Jump to content

Phil

Members
  • Posts

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Phil

  1. To echo everyone else here, the Fuji 18-55mm is much, much better than the Sony 16-50mm. The cheaper kit with the Fuji 16-50mm is likely quite a bit better than the Sony 16-50mm. If you want to stick with one lens, I'd recommend either body with either the 18-55mm or one of the 35mm's. I own the 35mm 1.4 and it makes fantastic photos, but the autofocus is jittery, and can be prone to hunting, especially in lower light. For more dedicated purposes like portraits or product photography, I'd recommend the 35 1.4, but for an all-purpose lens, the 35mm f/2 is the better choice, and cheaper. Since you like the 35mm focal length so much, my recommendation would be to buy the cheaper kit with the 16-50mm lens (it's just $100 more than the body-only price) to have something versatile, and get the 35mm f/2 to go with it. It's really compact and works beautifully on those bodies, especially the X-E2s IMHO.
  2. I'd prefer the X-T2 for jobs (almost entirely because of the battery grip and larger EVF), but I enjoy the rangefinder design more. I currently own an X-T1 and X-E2, and my wife will get the X-E2 whenever I get a new body (it was bought with her in mind when I needed a second body for weddings). I enjoy the form factor of the E2 more, but I prefer the weight/heft of the T1, especially with lenses like the 23 and 56. The X-Pro2 should be the sweet spot for me. Rangefinder design with the build of the X-T1. But I always figured the X-T2 would be cheaper than the Pro2, so I assumed I'd be buying the T2. It's more than the X-Pro2 on its own, and the battery grip will probably be $300+ CAD, so that rules it out for me. X-Pro2 it is.
  3. Have you got the Preview Exposure and White Balance setting on or off? On gives you a "what you see is what you get" image preview as you're looking through the viewfinder, and Off gives you an optimal brightness for viewing, regardless of your exposure settings. Is the picture consistently dark? Try shooting with all manual exposure, then change settings and see if the brightness of the photo changes. My guess is you've got some setting changed in the Image Quality settings. That controls your JPG settings, but even if you're shooting RAW the camera will display a JPG with whatever settings you have it defaulted to. So basically you could have the camera set to burn photos down (-1/3EV, -1EV, etc). That's in one of the first menu pages. If you have that and shoot a JPG, it'll be darker. If you have that and shoot RAW, the RAW file won't be affected, but the JPG displayed on the LCD will look darker.
  4. For portraiture, I notice a pretty big difference. The perspective distortion on the 23mm can make things look very dramatic. For walking around/every day stuff, I find it's not a big a deal, and the ease of framing is the biggest factor. The 23mm is a lot closer to how I see things, so I don't have to think about framing much; with the 35mm, I always find myself having to step back because the field of view is tighter than I was expecting. If you're getting a great price I'd say try it and see how you like it - if you don't use it much, you can always resell it.
  5. I shot staff portrait's for my friend's hair salon on Friday. This is X-T1 with the 56mm, a Yongnuo in a 24x36 softbox as key and a bare Yongnuo as the rim light. DSCF0158 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0012 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0145 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr
  6. I don't know about Southern Europe, but I live in southern Ontario, Canada, and at ISO 200 and 1.2-1.4, I've never been in a situation where the 1/32000 shutter speed wasn't fast enough. That makes me think a 3 stop ND should be more than enough for probably any situation, and 3 stops are cheap and easy to find.
  7. Definitely the 18mm (I'm not counting the 50-230mm because it's one of those "when I need it" lenses, for the odd time I want to shoot sports or wildlife). The IQ is perfectly fine on the 18mm, but it is noticeably worse than lenses like the 23, 35 1.4, and 56. My biggest complaints are the f/2 aperture and the external focusing. f/2 is still fast, but when you get used to 1.4, it's hard to go slower (especially at night or indoors). Another benefit to my other three primes is that I can keep both of my bodies at the same settings - this makes things less confusing when I'm switching between them on the go, and helps make sure I get a consistent look between cameras. AF is my other main complaint. It's fast enough, but hunts a bit more than the newer primes. I don't like the external focusing, though. For work, I primarily shoot weddings and events, and like shooting concerts when I can. Both of those situations can be hard on gear, and having a beefier lens with internal focusing and less moving parts on the outside helps give me some peace of mind. At a wedding earlier this year I dropped my X-T1 with the 23mm onto a carpeted floor, and it landed lens-first. The camera and lens both seem to be fine, but I feel like if I'd dropped the 18 or 35, they probably would have been damaged. That's the main reason I'd like to upgrade to the 16mm this summer. It's a bummer, because I really like the focal length. For portrait-oriented work, I prefer the 23/56 combo, but for events and everyday life, I find 18/35 to be more natural. My dream combo would be an 18mm 1.4 and ~35mm 1.0.
