Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am not certain this is possible.

The X-T3 was meant to be used with an optional vertical battery grip that holds two batteries rather than being tethered via a dc coupler

I have read of people leaving the battery door open in order to use couplers, which of course is not a great approach but can work.

p.s. Welcome to the forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for both your response and your welcome. I'm quite sure the cable channel cover can be removed or lifted, presumably so that a dc coupler can be used, but Fuji didn't make that easy to do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think that rubbery looking seal on the side is actually a cable channel cover, but is instead a seal.

If you compare the bottom of the X-T30 to the bottom of the X-T3,

https://fujifilm-dsc.com/en-int/manual/x-t30/about_this_camera/parts/index.html

vs

https://fujifilm-dsc.com/en-int/manual/x-t3/about_this_camera/parts/index.html

the X-T30 has the cable channel cover but the X-T3 does not.

YMMV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I talked to Fuji late yesterday. I was told that the rubber piece on the X-T3 is indeed a channel cover and is tethered to the battery chamber. It can be pulled up though doing so is not nearly as easy as it should be. I was just able to do it with a very fine-tipped screwdriver. Their engineering in this case is less than stellar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have documented the process but frankly, I don't want to mess with the camera again. For me, the X-T3 is in a fixed position and (finally) will always run on the dc coupler. I will say that 1) the rubber pad lifts straight up from the battery chamber but is tethered so doesn't come off the camera body and, 2) the channel is narrow and I found that while the cable on the Wasabi coupler just barely allows the battery door to close, the cable on the Neewer does not.

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
  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • 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 set up through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 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 most likely you are not getting the correct results.
    • 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 😕  
    • 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  
    • Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • 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...