Mike-Photos
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Store
Classifieds
Posts posted by Mike-Photos
-
-
Yes, it works very well with both. I can't see any quality change with the 80mm, but it allows you to be further from the subject, which is a big advantage!
-
Just now, miguel said:
I would suggest you use the sweet spot of your lens for maximum sharpness.
Thanks!
-
What aperture should one set?
-
-
-
-
-
-
I am struggling with a conversion to Fuji for macro. My old Nikon macro rig consisted of a D7100 with the 105 VRG lens. I want to get to 1:1 using my Fuji XE2s. Any suggestions? It seems that my options are either a 60 coupled with extension tubes or the new 80 2.8 macro. Unfortunately the second option isn't in my budget.
I am willing to consider manual focus options, but prefer to have AF capability.
Thanks, Allen
I know the 80mm is expensive, but it's in the same order of pricing as the Nikon 105. It's also the best 1:1 lens I have ever used. I have used the Minolta and Sony ones extensively and the Nikon.
The stabilization is superb and makes a real difference. In addition, coupled with the 1.4x extender, you have a 180mm reach in FF terms, which gives you lots and lots of working room.
Finally, unlike other macro lenses, it's no slouch in terms of focusing speed in non-macro circumstances, which makes it a pretty decent telephoto lens.
Finally, it's by far the sharpest macro I have ever used, and it's probably the sharpest Fuji lens out there. I sold my 90mm F/2 after I got the macro.
I'll post some samples in this thread.
-
-
-
-
-
Hi Claude
It's possible you have the same issue I had, which is to choose between prime or zoom lenses.
If you take your zooms out, you have a great prime collection.
If you take out the wide prime lenses, you are completely covered by the zooms.
I was in the same situation, and I never knew which lens to use.
As far as the 80mm, it's a wonderful lens, and I sold my 90 because it doesn't get any use anymore, despite being, up to now, my favorite.
Mike
-
Hello
I waited three years for this lens, and I'm extremely happy with it.
1) IS works really well, and makes a big difference to the number of keepers.
2) You can use the 1.4 and 2x tele-extenders so that you don't have to be so close to the subject.
3) Image quality is superb. It's at least as sharp as the 90, which I have subsequently sold. I use the 80mm for portraits instead of the 90.
4) The problem for me with the macro converters, which I also have and used, is that if you want to take a non-close-up shot you can't.
My first shoot with the lens, Butterfly Conservatory in Niagara:
https://mikekatz.smugmug.com/Mikes-Photos/2018/2018-01-09-Niagara-Butterflies/
- Mike G and GreenGuy33
-
2
-
The 80mm:
1) You have to be very close to your subject with the 50mm. I had it and sold it. The 80mm lets you stand further back, and it also takes the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, meaning you can be very far away from your subject. If you shoot with a tripod, the 50mm is very hard to use.
2) The 80mm has stabilisation. Again, with a tripod you would turn it off, but if you shoot handheld, you get 5 stops of stabilisation. Shooting a still subject will be far easier, you can use a lower ISO for more detail.
3) The 80mm has a switch to choose focusing distance. This speeds up macro shooting if you are doing pure macro, but it's a great general lens too, with a useful focal length, and speedy focusing on general shooting, unlike the Zeiss, which is slower to focus.
Anyway, mine's on order
, has been since the day it was announced.Mike
-
I love my macros, but I need the 80mm.
The 60mm is nice, and so is the Touit 50mm, but you have to get too close. Same issue of course with the 16, although that is a lovely lens!
The 80mm lets you stay further back, and will take the 1.4x and 2x extenders, which is just perfect.
As for extension tubes, I have them as well, and they work nicely, but it happens quite often that I want a different shot, not a close-up, and you can't take the shot with the extension tube(s) on.
All in all, I'm waiting eagerly for the 80mm macro!
-
Good to hear, Dan. I was looking for a familiar name in this "argument" and found yours. I am brand new to Fuji. So new that my X-PRO 2 doesn't arrive until tomorrow. I am trying to get at least slightly ahead of the curve if I can. Up to now I have shot primarily with Canon (with a 4 year period in there with Leica) and I will continue to do so. But I look forward to X-PRO 2 as a lighter weight/more compact alternative to the 5D3 and L glass. I have never had any issue with my RAW files in Lightroom be they CR2 from Canon; DNG from Leica or even whatever they were from my little Ricoh. I don't want to start having issues now with the Fuji RAW files.
I confess I don't understand what goes on inside LR or PS or any other software but I do know my work flow. I process RAW files in LR and only convert to JPEG in order to post on FB or IG. Otherwise the files remain processed RAW files and I print from them. I can go up to 24" wide paper and I have had even bigger prints made for exhibits. They are almost always B&W and I have never had any issues whatsoever. I am not expecting any issues with the Fuji files and am glad to see you are not having any with the latest versions of Lightroom.
