CplGumby
-
Posts
52 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Store
Classifieds
Posts posted by CplGumby
-
-
I can't offer any advice as I don't do portraits, however, I can offer my encouragement. I really enjoyed looking at all these images! You have done a great job with posing ideas and keeping things tack sharp. Keep up the good work!
C.
-
-
The 55-200 is my least thought of lens. Sitting in the bottom of my bag of lenses I really only bring it out when I go to the mortocross track. There I basically beat the crap out of it, letting it get dusty, wet, using my sleeve to wipe of the dust... and everytime I walk away amazed at the quality of the images! Mind you, in insufficient light, it's another story but when light isn't a problem this lens is fantastic, especially at the price!
Here are some pics of a Red Bull Rocks and Logs event this weekend. Ideally, you want to have the rider coming at you but unfortunately due to the limited access for spectators we were unable to see them coming for the good parts!
-
-
I know the first time I shot a hockey arena I got underexposed images so I did a EV bump, but after that shoot I found I needed more of a EV bump and now find that if I just point the lens at the rink/boards while players are out and then note the exposure, I then make a change + 1 stop adjustment (while shooting in manual so that my results are consistent, particularly with video) ... found I get pretty good results.
Great idea, Adam, I'll give it a go!
-
It works very good...and also it works very good with the Teleconverter 1.4x. Is sharp and the autofocus is untouched in the speed and precision!
HCB Bolzano vs Vienna by Matthias Egger, su FlickrI never considered using the TC for hockey as the lighting is pooh. What is your ISO usually at?
-
I don't have the Graphite but I experience that a lot. When I have shutter set to T it appears the slightest touch (don't even recall touching it.) constantly changes my shutter speed. When shooting action sequences I am constantly having to double check that the shutter hasn't changed
-
Here are a series of shots that demonstrate the ability of the T2 to stay focused on the player when another passes in front. This was achieved by using an AF-C Custom setting. Tracking sensitivity was set to 4; Speed Tracking was set to 0 and Zone was Center.
These were shot through the plexiglas and I was on the goal line with the player on the center. Not great action but I was surprised when I came across it how it stayed with the subject.
-
Zone focus 3x3 with the 4th setting of the Autofocus!
JPEG Provia
Sharpness +2
Shadows +1
Noise -2
Color +2
Awesome! Thanks for the settings!
-
I've never seen a Lion on snow.
We all had that same comment!! Me neither, I thought they would have been inside.
I went back the following weekend and they were out and it was -22C that day (-27 with windchill). I guess that mane serves another purpose!
-
I think if you bump your exposure when shooting by 1/2 a stop, the images won't be as saturated and the blacks won't be crushed.
I have shot a bit of kids hockey, kids box lacrosse and high school gym for volleyball/basketball and in all cases have found the XT1 and XT2 metering (as any camera would) says I'm overexposing by almost 1 stop. I shoot in manual since the lighting isn't changing. But with all the rink white boards and white ice or gyms white walls, naturally the camera wants to underexpose the bright scene. But I don't get as much black crush as you but my images are definitely exposed by approx 1/2 a stop more than your samples.
Just my 2 cents.
Thanks for the comment. I do shoot with it over exposed by 1 stop but you gave me food for thought. Although I take the meter reading off the jersey, maybe it's still under exposed as I find I have to bump the exposure up on all of my images. (Gee Chad, why don't you bump up your esposure in camera then?? D'uh!)
-
I opened a thread at the Day One of the X-T2 (literally picked from the shop and brought at the match 6 hours later, alongside my Canon 1Dx of course because was work and needed to be sure of the result): http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/4623-x-t2-does-it-work-for-hockey/
I can now say after months of work that i prefer working with my T2 over the Canon. I use the Canon onlt in the Hockey stadiums where i need the extra light that my 300 2.8 can provide (please Fuji, start to make a 300 F2.8 please).
Now i am very satisfiied of the performance of the T2, even when using the teleconverter.
This are some of the latest photos i made
HCB Bolzano vs Salzburg by Matthias Egger, su FlickrHCB Bolzano vs Vienna by Matthias Egger, su FlickrGreat images! It's good to see that the focus and sharpness is crisp. Are you using single point or Zone focussing? I've found that Zone 3x3 works better than single point for me but I use single on my DSLR so I'm not sure.
