Jump to content

Ektachrome

Members
  • Content Count

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ektachrome

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

342 profile views
  1. Thank you for the detailed reply. Lovely place, lovely shot!
  2. Thanks, that’s interesting you preferred your f/2 even optically. Yes, I think it sounds like you were a bit unlucky though, as my 1.4 is very nice. It does have a little CA wide open at high contrast edges, but I’ve never noticed any more than a tiny amount (and nothing which ruined any good shots) and it’s super sharp. I think in every respect I would get the f/2, except that I have had some nice environmental grab portraits at f/1.4 and I’m not sure if they would have been as nice with the f/2 - hard to tell, or course, without having shot the same photo side by side! Having said that, the nicest of these was cropped to the extent that the best lens for the shot would have actually been the 35mm, but of course in the moment one doesn’t always have time to swap lenses. There is the real strength of the 23 f/1.4 I guess - you have room to crop and as much isolation as the 35 f/2... It depends so much on subject and background distance that it would be hard to quantify it except in careful side by side tests, I guess.
  3. Sebastian, You don't say whether it has to be a prime, but the native Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 OIS is superb for landscapes. It's also not too heavy, or expensive - might be worth a look? James
  4. This is a lovely shot! I've been considering the Zeiss 12mm as my ultra-wide, but not seen many examples, or heard of many users. I had the Fuji 14mm, which is stellar optically, but sometimes not quite wide enough, which is irritating, and I wonder if 18mm (equiv.) would be a sweet spot for me...
  5. Would anyone who's up on such things care to list the differences between the above cameras with the current and announced firmwares, please? Most of the spec. lists and comparisons online are with outdated/original FW and we all know Fuji tends to give 'new cameras' every so often E.g., I know the X-T2 got a recent update to match some of the video features of the X-H1, but I don't know what still makes the X-H1 unique after this (apart from the obvious IBIS), and I don't know if the X-Pro 2 is now on a part with the X-T2 with video features, focus stacking, etc. Does/will the X-T2 have the 'linear focus' mode for video, for example...? Even subtle differences (e.g., one I do know about: X-T2 OLED EVF, X-Pro 2 LED EVF) would be helpful as I make a decision!
  6. Having trouble deciding between the good old 23mm f/1.4 and the newer 23 f/2 for my new Fuji setup. I've owned the 1.4 before, and found it nothing short of stellar optically. I did notice the AF speed and noise occasionally, though, and it used to annoy me sometimes. The f/2, when I tried it in a shop, had much, much better AF speed/silence and smoother MF. It's also a fair bit smaller and lighter of course. I heard some reports that it can be a little soft wide-open on closer subjects, but not sure how true this is in real-world use(?). I'm tempted by the f/2 in that my other lenses will very likely be the 35 f/2 and the 50 f/2, so it would be nice to have the set, as it were. However, I'm worrying I'll miss that extra stop, and the excellent sharpness of the 1.4... Anyone BTDT and formed any conclusions? Use is landscape, street, travel (the latter two involving casual environmental and 'grab' portraits) I do open the lens up for portraits and used to find the 1.4 was just nice in terms of separation and a nice-ish bokeh.
  7. I too am in a similar boat to the OP. I was considering either an X-T2 or X-Pro 2. Then I made the mistake of picking up an X-H1 yesterday, while trying out lenses for the former two. My pros and cons after just trying it for a few minutes: Pros: - IBIS. It's cool, I don't often need it in the conditions in which I shoot, but yes, it will be useful sometimes. But it's adding a lot of bulk to the camera (see cons). - Viewfinder. Wow. Very very nice. And I thought the X-T2 was nice, but this is nicer. Definitely a reason to consider the X-H1. - Shutter/shutter release. Holy lords of Fujicron, what a sublime shutter. I thought my shutter experience had peaked with a Leica M6 years ago, but this caps even that. It's the #1 reason I'm now considering the X-H1, it's that good. Just a gentle, smooth squeeze and she fires off without a hint of vibration, it's a Rolls Royce of shutter buttons. Cons: - Size/weight. It's considerably bigger. And heavier. And you do notice it in hand by quite a degree after putting down an X-T2 and picking up the X-H1 with the same lens. It's basically in semi-pro DSLR