  8. Cool to see everyone's setups for weddings. I haven't got a photo of my current kit right now, but here's mine: X-T1 + X-E2 18/2 + 23/1.4 + 35/1.4 + 56/1.2 2x Yongnuo speedlights It's simple, but gets the job done. The only serious changes I'd like to make are the 16mm 1.4 in place of the 18mm (I like being able to set both bodies to the same settings, and I'd like a beefier lens with internal focusing), and ideally an X-T2 so I can have two bodies with battery grips. What I typically do is leave the 56mm on my gripped X-T1 for the bulk of the day (from getting ready through to speeches and first dances), and use either the 23mm or 35mm on the X-E2, depending on what I'm shooting. For girls getting ready and bridal portraits I'll usually stick with the 35mm, but for guys getting ready, ceremony, and candids/group shots, I'll use the 23mm. After the first dances, once the partying starts, I switch to the 28mm on the X-T1 with an on-camera flash for dancing photos, and keep the 23mm on the X-E2 for natural light stuff. All in all, it works pretty well. Like I said, the 16mm would be a great replacement for the 18mm, because it buys me a stop of light, better AF, internal focusing, and similar handling to my other two main lenses. To get picky, I'd love a second X-T body in place of the X-E2, for the battery grip and for most continuity between bodies. If I could get really picky, I'd like an X100T to hang around my neck in lieu of the 23mm, and run 16mm + X100T + 56mm. Other than switching the 16mm for the 35mm for bridal portraits, I could stick with that combo all day and be perfectly happy.
  9. Me too. I don't use 35mm too too often, but when I do, I've got that 50mm Summilux look in mind, and I feel like this would get pretty close. 50mm is more of a portrait length for me, as opposed to a daily carry, so I wouldn't mind the potential size and AF speed issues. I've said it before, but other than the possible exception of the 16mm, if this 33mm got announced, every other camera purchase would be put on hold until I could get this lens.
  10. "I prefer Fujifilm's X-T10 which adds a built-in flash. It weighs less, too." Therefore, X-T10 > X Pro2. Ken Rockwell in a nutshell.
  11. I have two Lexar cards - I can't remember the exact models offhand, but one is the regular gold Pro card, and the other is the UHS-II model that was the Amazon Deal of the Day a while back. Both are noticeably slower than my Sandisk Extreme Pluses. Slower to write, slower to format, and image playback is slower, too. IIRC the regular Lexar Pro should be rated similarly to my Sandisks, but the UHS-II is supposed to be significantly faster, and it's actually slower. I'm going to be sticking with Sandisk from now on.
  12. If I'm shooting a job and being battery conscious (EVF + eye sensor and turning the camera off when I don't immediately need it) I can consistently get 600 shots off of a battery with my X-T1. What I usually do is switch out the grip battery as needed and keep the in-body battery as a backup. If the X-T2 has similar battery performance, that should mean an easy 1500-2000 shots. What I'm most excited about are the joystick on the vertical grip and (what looks to be) an extended horizontal grip that the vertical grip adds.
  13. Could you be focusing closer than the minimum focus distance? That catches me off-guard sometimes - I'll be just a bit too close and it'll incorrectly confirm focus.
  14. 23 1.4 and 56 1.2. The 23 is my go-to walk around lens, and the 56 is my go-to for portraits. Before I picked up the 56, it definitely would have been the 35 1.4. But since getting the 56, I've only used the 35 twice or so.
  15. Thanks guys. vkalia, it's not. The bottom one is discontinued, so I got it for half price. I believe the actual watch is still available, only it has a metal bracelet now. The middle one is one of their cheapest Eco-Drives - it's a regular model that sells for around $250 CAD.
  16. I got a couple things for my birthday: the Fuji 16mm extension tube, and a new watch. Afterwards I realized the two were really appropriate for each other. I didn't realize how much the tube limits focus. I thought I could use it for tighter headshots, but it's basically only good for macro stuff. You get like a 5-10cm range right in front of the lens. I can definitely see getting the 11mm down the road for a little more working space. The setup: a continuous CFL softbox and a small 12" Best Buy reflector. The full-face photos are the 56mm, and the tighter ones are the 35mm. Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr And the watch, with a couple photos of my other two decent watches. Apparently I've got a thing for Citizens. DSCF0023 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0031 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0035 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0037 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0044 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr DSCF0048 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr
  17. This is a bit late, but since the post it already bumped... Before I sent my X-T1 in for repair, I tried to fix it myself. It looked to me like the door was expanding and became too wide, so I tried to shave the ends down. It didn't help at all, but thankfully Fuji repaired it anyway and didn't even mention the fact that I'd tampered with it. It wasn't obvious, but I'm sure anyone looking for it could tell what I'd done. I wonder if that's a sign of how common this problem really is.
