- Messages
- 31,056
- Name
- George.
- Edit My Images
- No
Exactly what I thought, thought I knew the actor better as Selwyn Froggitt
Great minds Sir, or even Bill Maynard (the actors real name)
George.
Exactly what I thought, thought I knew the actor better as Selwyn Froggitt
Nice to get out for the 1st time today for a while. X-T2 + XF35mm f2.
Middle Age Spread by Dave, on Flickr
Grumpy and Middle Age Couple by Dave, on Flickr
Liking this street style Fujigraph Sir, with a good exression on the guys face, he reminds me of the “Green Grass” character (from Heartbeat).
George.
Liking this street style Fujigraph Sir, with a good exression on the guys face, he reminds me of the “Green Grass” character (from Heartbeat).
George.
I have an X-T2 and an X100F. The T2 is hardly used at the moment - though this might change come spring. I took only the X100F plus WCL to HK and Australia for all of November and didn't miss the T2 one little bit. If I had to let one go, it would be the T2. Incidentally, I find the F to have almost the exact same controls as the X-Pro2 I once owned. I did have all three. I had to lose either the T2 or the Pro2. I think I chose the wrong one!How many XT owners have a an X100 of some description as well?
I had an X100 for years. I loved it but found it's pace frustrating. But it was a great companion to a heavy Nikon DSLR and had a very distinct purpose.
When my DSLR took a tumble last year, I swapped the X100 for an X100T while the insurance side of things was being sorted. I like the X100T, controls and responsiveness are much better than X100 but I've now had an X-T2 for about 6 weeks (replaced my dead DSLR) and the X100T isn't getting a look in. I guess this is partly because I'm in the honeymoon period with my X-T2, but I think it's also that the controls are similar enough that cameras feel familiar but actually they don't work quite the same way and it's really slowing me down when I pick up the X100T. It's not as intuitive as it once was.
So I'm pondering letting it go and picking up a cheap 27mm or 18mm prime for really travelling light with X-T2. Downsides that I can see, is that it still wouldn't be as portable as the X100t, the X100t is sexy! and the focal length isn't 23mm. I love 35mm equivalent and do have the 23mm 1.4. Wish they did a pancake version. The 23mm f/2 is too pointy to make it worthwhile changing for size alone. Or maybe I'll just stick the 35mm f/2 on if I just want to travel light. Don't know, but I'm very aware that the X100t is starting to become a pretty ornament.
Anybody else faced this dilemma? Think I'd regret letting the X100t go?
I have an X-T2 and an X100F. The T2 is hardly used at the moment - though this might change come spring. I took only the X100F plus WCL to HK and Australia for all of November and didn't miss the T2 one little bit. If I had to let one go, it would be the T2. Incidentally, I find the F to have almost the exact same controls as the X-Pro2 I once owned. I did have all three. I had to lose either the T2 or the Pro2. I think I chose the wrong one!
Hi Graham
I have both - acquired the different way round to you so the X100F is the new purchase.
I find I still use both but they are different tools for different jobs. If I want to go wide or long then the XT2 comes into it's own. I guess you could say when there's some foresight and planning into what I'm going to be doing!
I use the X100 when out and about or in 'down the pub' situations i.e. when there's more spontaneity and I'm doing stuff on the fly.
My dilemma is whether to keep my 23 f1.4. It's been my most used lens but with using the X100 for the situations I normally used it for, it's getting underused now.
No right answer I guess. I've just been fortunate to be able to keep both.
Dave
You're right. I have mine set up in a very similar way so don't find it tricky to switch back and forth. There are still some idiosyncrasies that leave me scratching my head when trying to change something on one camera in a way that can't be done on the other but that's usually me just being dim!I can imagine the X100f being less frustrating if you have an X-T2 as the joystick and other controls carry over quite well between the two
You're right. I have mine set up in a very similar way so don't find it tricky to switch back and forth. There are still some idiosyncrasies that leave me scratching my head when trying to change something on one camera in a way that can't be done on the other but that's usually me just being dim!