How do you get it so your blacks aren't crushed and over saturated?
-
I shoot hockey and have tried both single and zone using a 3x3 square.
I use single pt with my DSLR but have found a higher % of keepers using zone. I think the single point focus isn't as reliable on the X-T2 for fast moving subjects as the zone is.
-
When you get up to the focal lengths this lens gives, regardless of camera model ... it takes lots of practice.
For $75/CAD I picked up a 1980's 200-500/5.6 manual focus Tamron (the thing looks like a bazooka) and use a Nikon/Fuji adapter and I learned right away that even on a tripod, it takes lots of practice to get anything that looks any good due to DOF and camera shake.
Bazooka or a club?? That thing is massive!! Ha! Ha!
-
I've found my jpgs to be heavier in the contrast and darker creating an unrealistic look for shooting hockey. It sounds like it might be the same thing that you are experiencing. When I shoot the image, I have my exposure about 1/3 over exposed but still find it too dark. I then need to adjust in Lightroom to lighten the shadows and tone the contrast down a bit.
I'll follow the post in case someone comes up with a setting change.
Thanks for asking
-
When usig a super telephoto you need to be careful about your depth of field and shooting wide open
if your subject is 20 meters away
@400mm and shooting at F5.6 on a 1.5x crop sensor
nearest acceptable sharpness =19.72m
Furthest acceptable sharpness =20.29m
Total DOF = 0.58m
Stopping down two stops to F/11
nearest acceptable sharpness =19.45m
Furthest acceptable sharpness =20.58m
Total DOF = 1.14m
If you hold focus for too long and the object moves slightly it aint going to be in sharp focus shooting wide open at such long focal lengths
I know this rule and yet I completely forgot it!
Doing the math the falcon was about 18 ft away and with the lens at 400 and F5.6 it only gives me 1 1/2in dof. This helps explain why old shakey hands couldn't get focus on the eye. Even if I did the Beak would be out of focus.
Thanks for the reminder!
-
I picked up the 100-400 a while back and find it is no different than my Canon 7D/100-400 combo. I would suspect the same for the Nikon system.
What I am saying is it takes a few months maybe even longer to learn how to use an outfit (of any brand/combo) properly. I had somewhat the same review just after I picked up the 100-400 lens - I had some struggling with it. But after using it for a few months and learning how to apply the settings and use the Auto-Focus to my advantage. I now find the system to be very much on par with any DSLR. The Auto-Focus has no problems whatsoever if it is set properly for the conditions. It just takes some practice to know what setting/ when - and I am still learning.. I believe it might take a book to explain each detail, but for the most part, until you have a particular camera/lens in your hands long enough you don't really learn how to use it.
Right now I am struggling with the XT-2/16 f1.4 combination. What an INCREDIBLE lens! But every once in a while I get into a scenario where I don't use it properly. Still learning the lens. That's what it is about. It takes time/practice with any lens - some more than others.
As for which brand to go with it is hard to say. I really got some good times from my Canon gear, but now I love my Fuji. You just have to go with what you feel most comfortable with and learn to use it. It's like my Fly Fishing gear - the more I force it to practice the better it gets. In fact the gear I leave in the closet even gets better the more I force my current gear to practice!
Really good point!
I'm the first to admit that it's probably me and you're right about learning the camera. I'm a long time Nikon user and still use it for certain things like shooting hockey so I'm experienced with the Nikon system but because I'm using two systems I'm not as experienced in the Fuji system. I've heard great things about the lens and it probably struggles in low light no more than a Nik/Can 4.5-5.6 lens.
-
What setting did you have the IS set to? I found I had issues mostly with the IS in the past when set to continuous. When I turn it to shooting only, images seems to be way sharper. When set to continuous I found the photos to appear soft or slightly out of focus or blurred. This it true with the other lenses such as the 55-200mm as well.
I tried the OIS both on and off. I had AF-C and set to zone focus with a 3x3 square.
-
thanks for an honest review. I am starting to get used to the X-T2 with the 100-400 and it can be challenging to set up focus correctly. I would love to try a D500 and see how that works.
I'd be curious to know what you find for settings that work for you. I'm sure that's half my problem.
