cug
-
Posts
255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Store
Classifieds
Posts posted by cug
-
-
I think this is kind of backwards. Without seeing comparisons of what you need recommending either an X-Pro1 or X-Pro2 or a Leica M for that matter is totally useless. If you are having a G.A.S. attack so be it and I think that's what's actually going on.
Regarding the results: post pictures of what you like and comparisons from your X-T1 and it might be possible to give some hints. If you run into waxy skin, shoot raw, done. If you don't like some of the color/sharpness/noise reduction – shoot raw, define a personal preset of the setting as you want them to be and you're done. All without having to invest hundreds of dollars in new camera gear.
Sorry to say, but everybody who really thinks that going from one camera generation to the next will improve their images is day dreaming. To improve your images there are much simpler and much harder things to do: take better photos, learn to use your gear right, do proper post. That applies to all of us I believe, not a rant towards you.
Now, if this is just an excuse to get more Fuji gear: go for it. Everything that sells gear for Fuji is good for all of us ...
-
Some more comments:
- The magnification of the A6300 EVF is closer to the X-T1 than to the X-E2. You'd get a near 20% increase from X-E2, from A6300 to X-T1 is only a 10% increase.
- The screen is 16:9, that's true, but with the additional height of the X-E2, it shouldn't be a problem to accommodate a 3:2 screen.
- The the buttons to the right are so that you don't have to adjust hand position between shooting and reviewing and it makes it easier to integrate a flip or even a full articulating screen (if so desired).
- Moving the buttons to the right consolidates layout with X-Pro2, which is great for the very few folks who have both, plus it makes the design and engineering efforts easier as you have to properly test and design only a single layout. That's a big time and money saver for probably better results.
- There shouldn't be a need to increase body size, if something, the d-pad on the X-E2 could be a little bit smaller than on X-Pro2 and the spacing between controls could be very slightly reduced while still keeping it very usable.
- I still question the benefits of the tiny flash, although as long as it doesn't cause space issues I'd include it, otherwise I'd like an EF-X8 if that could get a simple tilt operation.
In my personal opinion, these cameras all need a better front grip. I understand that Fuji follows form more than function here to keep the styling classy in contrast of the modern, streamlined Sony bodies.
This is fine, but what they should do is build in a battery grip electronics terminal into all cameras and offer a grip with electronic connection and a more ergonomic layout like the one available for the Olympus EM-5 which moves the shutter button and front dial to a much more ergonomic position. Personally I believe that Fuji should offer this for all their cameras as all of them would benefit ergonomically. Alternatively, offer it only for the X-E/X-Pro series and make the X-T series more ergonomic (move shutter button closer to where the finger naturally rests with a larger front grip without need for an additional grip.
There are many more ideas I have around this, having dealt with HI/UX experience for a long time (mostly software though, but hardware was included as well), but in the end, Fuji will do what they want to do. Our input is not likely to be considered.
-
Neither the X100T nor the X-E2 is really pocketable in my opinion. It's not only size but also weight. Sure, if you generally carry big blocks of stuff in your pockets, then why not, but most people carry a wallet, keys and a cell phone – compared to this an X100T is massive.
The X70 is quite a bit smaller, but a Sony RX100 for example is more versatile with a zoom while being about the same size. I personally consider a Canon S120 pocketable, everything bigger than that – not really, but that all depends on the definition of "pocketable".
See this:
-
You approached the design from the wrong direction which is a classic pattern found when people don't have the experience to design a technical tool (which a camera is).
You are trying to move stuff around in the design to compensate for things you think are technical challenges. What you should do is design the perfect ergonomics and style and have technicians figure out how to get it done, not approach it from the technical perspective and have the designers figure out how to make it look right. You've taken away a crucial interface element and moved things into a place where they don't really make sense from a usage perspective to accommodate something that other companies have already figured out: the A6300 has a 0.7x viewfinder and a same sized screen that even tilts – in a smaller camera body. Shouldn't be too hard to make the EVF 0.77 in the larger X-E2 body.