I know what you're saying Andrew. In fact, I just weighed my X-T2 plus 18-55 (alone), and my PD bag with X100F, WCL, TCL, spare batteries, Manfrotto table-top tripod, and poo bags, and the latter came out almost exactly 1Kg heavier, thus proving your point. BUT to me, less is more. I would argue that for most of my purposes having a fixed-length body (X100F) is more versatile because it challenges me to more carefully consider composition and viewpoint. Plus, the X-T2 is just a camera. A very, very capable camera it's true, but just an optical instrument to take photos. For me photography is more than that. I can inter-act more with the X100F than my T2 because I feel it has soul. Call me daft, but for me photography is more than just the end result; it's the whole experience of taking a photo.I have an XT1 and an X100F. I do love the X100 series and have now had six of them. However, if you're going to fit the X100 with a WCL to get 19mm or a TCL to get 33mm then you'd be better off IMHO with an 18-55 zoom on an XT2 There is no saving in weight or size. Currently, I am agonizing over whether to sell the X100F and XT1 and just make do with an XT2 and the zooms. However, the X100F in its standard form is a joy to use.
I know what you're saying Andrew. In fact, I just weighed my X-T2 plus 18-55 (alone), and my PD bag with X100F, WCL, TCL, spare batteries, Manfrotto table-top tripod, and poo bags, and the latter came out almost exactly 1Kg heavier, thus proving your point. BUT to me, less is more. I would argue that for most of my purposes having a fixed-length body (X100F) is more versatile because it challenges me to more carefully consider composition and viewpoint. Plus, the X-T2 is just a camera. A very, very capable camera it's true, but just an optical instrument to take photos. For me photography is more than that. I can inter-act more with the X100F than my T2 because I feel it has soul. Call me daft, but for me photography is more than just the end result; it's the whole experience of taking a photo.
I know what you're saying Andrew. In fact, I just weighed my X-T2 plus 18-55 (alone), and my PD bag with X100F, WCL, TCL, spare batteries, Manfrotto table-top tripod, and poo bags, and the latter came out almost exactly 1Kg heavier, thus proving your point. BUT to me, less is more. I would argue that for most of my purposes having a fixed-length body (X100F) is more versatile because it challenges me to more carefully consider composition and viewpoint. Plus, the X-T2 is just a camera. A very, very capable camera it's true, but just an optical instrument to take photos. For me photography is more than that. I can inter-act more with the X100F than my T2 because I feel it has soul. Call me daft, but for me photography is more than just the end result; it's the whole experience of taking a photo.
You summarise quite well why I'm concerned I'd regret selling my X100t.
That said, unlike yourself, I'm not finding that is the one I'm reaching for if I'm heading out. Some of my photography just doesn't suit an X100 which mean if I have one, it's always going to be a second camera. It's whether I can continue to justify that when I have an X-T2 which, with the right lens, can do a very good impression of 'compact' camera itself whilst also doing all of the other stuff well too. Admittedly, as you say, without quite the same charisma.
I know what you're saying Andrew. In fact, I just weighed my X-T2 plus 18-55 (alone), and my PD bag with X100F, WCL, TCL, spare batteries, Manfrotto table-top tripod, and poo bags, and the latter came out almost exactly 1Kg heavier, thus proving your point. BUT to me, less is more. I would argue that for most of my purposes having a fixed-length body (X100F) is more versatile because it challenges me to more carefully consider composition and viewpoint. Plus, the X-T2 is just a camera. A very, very capable camera it's true, but just an optical instrument to take photos. For me photography is more than that. I can inter-act more with the X100F than my T2 because I feel it has soul. Call me daft, but for me photography is more than just the end result; it's the whole experience of taking a photo.
That about sums it up!An X100 style camera over your shoulder, spare battery and WCL in pocket = happy days
How many XT owners have a an X100 of some description as well?
I had an X100 for years. I loved it but found it's pace frustrating. But it was a great companion to a heavy Nikon DSLR and had a very distinct purpose.
When my DSLR took a tumble last year, I swapped the X100 for an X100T while the insurance side of things was being sorted. I like the X100T, controls and responsiveness are much better than X100 but I've now had an X-T2 for about 6 weeks (replaced my dead DSLR) and the X100T isn't getting a look in. I guess this is partly because I'm in the honeymoon period with my X-T2, but I think it's also that the controls are similar enough that cameras feel familiar but actually they don't work quite the same way and it's really slowing me down when I pick up the X100T. It's not as intuitive as it once was.
So I'm pondering letting it go and picking up a cheap 27mm or 18mm prime for really travelling light with X-T2. Downsides that I can see, is that it still wouldn't be as portable as the X100t, the X100t is sexy! and the focal length isn't 23mm. I love 35mm equivalent and do have the 23mm 1.4. Wish they did a pancake version. The 23mm f/2 is too pointy to make it worthwhile changing for size alone. Or maybe I'll just stick the 35mm f/2 on if I just want to travel light. Don't know, but I'm very aware that the X100t is starting to become a pretty ornament.