territory. This is not cool for me, a huge reason for Fuji mirrorless was the smaller size and weight. The X-T2 and X-Pro 2 are pretty much spot on in this regard, for my uses. - Ergonomics. Actually I don't like the new grip/shape at all in hand. It actually felt uncomfortable, which I wasn't expecting, kinda like there was a lot of grip but just not in the right places for how I tend to hold. Personal thing, but not great for me. - Aesthetics. Well, the X-Pro 2 wins this hands-down for me, with the X-T2 a close second. The X-H1 is, to my eyes, a bit of a dog. They stuck a load of useful stuff in, and on, it, but totally messed up all the lovely semi-retro lines I, and I reckon a lot of other, Fuji users love so much. Hm... But oh, that shutter... I actually dreamed of it last night. Man. So, if Fuji stick that hair-trigger, smooth as butter, shock-free shutter in the X-T3, without IBIS, a load of bulk/weight and messing up the aesthetics and grip, I know where my money would go in a heartbeat. As it is right now, I have no idea which camera to go for; if only I hadn't tried that X-H1!
  8. Thanks for confirming, yeah next to an 85mm micro Nikkor, a road digger would sound like a peaceful day at the beach! To be clear, though, there are TWO issues here: 1. The noise. This is strange behaviour (especially when it apparently didn’t do this pre-firmware 1.01), but simply an irritation in stills shooting. For video, no noise is good noise. 2. The visual judder. Again, for stills, irritating and odd, but not maybe a deal-breaker. BUT for video absolutely 100% a deal breaker in MF. Imagine watching that visual choppiness in a video or film as you change focus, it would be distracting to the point of being unusable. Seems weird that Fuji have put thought and effort into MF for their fly-by-wire lenses for video use in the X-H1 (you can switch MF for video into a linear mode so that you can repeat focus pullls manually even with their AF lenses) but then with two of their most silent primes, which potential users are most likely to choose for video for this reason, they’re unusable for this purpose. Does anyone know where it’s possible to send feedback which would actually reach the developers to see if this can be sorted by another FW update?
  9. Thanks for checking, much appreciated. I have to say, if this is considered normal behaviour for the lenses, that’s unbelievable; this makes them totally unusable for MF in video (not to mention unpleasant for stills). If they are now pushing video hard for the X-H1, this needs sorting. I did a little more digging and found that, apparently, the 35/2 lens did not behave this way initially; it happened after Firmware update 1.01 which was ‘to improve MF accuracy’. So it appears to be FW and not hardware related. Time for another FW update to fix this, Fuji? The 50mm f/2, which I thought used the same AF motors (?) doesn’t display this behaviour - To be clear, the deal breaker here for video use isn’t the sound (although that’s definitely not good) but the visual judder while pulling focus.
  10. 100% agree with this. I live by the sea and a lot of my photos are taken there. It’s not an idle request for Fuji to update some of the older lenses with just better AF, but WR can save your equipment - my body is weather sealed, but my primes, which I love and use anyway for IQ, give me a lot of worry where they’re not sealed. I won’t bother to buy the 10-24mm until it’s updated, since I don’t own it yet. The 8-16mm isn’t an option for me either because of the filters issue...
  11. Could owners of the 35 f/2 please confirm whether this is normal or just a fault this guy had on a batch of lenses, please? I was going to buy this lens for fast, quiet AF and quieter smoother MF in video, so the above would obviously make it unusable for focus pulls for the latter use, it’s not so much the noise (although that’s not great on one of the new ‘silent’ lenses), but the very visible, horrid visual judder as focus is pulled...
  12. Totally agree, I really would like an update to this and the 23 1.4 sooner rather than later. Followed by the 16 1.4 and 56 1.2.
  13. Your zoom should be good for most cityscape type shots, and from memory (although a long time ago) 28mm equivalent should be wide enough for e.g. Golden Gate Bridge stretching into the distance, or the hills and tramways. Personally, around cities now I’d always carry a fast prime in the 35 or 50 (equivalent, so 23 1.4 or 35 1.4 for Fuji). Great for street photography, food, details, and fast for when the light falls and you want the city at night (although a very small, light, travel tripod is good for serious night work).
  14. @epscott @waltereffe wow, you guys are on fire today!
×
×
  • Create New...