2 like a couple of weeks ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:Have you also considered that f/1.2 isn't a great aperture for taking portraits of two people at once? You have like 3 inches of depth to work with, and you can still get tons of background isolation if you stop it down to f/2.8 or even f/4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Anybody familiar with the Sony ecosystem know if it's possible, on the a6000, to change what the ring and upper right knob control within a given shooting mode? More specifically, I shoot on shutter priority a lot when I am using my MF/ manual aperture glass and I would like to have the ring adjust shutter and the knob adjust ISO or vice versa. At the moment they seem set to both adjust shutter speed and I have to click the ring once to make it switch to ISO. I am lazy but I like to think I value economy of motion or some poo poo. Either way I want to change this and can't figure out how.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:Have you also considered that f/1.2 isn't a great aperture for taking portraits of two people at once? You have like 3 inches of depth to work with, and you can still get tons of background isolation if you stop it down to f/2.8 or even f/4. This and also to your concerns with having a range of focal lengths, you might be a bit too paranoid. Are you sure you're going to need something less than 23mm so much? Honestly I would just strip down to one prime period to learn with but then again all I own is an x100 soooo....
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Has anyone noticed that shooting landscapes with x-trans sensors kinda sucks? The watercolor effect isn't apparent with near subjects, but I definitely see it when peeping landscapes. I guess there's some inherent loss of detail with Fuji's sensor design vs Bayer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:Have you also considered that f/1.2 isn't a great aperture for taking portraits of two people at once? You have like 3 inches of depth to work with, and you can still get tons of background isolation if you stop it down to f/2.8 or even f/4. I understand that f/1.2 can too shallow to shoot two people next to each other, I had a new lens and I was purposely trying to shoot in different settings from wide open stopping down to the settings that worked for different situations, trial and error to get familiar with a new lens. That wide open aperture actually worked a few times, but it turned out that f/1.8 and f/2 did the trick more consistently. It was a low light situation and I was experimenting to see what worked. Geektox posted:A bigger viewfinder isn't really going to help you take a picture of two people wide open unless it's a studio environment where you can move the two subjects exactly where they need to be. Just because f/1.2 is there doesn't mean you always shoot at the widest possible aperture for everything. Gearlust is exactly what I am trying to get away from here I recognize that while the 56mm is a fantastic lens I should stick to what I have for a while and make that work for me before I keep acquiring gear. The 23mm makes me feel very comfortable, and the kit lens fills a lot of holes. Maybe I should stick to those for at least six months before I get anything else. Maybe a used external flash later on when I am ready. I managed to move from the X-E1 to the X-E2 practically for free because I got two incredible deals here on the FS/FT forum (XF 35mm for $275, X-E2 for $500) which allowed me to pass on the old camera and a nice lens to my sister as a christmas gift and stay on budget. Returning the 56mm, selling the X-E2 and getting a discounted or used X-T1 would leave me a couple hundred dollars ahead financially from where I am, right at this moment. Of course I could just return the 56mm and just try to make the X-E2 work. And use all that money to travel somewhere nice at the end of the month where I could take some loving pictures!I'm not trying to be stubborn, I know you guys are giving me good advice and I really do appreciate it (otherwise I would be posting in dpreview.com if I was looking for GAS enablers). I am my own worst critic which is why I shy from posting a lot of pictures yet, the ones I posted before were literally the first images I took with the 56mm I wasn't trying to show examples of good photography, just showing off how the out of focus area looked. The only decent picture I have posted yet I did on the contest thread. This viewfinder thing is something that I've been trying to figure out since I got the thing, and while I love it from a technical standpoint, it seems like I am always fighting around it and coping with it ergonomically. When I played with my friend's Sony A7 II it seemed like its something that if I didn't have to be putting up with, I could have a more enjoyable time with my hobby. I didn't have to squint and contort my face just the right way in order to look down the sight and see the details of what I am shooting. So yeah, I'm not trying to hoard gear! On the contrary, I wanna trim it down. I am just trying to find that kit with which I am finally comfortable with and I can just focus on improving my shooting. I hope this is not some kind of chimera . The 23mm is already part of that for sure (which is why I explored the option of just getting rid of everything and going with an X100T). The X-E2 would be if I didn't feel uncomfortable about the small viewfinder because otherwise I just love the thing. If it seems like I am getting a lot of stuff, its because its the only way I can try and see what works for me, I don't have a place I can go and try all this stuff out, so ordering it and returning it or selling it forward is the only way I have to narrow it down. toadee posted:This and also to your concerns with having a range of focal lengths, you might be a bit too paranoid. Are you sure you're going to need something less than 23mm so much? Honestly I would just strip down to one prime period to learn with but then again all I own is an x100 soooo.... I think I agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
You have to figure out what you want to shoot. The 18-55 does help for wider landscapes, but if you're doing it touristy like me, I just use my RX100 or iPhone. They're much wider than my Hasselblad's 80mm, which I use to shoot anything that's serious. The 23 and 56 help to give the best spread of focal lengths just using 2 solid prime lenses and some foot-zoom. If you're consistently shooting wide scenes then maybe the 10-24 is a much better option than the 23, otherwise just stick to the 23. Don't think too much about what lenses to get or sell, just shoot first and then figure out what lenses you need to accomplish what you envision. Your lenses don't control what you shoot, you do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
I'm perplexed as to how you don't like the X-E2's VF. I use mine with a 56mm all the time and it's totally fine. Have you tried shutting off some of the info options? I find the VF cramped with a histo and gridlines but great without them. I never notice the refresh except in really low light.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
krooj posted:Has anyone noticed that shooting landscapes with x-trans sensors kinda sucks? The watercolor effect isn't apparent with near subjects, but I definitely see it when peeping landscapes. I guess there's some inherent loss of detail with Fuji's sensor design vs Bayer. This argument has been done to death, but yes, if you are using any Adobe product to process Fuji Raws, the demosaicing isn't good, especially on foliage. To circumvent this, use Iridient for Macs or Lightzone for PCs. Edit: and write a letter to Adobe to get their poo poo together, because I much prefer Lightroom over both of the above packages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 13:34
|
|
