Jump to content

khollister

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    keithhollister.smugmug.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Orlando, FL

khollister's Achievements

  1. I agree that the 56/1.2 is the obvious partner to the 23/1.4. A lot depends though on what your specific interests are.
  2. I use Luminar quite a bit for specific things, but I agree that the Library features are pretty poor - no keyboarding or searches of metadata for one. I use Capture One to do fundamental editing and RAW conversion and will send TIFF's to Luminar (Or Color Efex Pro and Silver Efex Pro) for specific creative effects. Luminar also does compositing, which C1 doesn't have presently. I'm on a Mac and have not found it to be buggy. I still use Lightroom to maintain my catalog of "finished" images since the catalog functionality in C1 is hideously slow IMHO. When I finish an image in C1, I create a TIFF with all the adjustments baked in and then import that into LR. I would love to ditch Adobe altogether, but LR is too damn good at cataloging and searching thousands of images.
  3. A pair of X-T4's and an X-E2. Had X-T1 and X-Pro2 but they are gone. Should have kept the X-T1 too in hindsight.
  4. I've noticed something in the couple days I have had the XP2 - While the EVF is cooler than the LCD (and setting aside whether that is a problem or not), which one looks "right" seems to vary based on the ambient lighting conditions Right now I'm sitting on my office/man cave with just north facing window light coming in (no artificial lighting turned on) and the EVF is the best match, by far, for the WB compared to what I see with my naked eye. The LCD is distinctly warm. In other situations (outdoors in sunlight) the EVF appears a bit too cool compared to the naked eye view. Not sure I could theorize how that is happening given both are operating off the same image after any processing.
  5. Diffraction starts to set in beyond about f/8 for the Fuji cameras (any APS-C camera really). You can go to f/11 without getting killed, but I would avoid it. I shoot landscapes at f/8 max. You need to look up a DOF calculator online (and there are phone apps) to determine the hyperlocal distance. This is the focus distance that yields the greatest DOF including infinity. Since the Fuji's have a focus distance indicator in the EVF, pick something in the scene that you think is about that distance and focus on it. Then check the distance scale in the EVF and adjust as necessary. Alternatively, select MF and just focus the lens until you get the desired distance. ISO 200, good tripod, 2sec timer and off you go. Now the bad news - hyperlocal distance will work on the 18mm and the 35, but the 55-200 is going to have a lot less DOF. The trick with telephoto lenses is to choose your DOF band so that the closest thing in the scene that needs to be in focus is in the front of the band and let the stuff at infinity be slightly OOF (your eye will forgive a bit of OOF on distant objects). Alternatively, compose your tele landscape shots to minimize the need for huge DOF. You can't cheat physics You are often fighting dynamic range with landscape shots, so shooting in raw as opposed to jpg is always helpful. In raw, the Fuji's have more shadow latitude than highlight latitude, so watch your skies. You can bring up shadows 2-3 stops at base ISO, but there is only 1 stop at best in the highlights.
  6. I think it is hard to not put the 16/1.4 on the short list first. It is fairly wide (good for WA landscapes and interior travel stuff), fast (good for interiors and nighttime street/travel), focuses very close (good for flower/nature closeups in a pinch) and weather resistant. Next I would consider either the 35/2 (inexpensive, fairly fast, very small, fast to focus) or the 18-55 (good price, OIS) The 60 is not many people's favorite lens, but the IQ is great and it does 1:2 macro. You can get some moderately small DOF too. It is a bit short as your only tele lens though so ... the 55-200 is a great lens at a great price. You will want something longer than 55 or 60 for landscapes (it's not always UWA). Not sure about Euro prices or what might be available used there. The 23/1.4 is a more classic street lens, but it is also expensive and the 16/1.4 covers more bases. It is also Fuji's best or second best lens optically depending on who you talk to.
