Jump to content

BobJ

Members
  • Content Count

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

BobJ last won the day on May 21 2018

BobJ had the most liked content!

About BobJ

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

705 profile views
  1. Not sure what went wrong for you. I have an X-T3 and do not have any real exposure problems. The XT-30 is smaller and lighter but the X-t3 is, as you say, weather resistent and has a much better viewfinder. I would say plump for the X-T3 if you can get one within your budget.
  2. The firmware update may be coincidence. I had this experience with an x-t2. it was caused by a faulty SD card. Swopping them around will not work. The bad one will cause this fault in either slot. Replace both in the first instance and see what happens. I do hope that it is that simple for you too.
  3. So Fuji released another firmware update on November 11th - 1.02. I haven't got the patience to repeat the exhaustive tests I did before but with some quick tests I believe that the issue has been resolved. The 16-80 now shows no more shutter induced softness than the 18-55 and this is such a small effect that it can only be seen by careful pixel peeping at 100%.
  4. Thanks for bringing this to the attention of others. I recently bought the 16-80. I have done some tests with my X-T2 on the 18-55 and the 16-80 on and off a tripod and with ES and MS for each case, taking three images each time to try to eliminate other variables. I switched the OIS off when the 18-55 was on the tripod but did not switch it off (in the camera settings) for the 16-80. I set both lenses to 23mm and used iso to vary the exposure. The results (dozens of images - took ages) showed that the 18-55 was affected. Some shots were slightly sharper with the electronic shutter. This appli
  5. A good copy of this lens should be very sharp, but I have seen a bad copy. A friend bought an x-t2 together with an 18-55mm. Compared to my copy it was awful! So Fuji do make the odd bad lens. However the results didn't look quite like yours. I suspect you do have a bad copy but before you jump to conclusions you might like to do some better controlled tests. Remove any filter that you have attached. Poor quality filters can give this kind of effect. Take the camera outside as obviously you don,t want to shoot through glass. Select a distant view so that depth of field doesn't matter too much.
  6. I rarely use video but a couple of days ago I wanted some of the grandchildren. To my surprise after about 10 seconds the video would stop with a write error. this was at 25fps HD. I tried all sorts including different cards. Eventually on a whim I changed the full Hd movie output from SD FHD HDMI FHD to SD-HDMI FHD, tried to take a video, which of course didn't work, then changed the setting back to SD FHD HDMI FHD. Voila! I don't know what that was about but It's been ok since. I hope that this may help someone else. I guess cameras nowadays are not really cameras. They are computers with a
  7. It's a good question. No, I would'nt support it. Like others I "down graded" from full frame to save the weight and bulk. I think that the apsc sensor size is the most sensible compromise. I think that Fujifilm made some very astute design and marketing decisions. You have to remember that they don't make the silicon for their sensors, only the filter array, and then only for the apsc cameras. Like almost all other camera makers except Canon they rely on Sony for their sensors. Sony have huge wafer manufacturing factories with the attendant advantages of scale and so they have a virtual mo
  8. I handled an X-H1 for a few minutes at the Photo Show on Monday. The thing about it that immediately impressed me was the viewfinder. It's seriously good. I can't afford one though - oh well.
  9. Wow it's a minefield isn't it? I really can't add anything other than to agree that the main benefit of carbon fibre is said to be vibration damping. A tripod forms a torsion spring (try twisting the head of extended tripods, it's a good way to compare their stability) attached to a mass - the camera. As such it will ring at its resonant frequency when something disturbs it. A lossy material like wood or carbon fibre will damp the oscillations better. Having said that everyone got on just fine with aluminium before carbon fibre came along. So I think it's probably a bit academic and the carbon
  10. Hi Kimballistic. With respect I don't think that you have quite understood my point, which maybe I made poorly. I agree that "very bad" or "excellent" are scientifically meaningless. However exact measurements of lens performance are not really relevant since in the scenario you mention the lens would only be the limiting factor if it had an MTF that was huge compared to the sensor's, so that the product of the two was mostly determined by the lens. This is never likely to happen in practice. My point is that the system resolution is always a product of the lens and sensor resolutions so a hig
  11. Sorry, but this sounds like bull****. The fact is that the sytem resolution is a product of the lens resolution and the sensor resolution and neither is limited by the other. The system MTF is the product of the sensor MTF, the lens MTF and the MTF of any other component such as an anti-aliasing filter (not present in Fuji cameras). Obviously if a lens was very bad then that product would remain low with an increase in sensor resolution. However the Fuji lenses are mostly excellent so I doubt that they could limit the system that much. Professor Bob Newman explained the physics very clearly in
  12. I have just acquired a 56mm. At f1.2 the centre is very sharp but the extreme edges are fairly soft. By f2.8 the edges even up. The lens is essentially a portrait lens and I did expect that sort of behavior from it, which is common in such lenses. Also the test was made with a flat target. Many lenses have field curvature which means that a flat target test will be misleading. However it should be sharp in the centre.
  13. In the case of one edge being worse than the others, this could well be a lens collimation fault where one or more elements are badly aligned in your particular example. I have suffered this myself, although it wasn't a Fuji lens. Despite many people swearing by their 35mm f1.4, the copy I have anyway is definitely not one of Fujis best designs for sharpness. But sharpness is only one aspect of a lens. There is a huge price difference between Leica and Fuji lenses. The Fuji lenses are excellent for the price but you cannot expect them to compete with what are essentially hand made, money n
  14. Well the 10-24 is a lot more useful than a 16 for the obvious reason that it covers more focal lengths! Only you will know whether your personal style will benefit but I find that a lot of my work makes use of around 20 to 24mm and the longer focal lengths of the 55-200 with occasional use of wider down to 10. I believe that the 10-24 is considerably larger and heavier than the 16 though.
  15. Regarding the raw conversion question. From what I have read about Luminar, it has a different and simpler approach to Adobe Camera Raw as used in Lightroom and as yet does not have any cataloguing tool. Capture One Pro 10 is said to be one of the best but is considerably more expensive than Luminar. I use Lightroom and for some images X-Transformer for conversion. I also use Photoshop which is why the Adobe subscription model is ok for me. Use the jpegs for now or convert the raw to DNG with adobe's free tool, or even better, X -Transformer. Then you can use your existing version of Lightroom
×
×
  • Create New...