konzy

It's my first wedding with my Fuji. I'm a guest, so no pressure, but the bride asked me to film the ceremony and take some pictures afterwards. I've got a bunch of lenses but I'm not sure which one to take, to serve both the video and photography needs. I'd love some good advice from experienced wedding shooters! Cameras: - X-T1 - X100T Lenses: - 14mm f/2.8 - 23mm f/1.4 - 35mm f/2 - 60mm f/2.4 macro - 80mm f/2.8 macro - 135mm f/2 (Samyang, manual focus) - 18-135mm Also, I love the Samyang and how good it is for portraits. I'd love to take it with me, but I'm concerned about using a MF lens during a wedding. Is it hard? Thanks for the precious input! Konzy

Here is a reworked version!

Looks like I'm getting better at every post Here is another shot of Orion's nebula, taken in Switzerland on Christmas eve. It's much better than my first attempt, a few weeks ago! The mountain skies were much clearer and less polluted than the city center where I live. Gear and settings: - Fuji X-T1, tripod and Samyang 135mm f/2 at f/2.8 - 150 "light" exposures of 1 second each, ISO 1600 - 60 "dark" exposures at the same settings (to remove noise) - RAW files converted to TIF in Lightroom - TIF files aligned and stacked in DeepSkyStacker - Final TIF file cropped and adjusted in Lightroom (curves, saturation)

Indeed, I was actually surprised, as I thought the device was USB 3.0 compatible. But it's not, and sadly, it bottlenecks the transfer speed. However, I still find the device very usable and the transfer speed decent. I did the following "real life" test: - 1164 files transfered (582 RAW files ~33 Mb each, and 582 JPG files ~3-5 Mb each) - 19.6 GB in total (21.1 billion bytes) - From a SanDisk Ultra SDXC, Class 10 UHS-I(80 MB/s), to a Samsung USB 3.0 thumbdrive - The transfer speed was about 37 minutes long, so about 8-9 MB/s. 37 minutes for 20 GB of data and 582 pictures, I think it's okay! Of course I'd love having USB 3.0 to reduce the transfer speed, but while traveling, I think it's not a problem as you often have 37 minutes to spare!

Great review! I'm glad to read you enjoyed your trip and have no regret about your gear selection

Yes, I believe that's why photography is an awesome hobby: the artistic possibilities are endless, and the technical aspects can also be a challenge. Some people like to shoot automatic, some don't; some people spend hours on post-production, some shoot in JPEG. Some crop, some move their butt. I guess there's no bad or good thing, but endless possibilities and, finally, the freedom to enjoy photography! I can't help but wonder how the greatest photographers of the past century would react and what they'd think today, seeing how the technology evolved, what we can achieve and how popular photography has become

Yeah, I hear that often, like "if you ave to crop, you weren't close enough" or "you're photo wasn't good enough"... This is, IMO, a statement from another time, that doesn't apply anymore today. Point a camera to someone 50 years ago, and you obtain a nice Magnum-like candid street portrait. Point a camera at someone today, and most likely you'll have a macro shot of his hand and a "Go away, you creep" thrown at you. I have the feeling that only the poorest countries of this world still have the curiosity of the camera. Most of street candids I see on the Internet are from poor countries in Asia or Africa, often children. Here in Germany, I think people would call the police if you try to take their portrait... Anyway, I noticed this statement about cropping often comes from photographers who mainly do street photography in a very orthodox way. When you do macro or landscape, you can't always get closer or reframe the way you want, because the insect would be gone, or because a tree is blocking the view, or because there's a cliff. Even when you do street, sometimes you take what you see, and then you analyse your picture and wish that car wasn't here. Cropping isn't a bad thing to me, just like increasing the contrast or switching to black and white. It's just reframing the picture afterwards, because you change your mind, notice something else that wasn't worth being shown in the frame, or because the cropped scene just looks better to you. Who cares if it's cropped? The photo itself is a crop from the real world. Would it be a better photo to frame in 35mm, change your mind, put a 50mm on your camera, and take the picture? That's an advantage of 24mpix cameras over 16 or 12. If you crop, you'll have enough room for printing. I personally don't print anything bigger than a paper sheet, but some people might need it. I agree with what you said about better cameras. I saw a lot of people with expansive gear, producing not so great pictures. That's why I do more and more film: the cameras are certainly not the latest, so you need to move your butt and get a nice picture by yourself. Technology won't save you!

I have an X-T1. I'm a happy photographer! It has more features and muscles than the X-E1, some are very important to me like weather sealing and tilt screen. The X-T20 is also a great camera, one step below in the product range, but newer than the X-T1. I agree with milandro, most of the newest features of the X-T20/X-T2/X-Pro2 aren't that useful, if you don't have heavy autofocus and cropping needs. The X-T1 is still a very capable camera!