-
I'm really torn as to my first world problems, do I get the XF 100-400mm lens or do I continue in the direction of my Nikon and get lenses for it. As I said, first world problems! I have the X-T1 and X-T2 and quite a few of the XF lenses already and because I love the Fuji system so much I really want to go 100% and leave Nikon behind. I also own the Nikon D500 and it is a wonderful camera too!
I use my D500 for shooting hockey and other action sports and my Fuji for everything else, however, my longest lens is the 70-200 f2.8 and I will be embarking on a trip (expensive one to boot!) to the Great Bear Rainforest so I am in the process of finalizing my lenses to make the most of it. So with this in mind, I decided to rent the XF 100-400mm and take it to the Calgary Zoo to see how it worked.
My disclaimer. I am by no means a professional. I make mistakes with my settings, don't know a boat load of lens review 'tests' and couldn't identify the difference between a pixel and a pokemon. These are just my impressions of a lens I had for the weekend and how I felt about it after. These are my humble, amateurish opinions.
Settings- I usually shoot manual focus with Back Button focus set up in Manual and shutter trigger focus on AF-S and AF-C. I had ISO set to Auto, Aperture set as wide as I could and tried to keep shutter above the reciprocal of focal length as a guide. The performance was on Boost mode
Build- It is a well built piece of kit but doesn't have the same solid, rich feel that the 50-140 has and it reminds me of my XF 55-200 lens in build quality. Plasticky but not cheap. I had it on my X-T2 with battery booster grip and it balanced well but I don't think you'd want to use it on anything else. You have to use the lock as you experience lens creep when you are walking around.
Weight- The lens and camera with grip and batteries is heavy. Is it the same weight as the Nikon/Canon with extra batteries and the equivalent lens? Not a chance! As the Angry Photographer said, "Oddly enough you don't buy the Mirrorless system to be light, you're buying Fuji because it's o freaking fantastic!" Well Ok...he uses a few more colorful adjectives in there but you get the point. Asking about weight is a moot point. It's a big lens, it's going to weigh more. I felt it at the end of the day but it wasn't bad.
Focus- We went inside the Penguin hut (why they weren't outside is beyond me, I mean the Antarctic is a bit colder than Calgary but maybe we were too warm?) so the low light situation allowed me to test how it would cope. This lens really struggled in low light. The lens was hunting and couldn't seem to lock on. ISO was up around 12,800 so I had little hope for the images to turn out. As a result I didn't get any keepers.
We moved outside and again I never felt the lens quickly lock on. I kept thinking to myself that if these animals were actually moving I'd be really struggling. I was shooting handheld and had the OIS on and off at times and still had trouble attaining focus. The funny thing is that two of the sharpest image I had were when my granddaughter told me to take a picture of these birds so I swung the camera around and quickly snapped the pictures off. Maybe that was the trick, maybe I was holding on to the image too long.
1.4 TC- I used the XF 1.4 Teleconverter on it which turned it into an F/8 on the long end and I didn't notice any diminishment in image quality. Probably because my picture taking sucked, having the TC on there didn't change my level of suckitude for the better or worse. Trust the more talented when they say that IQ doesn't suffer.
Handheld vs Tripod- I think if you were to have the lens on a tripod you would get crazy good results but my trip to the GBR will have me on a boat where a tripod is not a possibility so I wanted to test the handheld. 'They' say you get 3-4 extra stops with the OIS on but apparently 'Thay' are much better/steadier than me because I experienced less than that.
Verdict- Well, every system has it's strengths and weakness and try as I might I don't think the XF100-400 and the Fuji system is quite there yet for the Wildlife or Action genre. For ME anyways! One thing I did love was that I didn't have to crop at all! I love this focal length!
At $2,300 CDN I just can't justify purchasing this lens when I know that the Nikon 300 PF at $2,500 with the D500 is a rock star and the 80-400 with the same camera is more solid.
I've attached some pics of the Zoo critters to give you an idea. There has been some post-processing done but not too much. A bump of the exposure meter here, a dab of clarity there. Since I can only load a few to the board, the rest are available for viewing here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/39537600@N04/albums/72157679634366666
-
Tried the X-T2 with 50-140 at another game but this time I was on the bench instead of shooting though plexi. These are JPG images using Providia (?)
