BobJ

I had this problem with my X-T3. The bad news is I had to have it repaired. The value shown in the viewfinders is the correct one. Knowing that it is possible to live with the problem. I did that for some time.

ISO invariance is a bit of a myth. All sensors are effectively ISO invariant. ISO is inherited from methods used to measure the sensitivity of film and is used in digital to indicate the amount of amplification applied to the charge accumulated on the capacitors in the photodiodes. Think of it like turning up the volume on an am radio. Each capacitor is charged during the exposure. When the capacitor is fully charged the brightest tone that can be shown is fixed. If the ISO is raised, the exposure is stopped before the capacitor is fully charged , hence the darkest tone, set by the noise, is pushed up the scale and dynamic range is reduced. It is possible to use more than one capacitor, each one having a value best suited to the ISO chosen. I think this is what is happening here. At ISO 800 the diode is switched over to a smaller value capacitor. I don't actually know that for sure though, but as a retired engineer it seems to make the most sense to me. By the way, circuit noise is almost non existent compared with the 'shot noise' from the random nature of the photons hitting the photodiodes. That is why bigger sensors with larger photodiodes exhibit less noise. The more photons captured the lower the noise. The base ISO is the sensitivity that the manufacturer has set to make best use of the maximum dynamic range possible with the capacitor and amplifier and is always the lowest value shown on the ISO control that is not an 'extended' one (up or down). Upping the ISO will not result in lower noise. You can easily prove that yourself with a bit of pixel peeping on the raw files (not jpeg as the noise reduction algorithm will confuse things).

I would suspect the cable first. Any good quality usbc to usbc cable should work.

My guess is that although stabilisation is turned off, the sensor assembly has to be kept in place by the system and also the gyros are probably working full time, as otherwise they would take too long to spin up when stabilisation is re-enabled.

Many strobes can act as slaves They can be triggered by the light of the on camera flash.

The 18-55 f2.8. You should be able to find one secondhand.

Sorry, I was wrong. I just tried downloading the firmware for the 16-55. It is zipped and the instruction is to unzip it. Once this is done there is a folder with the two files inside. The question is should you put the folder on the card or should you open the folder and just copy the two files on? The Fuji instructions do not help, so I guess try both. As the instructions on the Fuji download site does not mention opening the folder up, I would try putting the intact folder on first. unfortunately I don't have the 16-55, so I can't try it out.

Bear in mind that the Fuji 100-400 is a monster when compared to the 70-300. Personally, for travelling, I would choose the 70-300 despite its more modest max aperture.

Unfortunately it's not possible to recommend just one strength of filter. You will probably need several. However, to start with, try an nd64. I would stay clear of variables. The cheap ones should definitely be avoided. Also, they don't work very well with wide angle lenses. Something to bear in mind in case you buy such a lens in the future.

It looks to me that the test shots were underexposed. Maybe the exposure compensation was set. Noise is absolutely tied to exposure.

This is a strange problem indeed. The only thing I can think of is to use a different computer, or try the Xapp method. I have an x-t5 and have not encountered this problem. The clue might be in your mention of zipped files. If memory serves me, the downloaded file is not zipped and does not need unpacking. I am pretty sure that there will be only one file too. I will try downloading later today to see if I am correct.

I assume you have formatted both cards in the camera. Try that again anyway. You may have a faulty card, even though it is new. Do you have some alternative cards, or can borrow some? What does the error message say?

I have owned quite a few cameras over many years (I am 74 and had my first camera aged 18). Apart from accidents I have had the following problems. The metering in my SRT101 failed. My Minolta xd7 suffered from peeling leatherette, but otherwise was my favourite camera ever. My Mamiya 645 1000d 80mm lens developed sticking aperture leaves. My Mamiya 645 Super shutter failed spectacularly- shutter blinds hanging out! My Minolta Dynax7D battery cover became impossible to latch and I had to tape it up to prevent the battery falling out. My Fuji X-T1 flash sync failed and I had the main board replaced under warranty. My X- T3 developed a faulty exposure compensation dial and I had to pay for that one. Probably not bad for 56 years of photography!

Hello FujiBiker. Welcome. I am a fellow photo dinosaur (the grandchildren are convinced that they were around when I was young) from the West Midlands.

The 16-80 should be sharper as it is a 5 to 1 zoom as opposed to a 7.5 to 1. But if the results from your 18-135 meet your needs I would stick with it.

I have just tried this with my X-T5. The test photo gave 4500k. It really depends on what you call 'daylight'. Depending on the weather, time of year and time of day it can cover a wide range of temperatures. I guess Fuji decided that something a little warmer suits the average person better, so they changed it.

I have just looked at my X-T2. Yes, the peak highlights are hidden in the T2, when the first pressure is taken, as opposed to the T5. The viewfinder information is partially cleared in both cameras and appears to be the same to me. I don't know of a way to alter the behavior.

I have tried both. Stilck with Lightroom and enjoy the much better file management and the new automatic masking, not to mention that you also get Photoshop. If you are worried about worms, buy the cheap X Transformer and run the files through that first. The reason why files look better in C1 before being tweaked is a difference in philosophy. Adobe give you a flat looking result that can be changed manually or with any of the Fujifilm presets, or indeed a preset of your own (which can be applied automaticallyon import). Whereas C1 give you something that they think you might like.

Are you sure that you have the correct file? Format the card in the camera and go back to the Fuji site to download a fresh file.

Yes, the barrel of my 16-80 is very loose and will 'trombone' if I carry the camera with the lens pointing down. Not only that, but at the 80mm end it wobbles about by over 1mm. Strangely that doesn't seem to affect the image quality. It is ironic that the 70-300 is fitted with a zoom lock but doesn't need it and, despite the much longer inner barrel, doesn't wobble either. It's a bad fault with the 16-80. On my next trip to London I intend to take the lens to the Fuji House of Photography and complain loudly about it.

This is obvious I guess, but have you tried replacing the sd cards?

When I used my 16-80 in low light for the first time with an x-t3 I was amazed. It's difficult to calculate the benefit in stops, and how Fuji measure that I don't know, but I can use much longer shutter speeds than would be possible otherwise. I now have the x-t5 which, although it has the addition of IBIS, has a higher resolution sensor. I will make some tests when I get the time. Should be interesting. In practice of course there is subject movement, which means that stabilisation is only useful with static subjects. I wonder what test rig camera manufacturers use to measure it. I am sure that there is marketing hype, but it does work we'll.

I think that you must have had a faulty camera.The eye detection on my x-t5 is very impressive.

I just read a comment in The Online Photographer (I highly recommend this blog by the way) that suggests that Fuji will not sell many of these. What do you think? Is it too specialist? I would love one but cannot afford it right now, which is just as well!

In ye olde days of film I had to carry two bodies if I wanted to shoot in colour and mono. A right pain in the back. Medium format was better as the camera had interchangeable film backs. But would I want to back to that? Not really. Only if the gains were more than the loss. I am not convinced that they are.