I use one of the drawers of my Ikea PAX closet. I like this system, because it limits the risk of dropping something on the floor. It's about 50x60 cm, so enough space for my lenses, bodies and accessories. The only thing I can't store are lens hoods, they are such a pain... They sit in a shoe box somewhere. I doubled the drawer with a thick felt dining set, that I cut to fit the drawer. For the lenses, I crafted some supports with cardboard and gaffer tape. These supports allow me to store the lenses horizontally, without them moving when I open/close the drawer!

Lovely shot! I used to live not far from the Sacré Cœur, it's really beautiful at night, dominating the city

Things that can drain your battery: - OIS: I don't know how power hungry the 80mm is, but compared to the 35 and the 16, it's certainly much more, since they don't have OIS! - OIS mode: check what MrT suggested, that might be the cause to your problems! - The cold, if you shoot outside - The "high performance" mode of your camera. If you're not shooting Santa's reindeers taking off, you probably don't need this high performance mode. - The LCD. When I want to save some battery, I just use the "Viewfinder + Eye Sensor" mode. Also, you can keep the brightness level lower. - Turning the camera on and off Mirrorless suck as regard batteries, but on the other hand, they're small and inexpensive. I always carry at least 2 when I'm out shooting! By the way, the battery indicator is a lie...

Thanks for your feedback! Richard, I wondered the same. I mean, the noise it makes is surprising, and make the lens look cheap...

I use a smartphone app called Star Chart, but there are tons of other similar apps available. Basically, it's a start map that shows you what you are pointing at. Then, you need to use your eyes to find the object in the sky (if it's visible), or nearby stars to guess where it is (for non visible objects). Usually I take a few test shots to center as much as possible the object in the photo. For the ballhead, I was using the one from my Sirui tripod, but I feared it would drift, indeed. So I bought a video "ballhead", that is also easier for astrophotography (https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B0711J4YFV/). If I need a little push on the left, for instance, it's far more precise than a classic ballhead, since you can control both directions independently. I'm glad you enjoyed it! It's a fascinating world, indeed, but you need motivation... Right now, I don't have any, it's way to cold in Bavaria at night! But a couple nights ago, I noticed Orion was out, in front of my balcony. I thought it could be worth a try, so I just got my tripod out, set up my X-T1 and the Samyang 135/2 on it, aimed around the belt or Orion and wow! A wonderful purple nebula (M42), clearly visible on the liveview. So I took a few shots, and I'm pleased with the result! It's a very basic setup, only a tripod, and I'll definitely try again with slower lenses. Luckily, the Samyang is a very fast lens (f/2), so that helped a lot, but I wonder what the other can do. Of course, it's a bit blurry, very noisy and slightly out of focus. But considering I did it with just a tripod, in a big city, on my balcony with a major street below, I'm quite surprised it's not that bad! I'm sure you can find some objects out there to photograph as well. Orion is very easy to find, and even with crappy conditions, you can get something nice

Here is another example at minimum focus distance, and 3 apertures: f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6

Hey guys, I made a quick & dirty review with a few pictures (+exifs). You might want to check it out! I think I'll add the RAW files too. The out of focus area surprised me too. It's kind of swirly, less than these old Russian lenses, but still quite visible. The bokeh is onion-shaped on the edges. Meh. I'm not sure if I dislike it, or if it's just different and I'll get used to it eventually. I'll see! Anyway, for portrait photographers, that could be a deal breaker. Below are a couple examples of the onion and the swirliness. Regarding image quality, though, it's excellent! I still need to master the autofocus, especially in the 0,25-0,5m area, and test it again with the X-T1 firmware update I just installed. But so far, I'm impressed! Can't wait to test the lens on moving targets – bees, butterflies and spiders. Note: I used Iridient X-Transformer to process the RAF files, then a few adjustments in Lightroom (curves and Astia film simulation). Cheers! Konzy f/2.8 1/500 sec 80mm ISO 500 f/3.2 1/450 sec 80mm ISO 400 f/2.8 1/200 sec 80mm ISO 640 f/5.6 1/250 sec 80mm ISO 1600

Thanks Mike. I don't own the 50-140, so it's a first for me. My other OIS lenses seem to be of a more silent generation! In the meantime I found this topic, that confirms that it is a normal behaviour: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4229423