Technically you can literally take the screen of the X-E2, move it all the way to the left just like an X-Pro2, make it a tilt screen, relocate the buttons in the same place as the X-Pro2 and even add a joystick without enlarging the body. Just by using today's technology instead of yesterday's and optimizing things.
In your design above, you moved stuff in positions that are ergonomically terrible like the AF button and the rear control dial. Then you don't leave enough space for the right thumb to not block the rear display by positioning the three buttons, which have moved to the right of the camera on the X-Pro2 for good reason, to a place where they hang without physical reference. It's a design that seems it came from "looks" and hasn't considered "feel".
-
You had the chance to write like a hundred constructive things and came here to take a leak on my doorstep and leave. Nice social skills, dude.
And you still don't have design skills, dude.
That abomination of a camera back up there is neither functional nor pragmatic nor anything else. And bringing up iPhone comparisons as an example for great design doesn't make your's any better. It's like like saying "this hammer should look like this, just think, you got used to the iPhone design as well". Bringing up completely unrelated designs to justify yours isn't helping the argument.
Sorry dude, but that's how I think about it. I've written a ton of stuff about this on this forum, on other forums and I'm not going to repeat the exercise here only because someone thought he found the holy grail of camera design.
-
I still have to verify that these entries actually mean DR400, but it looks like it. I can verify later today.
I used a gradient on the sky, a local brush on the sign, and then some white balance, exposure, shadows, highlights, black and white point, sharpness and clarity, set the film simulation to Astia and worked a little bit in the HSL area on some colors. Overall fairly quick when you are used to the tool.
Good luck with sorting the photos out!
-
that's great but how does this help ppl who have an xt-1 or xt-10? I really don't want to buy the xpro-2 just to avoid the waxy skin tones b/c if that is the only option then i'd rather go back to my Nikon full frame where this isn't even an issue.
There is a very simple fix: if you go above ISO 1600 use raw format or raw + JPEG. So, whenever there is a problem with the JPEG, use the raw. Problem solved.
-
I need to verify this but it looks like you used DR400 for this shot which automatically results in ISO800:
little-one:Downloads cug$ exiftool FUJI1665.RAF | grep Dynam Dynamic Range : Standard Dynamic Range Setting : Manual Development Dynamic Range : 400
I took the photo into Lightroom and did a super quick "adjust random sliders to taste" after I set the white balance to a more reasonable value. I wasn't there so not certain how it is supposed to look like.
Here's the result of the super quick hack:
This is really a quick and dirty "adjust to taste" on my non-calibrated 12" MacBook where Lightroom is a bit of a pain to use. I'm traveling right now, so take a look and let me know whether you like this version better.
-
Here's what I think it should look like:
Good that you aren't designing the next X-E camera ... just saying. Looks awful.
-
Have got the raw file up at if anyone wants to have a look.
Where? Do you have a link?
-
It's a matter of where you have your focus (what distance) and where the background is. The problem with diffraction is that it affects the whole image. So keeping it the aperture at "optimal setting" for what you want to achieve is probably a good idea.
Here's a page to play around with DoF for various settings to get an idea:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
It also explains the lingo a bit. As said, it's really hard to say what went wrong, it could be flickering air due to heat or moisture or haze or ... there are so many variables that we don't know about, it's really all just guess work.
-
Diffraction has not that much to do with sensor size and more with actual resolution in lpp/mm as far as I know. Ken Rockwell has a pretty good article with examples and math about it:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/diffraction.htm
If you use a 36 mega pixel FF sensor, which has similar pixel density to a 16MP APS-C sensor, you'll have roughly the same problems at the same f/stop, but due to the higher pixel count, you will still get more detail, but you'll see the same effects and 100% magnification. The higher the pixel density of the sensor, the more you see it at 100%, but at typical viewing distances and sizes it's generally not that much of a problem.
