|
Without weather sealing I see nothing compelling to tempt me to upgrade from my OG X100.
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
Is going from an X-Pro1 to an X-T1 that much of an upgrade? Last summer working in Denali National Park I found my OG X100 inadequate for any kind of wildlife photography so I picked up an X-Pro1, 35 1.4, and an xc 55-230 in preparation for coming back to Alaska. I just paid for Rio's Fuji 100-400 to get more reach, and I'm wondering if I should upgrade bodies too. Landscapes and (now) wildlife are my largest two categories. Is the focus speed or low light significantly better with the X-T1? I know it's weather sealed and I may need to get the 23 f2 wr once I get a few paychecks.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
I had Canon gear and only 3 lenses, I bought an original X100 a few months after launch and I didn't touch my Canon gear for over 3 years. I started to feel the restriction of the X100 and bought the teleconverter lens for it, a used X-Pro1, 35 1.4, 100-400, 1.4x TC, and now I want a 23f2, X-T1, etc. The other weekend when I did a 24 mile backpacking trip to a glacier I took just the X100 though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
IIRC they redesigned the teleconverters and the 100/100S/100T share the same but the 100F has a new version.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Ill take seconds on that X-T1 if you sell it soon. I'm tired of missing wildlife shots with my X-Pro1 and 100-400.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
How's the durability of the silver X-T1s and other bodies? I found a good deal on a silver one and I want to upgrade from the X-Pro1 but I'm curious about how it'll look with time and use.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
I meant more of like "how will it stand up to my hard use?" But the fucker was already sold when I asked the first time so I'll have to wait for another good deal on an XT-1.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
When I'd carry around my Fuji GW690II, I was most often asked if it was a Holga.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
The 50-230 is a decent lens, but I got one used like new for $150 shipped. It's cheap secondhand.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
That much will get you a Fuji X-T1 body only. Grab a 35 or a 23 and get shooting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
Fuji deals means people dumping lenses they don't want so they can buy new ones. Watch classifieds for the real deals.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
When I went to Banff and Jasper at the beginning of the month, I saw an even split between all sorts of Sony alphabet soup bodies I couldn't identify, and Canon Rebels with the kit 18-55.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Unless you really know you need the 2.8, get the 18-55, on the used market you can find them for $325, they're a bargain.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
rio posted:Oh ok. That was it, thanks! It’s be nice if they let you adjust settings universally instead of having to be in a camera mode to access certain settings. I wish you could click on greyed out things and it would tell you what conflicting setting needs to be changed in order to access the greyed out one. I hate the guessing game.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Cacator posted:, but the poor high ISO performance of the original was just extremely limiting to me. Ok this is something I find kinda funny. On the one hand, you're absolutely right. There are iso monsters which can shoot at iso 250,000 and make a moonlit beach appear like a bright sunny day. Comparatively, the OG X100 absolutely pales in comparison. I bought the X100 a few months after it came out, and compared to my Canon 40D, whose ISO was a mess at 1600, in my mind the X100 will always be "good" in low light. Especially compared to what it replaced. Now, my X-T1 kicks the pants off the X100 in low light. But I'll always have a chuckle whenever somebody calls the original X100 bad for any reason. I still have mine and occasionally shoot with it. I don't think I'll ever sell it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I am pretty sure the teleconverters work with neither the 50-230 nor the 55-200 lens. They do work with the 55-200.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2018 14:15
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I looked around. According to forum posts, not physically competible. D'oh. I was thinking back to when I was buying extension tubes. You're right. It works only with the 50-140 and the 100-400.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
I've got a 56 1.2 for sale over in the buy/sell thread that's very clear inside.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
GATOS Y VATOS posted:Thanks! Your name, abbreviated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2018 04:20
|
|
edit: GYV? 
|
I got a used one on Reddit for $240 shipped, I see them fairly often on Fred Miranda for $220-240 shipped.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
CRAYON posted:I want to impulse buy the XF 56mm 1.2 with this eBay sale going on. I've kinda felt like I need a longer lens for taking photos of my friends band and portraits while hiking. I've got a 56 1.2 for sale in the marketplace thread
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 07:17
|
|
|
I spent 2 months in New Zealand with only the 10-24 and 23 f2 and never used the 23 at all. I've never used a telephoto traveling but maybe I should start!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2019 07:32
|
|
|
I've got an X-T1 and it's starting to show it's age for wildlife photograpy. I'm looking at upgrading, is an X-T3 going to be that much better than an X-T2 with battery grip for focus speed?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
Hello Spaceman posted:
My OG X100 feels faster than the X-Pro1, and an X-T1 felt like a full generation leap, which it was. The X-Pro1 was fujis first interchangeable lens mirrorless, and the performance shows. It's a dinosaur but if your subjects are still the camera is still very competent.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
frytechnician posted:23mm 2.0 - Value for money but not as beloved by some. The 23mm f2 is my most used prime of the few I have, when I travel light I bring that and the kit lens. It may not be everyone's favorite but I like it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2021 00:29
|
|