abjurina
-
Posts
97 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Store
Everything posted by abjurina
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Ignore that last post. I am and idiot for not reading the original Poster's remarks: and I agree completely, stop waxing, Fuji!
- 60 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- waxy skin
- plastic skin
- (and 2 more)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 the 35 in tight spaces.
-
Ken Rockwell never actually takes a photo with his camera. He simply pre-visualizes one and it appears on the camera's Memory Card.
-
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 tosses and a little of both during the whole-room dancing.
-
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 don't enjoy what you do, however perfect or imperfect it may be, then what's the point?
-
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!
-
Here you go. Started this a while ago: http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/index.php?/topic/395-Fuji-X-Wedding-Photography-Chat
-
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.
-
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.
-
@trenton, I hear you loud and clear on that one. I've got the 16 in my sites as a rental for the next wedding. It will likely be a purchase for next tax season though. :-)
-
The last wedding I did I was getting poor response from my wider 18-55 at 2.8. I switched to the 35 1.4 and was able to get results at the EXACT settings that you mentioned: 1.4 at 6400 ISO 1/60th. However, I prefer a little more width like I was getting from my 18-55 at 18. Trying to determine if I could get away with manual focus for the dance shots and if it warrants perhaps purchasing a manual focus wide angle, like the rokinon 12mm for this.
-
Anybody out there try using manual focus for weddings? Particularly receptions? I'm trying to find a better way to achieve better focus when the lights go really low. Even with a flash, I'm not getting focus-assist with the fuji, so I'm wondering if anyone else has tried manual focusing at all and in particular, using perhaps a 3rd party lens to do it? Anyone?
-
Yep. You might just be the only one in the whole world.
-
Just a thought that there might be something going on with their sensor hocus pocus that prevents them from doing it. Especially when you consider all of the other things that they ARE able to do. It seems to simple to seem like they'd intentionally want to leave out. However, I'll admit that in my 7 years of professional photography, I've never once needed to use bracketing. But, that's not to say I shouldn't have been. :-)
-
I would suspect that it hasn't been addressed because perhaps Fuji cameras are doing a lot of "magic" behind the scenes in their cameras in controlling and managing the exposure and dynamic range. That seems to be the only excuse that I can think of that would keep them from quickly addressing the issue.
-
I own only the XF, but I can say that the OIS and faster aperture make it a winner and a much more versatile lens. I used to own the Canon 70-200 F4 non-is lens and then sold it because I could only find use for it outdoors in good light. Eventually I bought the IS version of the 70-200 F4 and it was amazing in the difference in where I could use it. When it comes to image quality, Fuji lenses will not let you down. The next question to ask yourself is how much use would you like to get out of it? If you only plan on using it in good lighting conditions at all times, then it would seem that the XC lens is a great deal. However, for more versatility in less-than-ideal lighting scenarios, a a bit better build quality, the XF is an even better bet.
- 41 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- XF 55-200mm
- XC 50-230mm
- (and 4 more)
-
Bradley, feel free to shamelessly self-promote yourself on here any time you like? Your work is wonderful and well-deserved for the feature! Congratulations!
-
Thanks, flysurfer! I was having better luck with my 35 1.4 than with my 18-55@2.8, so that might explain why.
-
I have been using my trusty 18-55mm Fuji kit as a reception lens, but lately it's been having a really tough time focusing in low-light scenarios. I know that I generally shoot most of the time at 18mm at 2.8. I am wondering if the 18 f2 would be a better low-light performer? The 16mm is also an option, but if I'd prefer to save the cash and weight if possible. Any thoughts or experience with any of these?