Add to this that most Fuji lenses have their sharpest aperture at f/4 to f/8 and often falling of very dramatically beyond f/11, super small apertures aren't that great an idea.
The other thing is: there is no better white balancing camera I know of than an iPhone.
So, my suggestion still stands: please make the raw file available somewhere for us to take a closer look. Maybe there is something that stands out.
-
Also, with very small aperture you might already be loosing detail due to diffraction.
It would be interesting to know the other exposure settings. Auto ISO works roughly like this (Rico, please correct me, if I'm wrong):
- The camera choses the lowest ISO value possible for the other variables, at least ISO 400 with DR200 and ISO800 with DR400.
- The camera drops the shutter speed down until it hits the "lower soft shutter speed limit".
- The camera will then start increasing the ISO to the "hard upper ISO limit".
- As the last resort, the camera will drop the shutter speeds more.
If you are seeing 1/1100th of a second and ISO 800, my guess is that you selected DR400 for the shot or you had fixed your shutter speed accidentally and ISO 800 was necessary to get the exposure right.
Oh, and if you want someone to take a look at the raw file, upload it to Dropbox or so and share the link so people can take a closer look and don't have to guess that much.
-
I can sell you one for $59 ... ;-) Actually, that's what I paid for the big one which is actually very high quality and seems to work well.
Fuji actually does sell replacements, give them a call:
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/support/ServiceSupportContactInfo.do?catid=464128&prodcat=234644
That's assuming you're in the US.
-
Just wait until the drone discussion starts. It's probably a matter of expectations, style, taste and so on. You might shoot a wedding to your taste with just an X100T but it might not be the style and look your customers want. Or it might.
Couples and wedding photographers hopefully find each other via portfolio, previous work and word of mouth. Therefore, couples should be able to find a "matching" photographer. If their expectations can be met with an X100T, so be it. I like the documentary style of Kevin Mullins and he has done a lot with one small body with 23mm lens and another with either 35 of 56. Something like this would be great for my personal taste. Others want the crazy fashion style glamour photos that are done with half a dozen lights scattered an ancient ruin you had to drive an hour to get to ...
To each his/her own.
-
Funny, I have exactly the same combination.
-
How does one overexpose a color in one section of a photo and have it not affect that same color in other parts of the photo when taking the photo?
Brightness and intensity of a neon sign is a lot different than the reflection of said sign in the water. There have been threads around this on other forums. Blown out red channel isn't uncommon and hard to gauge, unless you check results in camera right when you take the photo and take corrective measures.
-
The JPEGs on the X-Pro1 have a softer tone curve, the raws shouldn't be that much different – depending on the raw conversion of course.
-
Reminds me that I sometimes had issues where the Adobe Standard Profile blew out the red channel in an unrecoverable way. Switching to ProNeg or ClassicChrome even in Lightroom fixed it pretty much immediately.
-
+1 on blown out red channel.
Also, is this an in-camera JPEG or a Lightroom conversion?
-
Yep. Works great.
-
There is one in NIK Silver Efex Pro.
Or a low cost pack:
https://creativemarket.com/CreatingCleveland/64260-Lightroom-Presets-Film35
There is also one in this pack:
http://www.presetsheaven.com/presets/34-free-black-white-film-presets-for-lightroom/
Although I don't like the highlights in the example all too much.
-
Just go, get a Sony. They are great. And you'll always question why you got that slow focusing, shitty video shooting Fuji.
All our lives here and your's as well will be much better that way.
-
No, they didn't. They implemented digital zoom, nothing else.
I have an XT1. Would you recommend an XPRO1?
in Fuji X-Pro 1 / Fuji X-Pro 2 / Fuji X-Pro 3
Posted
So what? Set your camera to Raw+Fine and if it gets too waxy use the raw. I don't understand the fuss around all this.