  18. I agree. IMHO my shooting habits affect battery life more than anything else. When I'm working, I typically keep the cameras set to EVF + Eye Sensor, and turn them off if I'm going to go more than a few minutes without using them. I can consistently get 600 shots to a charge that way with a bit of image review/focus checking. Personally, I keep HPM off on my bodies. The AF seemed ever so slightly faster, but it also seemed to rack focus more. I didn't think the difference in speed was really noticeable, and the extra hunting was annoying with the EVF.
  19. 16 1.4 + 23 1.4 + 56 1.2 for sure. I'd have a lot of trouble deciding on a fourth. Those are for sure my bread and butter focal lengths. I'd be completely comfortable shooting jobs with that kit (portrait/event/wedding work mostly) and that pretty much entirely meets my needs for personal shooting, too. The fourth lens I'm not so sure about, as I'd have trouble choosing one oddball/special purpose lens. I'd love an ultra wide, but I'd probably end up choosing something long for compression and the bit of wildlife or sports I do the odd time. For practicality's sake I'd probably choose the 50-140, assuming I can use the 1.4x extender with it. I'm currently using the 18mm in place of the 16. I'm hoping to pick up the 16 in the next couple months.
  20. Here's a recent one of my wife. It's something like 6-8 stitched frames with the 56mm at 1.2. DSCF0672-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr
  21. Honestly, I'm a bad one to ask. I rarely shoot architecture and don't do much serious landscape shooting, so I really don't know what I'm talking about there. I've never noticed any issues with the 23mm, whereas with the 18mm in Lightroom I really notice the corner performance. Say I shoot a landscape with buildings in it, you can really see softer, angled lines towards the corners. I haven't noticed that with the 23mm yet. I'm assuming the 16mm will be quite a bit better, especially stopped down, but I've never even tried that lens. It's next on my list to get, though.
  22. Thanks for posting this - I've been watching this thread the last little while. I love fast lenses and have been wishing the Fuji f/1 would come out, but these photos look great. I'll seriously be considering this when I'm ready to make my next purchase.
  23. I agree. I shoot primarily people, and I'm happy with the 18mm. The only reason I don't use it as much as my 23mm is because I shoot at 1.4 pretty frequently. I'm growing to prefer the 18mm focal length, and for shooting JPGs, the 18mm is perfectly fine. I definitely notice softness and some distortion in the corners when I'm shooting RAW, but like I said, since I mostly shoot people, that doesn't really affect me. I really need to shoot this lens more. It's easy to forget how fast f/2 actually is when you normally deal with 1.4 and 1.2 lenses. Depending on your usage, I'd say I highly recommend the 18mm. It's small, fast, affordable, and image quality is at least good enough IMHO. The only thing I wouldn't really recommend it for is landscape/architecture, where you don't need the speed and distortion is more important. But for people, low light, and as a walk-around lens, I think it's great.
  24. I've had my 56mm for about a month now, and it's really an amazing lens. However, since I hardly use manual focus, I was using the ring for maybe the second time today and I noticed a plasticky rubbing sound as I turned the ring. It's quiet, and definitely has a plastic-on-plastic sound. It doesn't seem consistent, but happens for about a second or so with every full turn of the ring. Is this normal/acceptable, or should I be thinking about exchanging the lens while it's still fairly new? I'm hesitant to return this one because the IQ is so good, and the manual focus ring doesn't really affect how I shoot. But if this is a sign of a build issue that could lead to more problems down the road, I'd like to get it resolved ASAP as I have a few big jobs coming up in the next few months. edit: I just checked and Henry's (where I bought it) only has a 15 day in-store return policy, so if this is an issue, it'll have to go back to Fuji. I pulled out my 35mm for comparison and it definitely makes a plasticky rubbing sound most of the time when you turn the ring. The 56mm sounds like that, only it doesn't happen very often. My guess is that it's just a mechanical tolerance thing, and the extra smooth ring just makes it seem more out of place than on the 35mm.
×
×
  • Create New...