Big difference! A bit of post to reduce the contrast and blacks as the fuji really saturates the image.
- GilBarib, Curiojo and Larry Bolch
-
3
-
I upgraded and still have both. The reason I upgraded and am happy with the T2 is the Autofocus and shorter delay in EVF blackout when shooting burst. I shoot a lot of action photos so this is a great choice for me.
If you don't need faster focus, video, or short blackout times then stay with the T1. Landscape, street, portrait...the T1 is still good enough.
I do love my T2 AND T1.
-
Out of curiosity, what settings did you use? The third one looks a bit soft so I'm thinking either shutter too slow (dogs notoriously don't stay still so you can snap away!) or aperture too shallow. As for Autofocus modes, I would use AF-C #5 Erratic and suddenly accelerating. At least 1/800s if the dog is moving left and right.
At 400mm (not sure what focal length you used), 45 ft from the subject an F/4 aperture will only provide approx 7" of depth of field in focus.
So if your pup is coming at you, you wouldn't get his entire head in focus.
Not sure if this helps.
-
Hockey is one of the hardest sports to photograph. Fast, erattic, crappy lighting, Refs and players getting in the way and if you're a common schmoe like me and not shooting in a pro rink, you are shooting through Plexi-glas. Plexi not only adds an extra stop of light but if you aren't shooting perpendicular through the glass, you will get a haze or cloud on your image that you can't remove in post. Oh and did I mention that most often plexi has puck marks and scuffs galore?
Yes, as a common guy shooting at a common rink, this is tough. So while it's sharper to shoot through a hole in the glass, just how does the X-T2 handle. Can you use it.
Well, you are going to have to do some post regardless to adjust the WB and possibly to bump up the exposure. I find anything over 5000 starts to incur too much noise.
Back Button focus doesn't work too well in fact almost all the images were off, however, by giving up control (gulp!) and switching to AF-C and allowing the AF to work when you press the shutter (AF-on still works in Manual mode) the images turned out much better.
I also discovered that JPG is much better than RAW for this. RAW had too much noise whereas JPG has a built in processor which makes the noise not as noticeable. A trade off is the images look a bit soft.
The biggest thing I found which was a surprise was how fast the buffer filled up. A quick burst and then it was full. What this means is that it's not a spray and pray tool which isn't a bad thing.
Although do-able, I will stick with my Nikon D500. Fuji isn't there yet. Pretty darn close but not as good as the DSLR. If the X-T2 is all you have, then you can still use it for hockey. Or talk nice to the rink rat in the hopes that he will let you cut a hole in his plexi!
Interesting story about image 141. The player celebrating had shot the puck and it hit the far post and then bounced ou tto his teammate who scored. The poor guy thought he had scored. Or...maybe he KNEW his teammate would so celebrated early!!
The last picture was not shot through plexi.
My settings were:
AF-C
AF-C setting of 5 for Eratic and suddenly accelerating/decelerating
1/1000s
F 3.2
ISO 5000/6400
AF Mode -Single point
The age group is Novice which is 7-8. Not fast but I also tried it on some older kids with the same result.
You may notice that some images are different WB, that's because I didn't have a preset made up.
Fuji X Raw Studio
in RAW conversion Fuji X-Trans Sensor
Posted
I just downloaded the X Raw Studio and have recently been playing with it. I think perhaps some people have misunderstood the use of the software, it won't replace Lightroom, Capture opne, etc, but is really used just to augment on the few files where you don't feel your raw converter is doing the fuji files justice. I have to agree that I was disappointed to see that it converts to jpg (or TIFF) as I was hoping for a RAW file so I could work with it more in Photoshop if necessary. Having a JPG means you limit yourself to the available post processing.
I also agree that downloading images to your folder, hooking the camera up, and then going to the folder is a bit of a workflow hinderance but again, I believe X Raw Studio is ideally used for just a few files.
However, it does do a great job for it's intention. I'm including a picture of my dog whicch is notorious for trying to capture as he is a combination of black and grey, a sensors nightmare! He's old so please ignore his little bumps on his eye, I love him none the less. The first one is how the image was captured in Lightroom and the second one was using X Raw Studio. I changed the film simulation and converted it. No other post processing was done.
Just my thoughts.