Ed
Hi Ed
Not sure if you know this, but you can set all the B&W emulations on the camera, including the fantastic Acros ones, in the Profile section of the Camera Calibration panel. Great starting point for your B&W processing. It was one of the issues holding me back from switching out of Lightroom.
-
An 80mm (120 equiv) stabilised 1:1 macro lens would be just amazing! Especially if the teleconverters work with it. You can stay far back and not disturb butterflies etc.
I'm tired of using extension tubes, because once they are on the lens they are on. If you want to take a non-closeup shot, you just can't do it.
Hopefully we'll get this lens this year, as promised.
-
1) This is for Mike Photo's - note you can import your old LR catelogue into C1 and it will do its best to recreate and translate the settings and processing you had performed in LR, its not 100% and its can't do all settings but it gets damn close and is a great place to start from if you are revisiting an old shoot.
Thanks Gordon, I never used catalogues, and now I only use sessions. I'll miss the ability to revise, but I think that I could probably do better starting from scratch.
I do use workspaces, they are wonderful. I lay out all the tools I use on one screen, with a smaller viewer, and use the second screen for the preview. No more clicking tools open or closed, or scrolling through to find the tool.
I do have a lot to learn still, but I'm really enjoying the extra capabilities.
And I'm sorry to leave Lightroom, maybe I'll come back if and when a significant upgrade arrives. Right now, as I said, and even with little experience, I can develop photos better and quicker than in Lightroom.
-
I have now switched from Lightroom to Capture One. The image quality is much better for me, and Capture One is far quicker.
Not an easy decision, because I am going to lose the ability to go back and edit older photos.
I have been with Lightroom from the very start, but right now I can't justify staying on the Adobe platform.
I'm upset that Lightroom has just not moved forward substantially for many years. There's a reason that ON1, Topaz, X-Transformer, Affinity, and others now have their own raw processing pipeline, it's because Adobe have not stepped up. And make no mistake, it's not just with Fuji files.
-
Setting the DAM issue aside which for some is a big issue. C1's image processing capability exceeds LR's and so to answer your title question; for the most part yes unless I need to do some cloning or very detailed masking. Most photos then are opened in C1 and processed in C1 to completion. I do not require LR's DAM functions and so LR is completely replaced by C1.
That leaves the cloning and detailed masking for the occasional photo which Affinity Photo handles with ease and grace: Adobe free.
Over time the C1/Affinity combo is considerably less expensive than the Adobe monthly fee.
I almost never use Photoshop, and I use the free Gimp software instead. I agree the IQ in Capture One is just far better than Lightroom, at least for me. Still learning Capture One, there's a lot in it! So, when my subscription expires next month, it's bye-bye Adobe for me too.
And I use Sessions rather than the catalog. I never used the catalog in Lighroom, and sessions are a great way to work.
-
I've tried following the instructions but the color profiles are not stores in c:\users\username\appdata\captureone\colorprofiles.... they are stored (at least in Win10) in c:\programfiles\phase one\captureone10\colorprofiles\dslr. If I try copying the profiles to the appdata folder, they do not show in the ICC choices in C1. If I put them in the programfiles folder, they show up but don't actually work.
Can you tell me what you had to do to get them working?
Mine are stored in C:\Users\xxxxx\AppData\Local\CaptureOne\Color Profiles in Win 10. The instructions in #75 left out the "local" part of the folder name, I think.
With step #6, save settings, I think there was an option in the tool to import the file, and you name it as you import it. Tried many options, and i think this was the key thing, but I may be confused because I tried many things.
I also had to convert one profile at a time. In other words, do the full process for each profile fully, rather than do a bunch at a time.
The method I used was quite different, and I though of documenting it, but I wasn't sure that I had done it correctly or not. So many people said the original method worked, and I thought maybe I had just got it wrong and managed to fudge it differently.
-
I've been stuck with LR for so long, but after seeing these color profiles, I've made the jump to C1! Already my shots look cleaner! But the Fuji profiles don't work for me. They're listed under ICC profile list, but regardless of which one I select, they all have the same effect... slight desaturation. I'm using 10.1.2, is there something else I need to do to get them to work?
Thanks!
Follow the instructions in post #75 earlier in this thread. They didn't work exactly for me, but I managed eventually.
, has been since the day it was announced.
IPad Pro seeing fujifilm RAF files
in General Discussion
Posted
You have to shoot uncompressed RAW, and you have to be up to date with the operating system. RAW file handling is handled by Apple, and that's all they support.
I'm not a Lightroom user, but I believe Lightroom has its own RAW file support. If you have compressed RAW files, try installing the Lightroom app and then opening the files.
Apologies, some of this may be wrong, I'm not an expert. But 100% Apple natively supports only uncompressed RAW files from Fuji.