Jump to content

abjurina

Members
  • Content Count

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

abjurina last won the day on February 11 2020

abjurina had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About abjurina

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. I wouldn't call anything an "unusual field of view". I mean, it's whatever you are expecting to see when you use that particular lens. It's not like some sort of crazy 8mm fisheye perspective. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. Just bought this lens for use on my xt-10. It makes the camera about the size of the 100 series. It focuses faster then the 35mm (which isn't hard to do), and the field of view is terrific for matching to what we naturally see. I was very surprised at how good it is. For mine refurbished on Amazon for 199 U.S. Dollars. Couldn't argue with that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  3. I ended up getting the 27mm in the end. So far, I really like this lens. The focal perspective feels very natural and it's quite responsive! Image quality is a good as most any x lens. I'm also surprised that I don't miss the aperture ring, but it makes sense with keeping things smaller. A perfect lens for the x-10 as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. I own the 35 and just purchased the 27. From my perspective of mostly people shots, the 27 is great for just about anything and the 35 is now only going to come out in lower light and when I'm doing professional portrait work. That 27 is way better than I could have imagined. The focal length and small size would seem perfect for street work.
  5. Ignore that last post. I am and idiot for not reading the original Poster's remarks: and I agree completely, stop waxing, Fuji!
  6. That's why it's always going to be a subjective thing for all of us. I actually LOVE processing all of my images, and even when I shoot JPEG, I still find myself processing them in LR. It's so quick and easy to do with a program like that. For some, Post-processing your work with your own style is what can help you distinguish yourself from other photographers. Of course, some people could care less about that last bit, but even the great film shooters pushed and pulled their negatives towards their artistic vision. Each to his/her own, right?
  7. I feel like the 18-55 is a love-hate situation for weddings. It's great for a poor man's wide angle and the image quality is really nice. It's also a heck of a lot lighter and cheaper than the 16-50 2.8. But I don't put that much stock in the long end, since that is what my 56mm is for. For most weddings it comes out for family formals and receptions with group dancing, but as others have mentioned the AF struggles in lower light compared to other lenses.
  8. It's all in your style and the venue. I own the x-t10 and x-t1. However, the x-t10 stays in the bag as an emergency backup. It's not fun to jump between both cameras, since they handle different. For me, I just plan my lenses accordingly for the average wedding situation: 35 for getting ready (18-55 if space is tight) 56 for ceremony (55-200 if reach is needed) ceremony, 18-55 for formals (could use the 35 here), and 35 or 18-55 for receptions depending on the venue and lighting. But you could easily figure it out with the 35 and 90, but I'd be nervous about having enough width with just
  9. Ken Rockwell never actually takes a photo with his camera. He simply pre-visualizes one and it appears on the camera's Memory Card.
  10. Yeah, see I'm really not a fan of direct flash indoors unless it's in a controlled studio environment or off-camera. But besides my preferences, the past several weddings have been high-vaulted ceilings in the reception venue. I've found that manual bounce at a higher power setting (like 1/2 power) and zoomed all the way to 105mm has produced a pretty good result not unlike what I've gotten from ttl bounce from my Canons. Anymore, I'm also finding that I prefer different types of looks at different parts of the reception such as off-camera flash during the first dances, bounce flash during the
  11. I think that when I sit back and weigh all of the pros and cons of Fuji vs DSLR or another kind of camera, it all comes back to the "fun factor". My X cameras are just so fun to use for both my business and my hobby. The ability to travel light with amazing image quality, great manual focus options (that's right, I said Manual focus), and simple controls are what keeps me grounded with satisfaction. Each time I reach for a dslr, I am reminded on how it can certainly do the job of the fuji perhaps better, it doesn't come near being as enjoyable to use. And when it's all said and done, if you do
  12. By the way, here are the results I got from this past wedding with the Fuji 11mm extension tube and the 56 1.2. So glad I bought the extension tube. Well worth it!
  13. Here you go. Started this a while ago: http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/index.php?/topic/395-Fuji-X-Wedding-Photography-Chat
  14. A lot of battery life has to do with how you shoot and use the camera. At my last wedding, I somehow got about 500 frames on one battery before I had to change it. The wedding before that I think I averaged 350 frames per battery but was chimping more and using more OIS lenses. Again, it all depends.
  15. As much as I can respect an opinion on dslr vs mirrorless, my initial question did not ask about whether the camera was a good option, I am inquiring as to whether a wide prime would be an adequate low-light performer for reception shots. I've shot plenty of mirrorless-only weddings and my gear has not failed me. I'm just looking to improve my results and workflow. A dslr is NOT my preference anymore.
×
×
  • Create New...