Jump to content

The Beauty of Vintage, or Why I Use Fuji X

kid1002

By kid1002
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

kid1002 Rookie

kid1002

Posted
Posted
 
 
 
Telling other photography enthusiasts that I use Fuji is sometimes a scary thing to do. You see, there are many other enthusiasts who believe that “Full Frame is the way to go” or that “Mirrorless cameras are for pussies”. Although I strongly disagree with these statements nowadays, I can see where they are coming from. Because being a FF-addict myself in the past, I can definitely remember my lust for ever-shallower DoP (BOKEHHHHHH!!!) and (on paper) amazing high ISO capabilities.
 
But everything got a bit bland for me once I dove into the the world of FF cameras. Nikon D810s of the world and Sony α series of cameras of the world just seemed too boring for me. Sure, DSLRs are great work horses, but I find them implausible to shoot streets with without intimidating one or two pedestrians; Sony FF cameras are IQ-beasts, but I found them ill-designed in the software department. Now, I realize that photography is not all about the looks, the style, and glitters and gold, but sometimes just a bit of ‘oomph’ to entice one’s photography zeal wouldn’t be so bad, right? That’s exactly why I started exploring Fuji-X and vintage lenses.
 
dscf1345.jpg?w=740
dscf1302.jpg?w=740
dscf1366.jpg?w=740
dscf1320.jpg?w=740
 
The new generation of APS-C sized sensors are really, really, really good, to my pleasant surprise. Recently updated models like Nikon’s D7200, Pentax’s K-3II, and Fuji’s 16 megapixel sensor cameras are all capable of squeezing out outstanding IQ in low light. In some cases these APS-C sensors, I found, are even outperforming certain FF cameras. (i.e. Sony’s original A7 and A7R)
 
And today, Sony has just announced three G Master branded lenses to expand their growing FE mount lineup of lenses. They look incredibly amazing from the specs, and I truly believe Sony has just brought another wave of image quality revolution. I have never been disappointed by Sony cameras’ and high-end lenses’ image quality.
 
With that being said, I can vividly remember the exactly same type of hype when Sony had just announced their A7R II, an on-paper beast of a camera that many thought could have slaughtered most other cameras on the market. 42.2 megapixels BI sensor, 4K internal recording, 399 AF points, and now with 14-bit uncompressed RAW! Wow! However, it wasn’t until recently that most people could get their hands on the A7R II that many now have cooled down from that initial hype. The roller coaster-ride that was the A7R II had so much promise, and was indeed a revolution in an otherwise-bland year of 2015 for cameras; however, there were also a lot of swings and misses (overheating issues, ergonomics concerns, annoying menus etc.) from the A7R II that reminded photography enthusiasts and pros alike that “specs aren’t everything” when it comes to really shooting a camera in the field.

 

23417008496_37c34fa028_o.jpg?w=740

23470043863_310ff549b5_o.jpg?w=740

23758344552_3601fed85f_o.jpg?w=740

 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
kid1002 Rookie

kid1002

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I am not writing to bash Sony or anything. Don’t get me wrong, I love Sony, and a lot of my favorite shot in 2015 came from Sony cameras. I believe they are pioneers of modern day technology, and I admire their guts to be daring, to push the boundaries of digital photography to the max. But I think Sony is not for me. I want to commit myself to a mirrorless camera system that I trust enough to use its cameras everyday, and that expands my creative boundaries. Fuji X, to me, is the system.

 

The nostalgic and timeless look of my Fujis sparks my willingness to take it out everyday. I also have trust in how it works to make me invest in its ecosystem. I buy into it knowing that I don’t have to have major G.A.S. whenever Sony updates their lineup, buying new camera bodies knowing that Sony will probably ditch them in about a year.

 

21650548736_21aeac98fe_o.jpg?w=740

31339733.jpg?w=740

6630843465326849965.jpg?w=740

23170206236_86a699822a_o.jpg?w=740

23196348385_d3d3ff16db_o.jpg?w=740

 


I also buy vintage lenses because of their unique characteristics. The Leica Summar 5cm and 1st generation Summicron 50mm produce blown-out highlights that bleed into the picture with velvety softness due to the lack of lens coating. The Russian Industar and Helios lenses have optical imperfections that offer bokeh one simply cannot find in modern lens offerings. I love them for their merits, or should I say demerits, and I don’t have to be one of the many Sony owners I see on the internet that trash talks or debates with each other about specs or hardware superiority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
frod Community Regular

frod

Posted
Posted

I sampled fuji because they appeared to strike a good balance between size and quality. I stayed with fuji because they obviously listen to photographers and prioritise the enthusiasts. Canikon stuff is good but their priority is clearly big full frame DSLRs, I'm not sure what Sony's priority is beyond creating cameras that tick as many technical feature list items as possible. I still haven't seen them create one native lens that I would want. Sony seem to breed arrogant fans who don't want to discuss their systems shortcomings; I'm not sure what that's all about.

 

Also, i remember XD memory cards. At some point Fuji got real, because I'm not a huge fan of proprietary standards so I'd never even looked at them while they were still shipping cameras with that storage type.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kid1002 Rookie

kid1002

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Beautiful! I too am a Fuji X shooter using vintage lenses. Love the colors in the first 4 photos. Did you use film simulations, or did you post process them? Looks gorgeous!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thank you!

 

And yes, they were post-processed in Lightroom and Photoshop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kid1002 Rookie

kid1002

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I sampled fuji because they appeared to strike a good balance between size and quality. I stayed with fuji because they obviously listen to photographers and prioritise the enthusiasts. Canikon stuff is good but their priority is clearly big full frame DSLRs, I'm not sure what Sony's priority is beyond creating cameras that tick as many technical feature list items as possible. I still haven't seen them create one native lens that I would want. Sony seem to breed arrogant fans who don't want to discuss their systems shortcomings; I'm not sure what that's all about.

 

Also, i remember XD memory cards. At some point Fuji got real, because I'm not a huge fan of proprietary standards so I'd never even looked at them while they were still shipping cameras with that storage type.

 

I'm not quite with you on your experiences with Sony, but I can definitely side with you on saying fuji strike a good balance between size and quality. However, I am also looking into the 16-55 2.8 and 50-140 2.8. They look pretty big to me, but I guess that's just how physics work :(

 

I also hope fans of each brand can discuss peacefully and not stuff their opinions at each other so arrogantly. Not pointing fingers here, but we can all see there's bad blood between certain brands of users :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
frod Community Regular

frod

Posted
Posted

For me the versatility and OIS is well worth the weight with the 50-140mm. That lens can do things that nothing else can on a fuji body. The 16-55mm maybe not so much, but then I prefer to carry two bodies with a couple of primes rather than zoom. I didn't keep my 16-55mm that long, it's a lot of lens to only be using sparingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
gdanmitchell Contributor

gdanmitchell

Posted
Posted

I'm an enthusiastic user of the Fujifilm system for street and travel photography, for which I typically shoot handheld using old-school primes. I also do a lot of photography using a high MP full frame system with high end zoom lenses. Horses for courses and all that.

 

If one's photographs are "bland," it isn't the equipment that makes it so. Beautiful photographs can be made with any brand, format, or photographic medium — film or digital, full frame, large format, cropped sensor. Switching to Fujifilm (whose equipment I love for much of my work) will  not make bland photographs less bland.

 

Sorry,

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C film simulation LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 film simulation LUTS because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then you are not getting the correct results.
    • PoorAlchemist
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • George_P
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By George_P · Posted

      I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
×
×
  • Create New...