Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

2,028 profile views

Ektachrome's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • Reacting Well
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges



  1. I prefer the in-camera merge, more natural all round and more pleasing colours.
  2. This is such a good suggestion. I’ve used this while on holiday when I didn’t want to carry a laptop and the results are fantastic. I still tend to shoot raw+jpeg, personally, as I do prefer getting things right in camera if possible. Also if the jpeg turns out well, it saves me time editing, even in camera.
  3. No offense taken, I assure you. Let us know how you get on if you try it 😎
  4. I love these. I like your choices in stylising the colours - enough to be interesting, but not garish 👍🏻
  5. DFF - one thing to clarify in what I posted. I don’t use Raw to fall back on if I “blow” the shot (well, at least not often!), I use it in situations where, e.g., I already know the dynamic range is going to exceed the jpeg engine of the camera, or if it’s a fleeting shot and I won’t have time to set a manual white balance in advance, etc. So I think of this as the equivalent of carrying two film bodies around, one with transparency film loaded and the other with negative film loaded. Or a large format camera where I would have negative and transparency sheets available for each shot. Transparency film, you pretty much have to nail everything in camera. And completely nail metering, or bracket, due to the very narrow latitude/DR. You might often need Split ND filters. And you really need colour filters to correct for the light you find yourself in. This, to me, is like an in-camera jpeg. With colour print film, you have a LOT more flexibility to adjust exposure and colour balance in the darkroom, and a lot more DR to play with. This, to me, is closer to a digital raw file. So I shoot both, as I shoot both film types. I have a preference for transparency film (still getting over the discontinuation of Kodachrome!) so use that, or in-camera jpeg when the shot and circumstances allow, but there are times I’ll use the raw approach, when the scene or time constraints demand. In those circumstances I can still use the jpeg simulations in the raw processor (Lightroom) to give me the colour and look of a particular Fujifilm preset, but with the extra processing latitude that a raw file possesses. In terms of the editing program being robust - did you mean in terms of the editing or the file-handling? In terms of editing, you can’t push jpegs far anyway, so any reasonably software will do and Photos is as good as any for that. In terms of file handling/library management, I feel if you’re going to make a meaningful step-up from Photos (which is pretty good), you would be best looking at Lightroom. It’s not a bad subscription price for that and Photoshop on the Photographers plan if you stick with the basic cloud storage…
  6. To my mind, if you are deliberately shooting only jpeg film sims out of a sense of “get it right in camera” like we had to in the film days (I have sympathy with this, as I too was, and am, an avid film shooter), why are you then editing the jpegs? That’s really not what shooting jpeg is about, either on principle, or technically. They’re compressed files, with the look baked in, so have very limited editing potential. OK you could argue that’s more analogous (no pun intended) to reversal film, rather than negative stock, but even that isn’t true in the case of digital shot jpeg film sims as, unlike real film, you really can get everything right in camera, adjusting colour temperature, ISO and dynamic range at the time of shooting. Or if you want a really “pure” experience, you can forego as much of that as possible also, and carry a tripod and a whole set of filters around… Again, I have sympathy with this, I too love getting everything right in cam if possible. FWIW, for this reason I generally shoot Jpeg+Raw when shooting with my X-T2. If the scene is such that I have time to get everything right in camera, and the dynamic range is OK, I’ll just go with the Jpeg and not bother to edit the Raw. If the shot must be taken so quickly I don’t have time to adjust much, apart from exposure or focus, or (more likely) the dynamic range is too great for a jpeg, I’ll probably end up editing the RAW file. If you must edit JPEG’s, you’ll find Photos is as good as any. There’s no such thing as robustness when editing JPEG’s so you might as well stick with Apple. In terms of keeping your “real” photos separate from your iPhone ones, Photos is pretty flexible - you could create different albums for each camera, etc. Ultimately, why not just come back to the real deal and shoot film again 😁
  7. Thank you for the detailed reply. Lovely place, lovely shot!
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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...
  11. 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!
  12. 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.
  13. 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!
  • Create New...