It was tested by the guy behind Fuji vs Fuji blog, on a set of lenses, with examples: https://www.fujivsfuji.com/mcex-11-vs-mcex-16/ But I doubt the 56mm can be a very good macro lens. That's really not its purpose, and macro extension rings are sadly limited by the laws of physics. My advice would be to use a dedicated macro lens. For scanning slides, perhaps a 1:2 would be enough? In that case, buy the 60mm from Fuji. It's small, sharp, awesome and is now easy to be found used, thanks to the newer 80mm. Otherwise, if you need 1:1, there are different options: - Native lenses: Fuji 80/2.8 (but far too expansive if you just want to scan slides), Samyang 100/2.8 (cheaper), Zeiss Touit 50/2.8, Meike 85mm (I think it's new too) - Adapted lenses from other brands. You can mount barely anything from Nikon, Canon, Tamron, Sigma... The old (and the new) 90mm lenses from Tamron are great 1:1 macro lenses (the oldest models are only 1:2 though), and can be found used in lots of different mounts. - The Raynox adapters. You don't get the quality of a dedicated macro lens, but you get close and it's not too expansive. Good luck! Konzy

Haven't checked this topic for a while. Thanks everyone for your inputs! That's very interesting, and indeed, I guess it depends on a lot of factors. Chucktin, I wasn't aware of this new "feature"... That's sad!

Hello! Today I finally got my hands on the new XF 80mm macro. I went to probably all the photo shops of my town, until I found one. They were quite sad to see it go, since it was their first and last XF 80mm in stock... and they had it for only 2 days until my hold up! I noticed something that I have never seen on other stabilised lens so far (Fuji and other brands). I don't know if it's an issue or just how the lens is designed -- but it's kind of annoying. When the camera is turned off, or when the lens is not in use (e.g. when you're looking at your pictures), some lens elements can move freely inside. When you raise the lens, for instance from horizontal to vertical, these lens elements start falling within the lens, with a little "poc". Okay, they're not really skydiving, and it's probably just a few millimetres. But that's kind of annoying I assume these are the lens elements that are used by the OIS, and that when it's not in use, the lens elements are not held in place by "the Force". But I'm quite surprised by this behaviour. Does anyone has the same "issue" with this lens? I can only assume it's normal, as the Fuji guy who sold me the lens confirmed it, and there is no way this lens could have passed the quality assessment tests without anyone noticing this... But just in case... Thanks! Konzy Edit: I made a short video to show the moving elements:

A lot has already been said, and you seem to had finally found what you needed. But just in case someone has the same question... I have both lenses, and I wouldn't say one is better than the other, as they both serve a different purpose. The 55-200 is a great zoom lens. The IQ is very good, judging by my recent tests. If you just need a light telephoto lens (compared to other options) with a good image quality and don't need WR, go for this lens. When I go hiking in Bavaria, I usually take the 14mm and the 55-200 lens, and I'm a happy man! The 18-135 is another story. It reminds me a bit of the Nikon 18-200, which was a very versatile lens. As someone said above, it's a Swiss army knife! The WR, the OIS, the versatile focal range... it's a great companion for travel. I think it's a good lens, globally speaking. It's definitely not bad, and it's not the best either, but it works well. I have made some pretty nice pictures with it. I would definitely bring the 18-135 to a "once in a lifetime trip" -- but it depends where! If it involves a lot of nature, like in a demanding environment, then yes. I don't want to change lens in the middle of a desert or jungle, and I might need to do alternate landscape and wildlife shots. But if I'm going to a nice city, like New York, where I would occasionally need some reach, then I would take the 55-200 instead. And probably use my X100T (+WCL) for most of the shots (mostly street) and the 14mm for the landscape shots. Also, I believe that what matters most in a once in a lifetime trip is not image quality, but the ability to catch moments. And the 18-135 gives you far more versatility and flexibility in that regards, due to the focal range and the WR. Sure, you might loose a bit of image quality down to the pixel level, but who cares? You were here, you made a nice picture of a beautiful place... it's all that matters A few examples with the 18-135: With the 55-200:

All cards from all manufacturers can be faulty... For each brand, I guess you can find someone here who had a problem in the past. For the X-T2, you can try using the relatively new UHS-II cards, which are faster than the standard SD card. It's useful for video. I had one for my X-T1 and it was great... until it died, 1 year after buying it. Faulty SD card? Immature technology? Lack of luck? Aliens? I think, to minimize the risk, that you should take advantage of the dual slots in the X-T2 to have a backup (could it be the reason why your camera was suddenly slow? If one of the cards used as backup is slower, perhaps that could create a bottleneck?). Some people even advise to use 2 different brands, one for each slot. I think that's completely stupid, a faulty card being a faulty card, whatever the manufacturer is (unless you take some unknown and exotic manufacturer), and the probability that both cards fail at the same time is close to zero... I believe SanDisk, Transcend, Lexar are viable options.