  7. I think an example would help - one with the FX35 and the same scene/shot with a legacy lens. Depending on which Canon or Olympus lenses you are using, that Fuji 35/1.4 is likely to be a better lens. Specifically, what lenses are you trying? Another issue is the quality of the adapter. I have read of folks getting adapters where the mounting surfaces are not absolutely parallel, which will kill IQ. Most of these adapters are cheap numbers from China, I wouldn't have great confidence in the tolerances or QC. Another issue is with film rangefinder lenses of short focal length. These don't tend to translate well to digital bodies due to angle of incidence of the light rays on the sensor. We need a lot more info on what you are using and doing to help.
  8. If I use the camera continuously for 10-20 minutes (shooting, chimping, playing with menus), the LCD and bottom heats up a bit (warm, not hot). High performance mode seems to hasten this some, but I have not tested it. However, the issues that I have read about where a couple guys sent theirs back for a replacement appeared to have a different problem which mine does not have. They reported that setting the camera to not power off automatically and letting it sit for 10-20 minutes with the LCD on caused the camera to become hot. Under those no-load conditions (other than running the LCD), my XP2 remains at room temperature. I have to be using it to focus, review images and take images for it to eventually get warm. I'm using OEM batteries BTW. I don't think this is a bug (neither does Fuji from the reports of conversations with them). Mirrorless cameras are much more processor intensive than DSLR's and you can't significantly step up the CPU horsepower without some increased power dissipation. There is nowhere for the heat to go but the metal chassis via conduction.
  9. Lloyd always manages to find the end of the world with almost anything he writes about. This effect was mentioned on another forum and the example images there, like the one Lloyd posted, are frankly nothing I would ever expect to use to begin with. This problem (which I'm pretty certain is internal reflections) appears to only be seen in circumstances with horrible veiling flare that would itself render the images useless IMHO. Lloyd hates the X-TRANS sensors anyway and is using this as another reason to pile on. Using diglloyd as proof that a camera/lens is bad strikes me as just about as crazy as using Ken Rockwell as proof that something is wonderful.
  10. I suppose if you were shooting jpg's and expecting to use them SOOC, this might be a problem, but for those of us that shoot raw it doesn't seem all that disastrous. Other than weird indoor lighting, I have come to trust the Fuji AWB and largely ignore the WB in the EVF since it will likely be fine, and if it isn't its not like I was going to fix it in camera anyway. I agree that it would be nice if the EVF better matched the LCD (and I don't understand why Fuji can't/won't put individual LCD & EVF WB adjustments in the firmware - Olympus does it), but I don't feel it is the end of the world that some others apparently do. The X-Pro1 was like this too, and I don't recall reading similar comments about that camera. just sayin' ...
  11. X-E2 + XF14 with Hoya 720nm filter. Mabry Mill by Keith Hollister, on Flickr Mill Pond by Keith Hollister, on Flickr
  12. I have both the 56 and 60. I actually prefer the way the 60 draws better than the 56, I don't think the AF is that much worse outside of macro distances (the 56 isn't a AF speed demon either) and it is a lot lighter/cheaper. The 56's main justification is it's speed and somewhat lower contrast rendering (a feature for portraits, a possible bug otherwise). I always seem to feel the 56 is a bit sterile compared to many of the Fuji primes (60 included). I would sell it except A) I always regretted selling my 85/1.4 when I had the Nikon kit and I haven't gotten my hands on the 90/2 I ordered yet, so I'm not sure if that will scratch the limited DOF itch. The 60 is a fantastic lens optically - it's mechanicals are a bit dodgy.
  13. I normally photograph landscape, architecture, cityscape, trains, cars, aircraft, nature. Minimal portraiture, no sports anymore, wildlife/birds is on hiatus until I pick up a 100-400. So for me: 14mm or 16mm (just got the 16 - really love the 14) 23mm or 18-55 (depending on mood) 56mm 90mm or 55-200 generally, the 14, 18-55, 55-200 and a fast prime in whatever focal length you use the most (23, 35 or 56) For the OP, the style of wedding photography would dictate the choice of midrange zoom or primes. I think the 14/16 and 56 are pretty much certain given the landscape & portrait statements. Obviously the 16-55 & 40-150 zooms are an option if the cost/size/weight aren't an issue. One of the tele zooms is also almost a given since just the 56 and 90 primes is a bit limiting in focal length, even for landscapes.
×
×
  • Create New...