Anybody else faced this dilemma? Think I'd regret letting the X100t go?
That’s a very nice Fujigraph Sir, good light & sky, some fine detail, and well handled exposure & presentation.
George.
I do like Brighton Pier, but there's something a bit odd about how Flickr is displaying this shot. Here in the thread it looks rather oversharpened to my taste, but if I follow the link to Flickr and click the enlarge button, the picture stays the same size but moves down the page, and the sharpening disappears! A bit odd...
Yes, I can see the HDR effect in the clouds But the way the sharpening varies in Flickr is hard to understand, for me. Maybe it's just an awkward pixel size. If you want helpful critique, there's also a couple of pink bands in the sky that could probably be removed. I don't know whether they are lens flare from the sea reflecting the sun or something else. But I like the atmosphere of the shot anyway!Thank you Dave for the comment. In Topaz Studio I clicked on the HDR
Yes, I can see the HDR effect in the clouds But the way the sharpening varies in Flickr is hard to understand, for me. Maybe it's just an awkward pixel size. If you want helpful critique, there's also a couple of pink bands in the sky that could probably be removed. I don't know whether they are lens flare from the sea reflecting the sun or something else. But I like the atmosphere of the shot anyway!
Over the weekend we went to the lake district in Cumbria UK. Took some photos of a pine woodland from the shore of buttermere lake. There were really cool reflections.
When uploaded via iridient the foliage of the pine trees was so washed out it looked pretty rubbish, not even zoomed in. This is the worst I've noticed and the sensor definitely struggles with pine tree foliage.
Checked the JPEG which are the same so suggest its written to the sensor that way rather than Lightroom issues.
Annoying as there is a lot of pine woodland in the northern lakes.
Anyone else got any woodland photos they can share to compare mine against?
I love using my x-t2 but it's disappointing the sensor seems to have some major flaws for landscape stuff.
Would need to see, but sounds like the controversial fuji squigglies.Over the weekend we went to the lake district in Cumbria UK. Took some photos of a pine woodland from the shore of buttermere lake. There were really cool reflections.
When uploaded via iridient the foliage of the pine trees was so washed out it looked pretty rubbish, not even zoomed in. This is the worst I've noticed and the sensor definitely struggles with pine tree foliage.
Checked the JPEG which are the same so suggest its written to the sensor that way rather than Lightroom issues.
Annoying as there is a lot of pine woodland in the northern lakes.
Anyone else got any woodland photos they can share to compare mine against?
I love using my x-t2 but it's disappointing the sensor seems to have some major flaws for landscape stuff.
Would need to see, but sounds like the controversial fuji squigglies.
It's a symptom of x-trans sensors, sharpening, and fine patterns (like foliage), but only really a problem when pixel peeping.
You need to take a different approach to sharpening x-trans files, it's a much more softly softly approach as they're already pretty sharp. Typically, you want the detail slider set to 100 (not 99, 100. It behaves very differently at 100 and this is the key to avoiding squigglies). The other settings are subjective, but I tend to keep below 35-40 on the sharpening slider, 1.1-1.2 on the radius, and then mask accordingly (holding down alt while masking helps).
As the perceptive one said, I'd really like to see the shot itself.Wouldn't be effecting the jpegs though? I wonder if it's just movement.
Sometimes we expect to see finer detail in photographs than we could see with our naked eyes.Could well be slight movement of camera or tree affecting the photos.
Do Pine trees or general foliage ever look that good on photos, also depends what fine detail you expect to see especially at distance.
View attachment 119690 View attachment 119691 View attachment 119692 Taken at South Lakes Safari Zoo. Using 55-200 on xt2. Very mild iPad edit. Monkey photograph taken through glass and tiger through mesh fence and B&W conversion.
View attachment 119690 View attachment 119691 View attachment 119692 Taken at South Lakes Safari Zoo. Using 55-200 on xt2. Very mild iPad edit. Monkey photograph taken through glass and tiger through mesh fence and B&W conversion.
It’s changed its spots ...I think that "Tiger" is a Leopard.... Unless he's wearing a coat
Lol typo thanks for pointing the disguise outI think that "Tiger" is a Leopard.... Unless he's wearing a coat
There's a programme on the telly on Thursday about the zoo. They invited the cameras in to show how they had cleaned up their act, then they killed the lion while the film crews were in. Not the best PR stunt ever devised.Been there couple time but I believe it going get shut down again as they lost a lion due to wrong feed.