Here is a comparison between 3 RAF files, with 3 different sharpening settings (the rest is SOOC): Sharpening = 35 Sharpening = 67 Sharpening = 100 All in all, I agree with what BobJ said: as long as you don't go crazy on sharpening (I'd say you should stay below 50), you shouldn't see any worm. I haven't seen any difference between LR 2018 and the previous version (I just made the update on my Windows computer and compared 2 files processed with these 2 versions).

Here is an exemple of a RAF file (X-T1) I took recently, and processed: - As a RAF file in Lightroom + 30 sharpening (I just changed the amount), exported as full-size JPG: Lightroom.jpg - As a DNG file in Iridient X-Transformer + Low sharpening (or Medium? I don't remember, but whatever), no additional change in Lightroom, exported as full-size JPG: Iridient.jpg Can you see a difference at 1:1? Here are a few differences I spotted while comparing both JPG: In the example above, Iridient seems to do a better job rendering the fence, which is more visible on the pillar. Lightroom's fence is a bit less visible. Here, it looks like the chromatic aberration is slightly stronger on the Iridient version. It might be because the settings are different, I haven't checked. It's details anyway. Also, the flag colors are different. Iridient seems to render colors in a better way: the yellow is less white, and the cyan/green band is also more saturated. You can also check the various blue elements of the picture. They appear more saturated in the Iridient version. Now, this can be fixed quite easily in Lightroom, by playing with the channel mixer. And perhaps it's the Iridient version that is slightly over saturated? Colors are very subjective, so there is no right and wrong here In this area, you'll see that Iridient processes the greenish color of the fence differently. Lightroom's version is less saturated. I think this example shows the main reason why everyone says Lightroom is a bit sub-par when it comes to RAF processing, even though it's very subtle in this example. Also, I just remembered that I applied a low noise reduction on the Iridient version, so it's a bit less grainy, but well, whatever! Now, all of this is pixel peeping, and these effects might be more or less present depending the context. Now, is it worth it to invest $30 (and more time in post-processing, and more files on your drives) for a software like Iridient? That's up to you But if you're not a pro printing your photographs on walls, I'm not sure it's really useful.

Hey guys, I'm under the impression that I see more and more watermarked images, for instance on various Fuji-related Facebook groups I follow. They used to be some simple transparent text, in a corner or right in the middle, but I now see more and more elaborated watermarks like the one below: Do you use a watermark? Why? I know it's an old debate, but here are a few additional questions I've been asking myself: - If you use one, do you use it in a preventive way, or because in the past someone used your work without your permission? - Don't you think it kind of ruins a picture? - Don't you care that other people could use your work? - Do you use workarounds, like, "never publish a high resolution file"? - Is the watermark mostly for the sake of intellectual property, or is it more a financial matter (for people who get money from their photographic work)? - I often see watermarks on pictures that, honestly, have nothing really special... or that are not beautiful (highly subjective judgment). In that case, could the watermark affect negatively the photographer? In otherwords, posting crap and labeling it with a watermark to make it more professional and less snapshoty. Thanks! -K

I just purchased the latest version of this Ravpower Filehub. I wanted something inexpensive, small, easy to use, that helps me backup my pictures when I'm traveling. During a recent trip to New York, I tried backing up my pictures with an iPad and an SD card adapter, in order to transfer everything in the cloud, but the transfer speed was super slow, and the iPad capacity (16 Gb) was too small, sadly. This Ravpower Filehub seems quite different, and much more useful! I purchased a 128 Gb USB 3.0 thumb drive from Samsung (which apparently looks pretty tough and advertised as "waterproof", which can be handy while traveling), which I can plug in the Filehub. Then I insert the SD Card I want to backup, and with the app on my phone I simply copy paste the files I want to backup from the SD card to the USB drive. I did a test with about 100 Mb of RAW files and a USB 2 thumb drive. It took about 10-15 seconds to transfer, which is not very fast. However, I'll do the test again with the USB 3 drive, hopefully it will be faster! The Filehub also offers other advantages: - It's an external battery, which means it can function on its own but also charge your smartphone or your camera (if it supports USB charging) - There is an Ethernet slot, and the Filehub has Wi-Fi capabilities. This means that it can act as a router: plug an Ethernet cable, and share the connection via Wi-Fi. It can be handy in some situations where there is only an Ethernet plug and no Wi-Fi (even though we're in 2017...). - It's quite small, and very handy if I don't want to take an iPad with me. - It's a bargain: 36€ on Amazon.de..! - You can use your existing hard drive or USB thumb drive, so no need to invest into something new. - There are other features, which are not useful to me, like video or photo sharing. It's actually a miniature NAS, so it can act as a media server. I'll do a few more real life tests in my next travel, but for the price, it really looks like a handy little travel companion! Has anyone been using it too? K