Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. X-H1

    I assume you are a Fuji ambassador or someone who gets free equipment from them ?
  2. Browser blocker

    Windows Defender will generally remove this type of malware. It's often a web page that occupies full screen mode and claims to be something that requires intervention. Close the browser, restart the machine, manually run Defender, or let it run by itself, it will be gone. No anti virus software traps this type of internet malware that I know of, but it's generally benign and comes to your pc as malware from a hosted website, it's actually java script but doesn't do any harm. I recommend running a deep scan on your pc using Defender or your chosen security software to prove it.
  3. X-H1

    I'm not looking for a "Perfect" camera, I'm just looking for tools that can do the things I need. My narrative in the previous post was about what I perceive as issues with the X Trans sensor layout - I'm not convinced that it actually gives any true benefits, but seems to come with a number of issues. At least Fovean sensors at base ISO has sumptuous colour and detail. I wouldn't say I choose a camera for technology - but I expect it to work and be competitive. I would say typically that X series cameras are a little late to market, as Fuji like us to believe they have a very conservative attitude (or perhaps the camera division just isn't big enough?). I was totally baffled when the X-T1 has the very old 16Mp sensor when Sony had a much better 24Mp unit with PDAF across 80% of the surface. However, I do appreciate that by pushing the shooting envelope one can achieve things not possible before, or make the process easier. Technology as an enabler. Many traditionalists declare some features "gimmicks" (face detection, eye focusing, 20-24fps etc) yes they actually make the photographic process easier and more reliable in some situations. I read reviews and user comments about all sorts of cameras. The X Pro 1 was an over-priced dog, and Fuji knew it when a few years later it was selling at a quarter of it's original price with free lenses bundled in. The new cameras are clearly better, but so are all the other brands, and I simply wouldn't pay a £1500-2000 price for an APS-C or m43rds body, as for me sensor size and the accompanying high ISO performance and resolution are valuable. I use APS-C also, for events where I wanted more reach, or when I want to travel really light, but I accept that limits certain uses such as available light work. The smart phone market is increasingly saturated, a sign of maturity, with product cycles offering little innovation but mostly useless electronic fripperies (turning faces in a video feed into emoticons?) and fashion (curved screens, small bezels, notches). Apple show absolutely no signs of innovation Mirrorless cameras have already made their major leaps in performance and utility since the first Olympus Pen's, Sony NEX's and Samsung NX cameras, so now product cycles are slowing and improvements are getting smaller. IBIS isn't an innovation, it's been around for 10 years.
  4. X-H1

    I wouldn't buy a GFX, or it's peers, because it's not actually a medium format camera - the sensors used are not THAT much bigger than full frame, but the cameras and lenses are large, and they certainly cannot shoot sports, or do TTL off camera flash, or continuous shooting, or face / eye detection, or many of the other things that make them unsuitable for certain applications. Good for tripod and studio work, maybe less so for other things. I'm not "pro" Bayer, I just need to be shown that alternatives are actually better. Some theory says that Bayer layout is the mathematically best solution to the problem. The individual single colour pixels are basically the same as the single colour pixels on the same sensor with a Bayer colour filter layout. Each pixel has the same dynamic range and noise characteristics. X Trans claims to lower noise by having a lot more green pixels, used for luminance (brightness) calculations during demosaicing, but far fewer red and blue, meaning that to recover a full colour pixel the demosaicing process has to look much further away to get the red and blue colour data. Looking further away logically makes the result less accurate, as it's a red or blue reading from several pixels away. Also, sampling larger areas during demosaicing means sampling a larger number of pixels (a bigger group), which is what makes the noise lower - sampling a bigger set is smoothing, which is effectively noise reduction. It's the same as applying NR to a Bayer file. I fail to see the benefit of noise smoothing that cannot be controlled or turned off by the user, when combined with what appear to be exaggerated ISO values, and problems caused by sparse colour data (water colour effects on random detail etc). By the same token, I'm not convinced by Foveon sensors. At base ISO, the results are stunning, much better than Bayer or X Trans. Unfortunately, above about ISO400, because the light has to pass through layers of the sensor to record each colour, the noise starts to become really bad. If I was a tripod based landscape photographer, Foveon could be a great choice, but I shoot a lot of hand held available light work with sensors where ISO12800 is "normal" and gives an excellent print. IBIS really has been a great feature during 10 years of shooting other brands, again because I do a lot of available light shooting and it's a great way to "drag the shutter" (use slower shutter speeds) and still get crisp results, whilst minimising ISO values. The "1/focal length" rule just doesn't work well with 24Mp APS-C or even higher Full Frame resolution, which requires REALLY good technique without stabilisation.
  5. X-H1

    Fuji colours may be attractive, but they are not accurate. Lab tests of some of the earlier cameras showed a significant skew in colour responses for some colours. Accuracy and attractiveness are not the same thing. Personally, I don't understand the benefit of X-Trans. It was originally marketed as a solution to moire in sensors without a low pass filter, and lower noise. There are now many Bayer cameras with weak or no low pass filter that don't suffer from moire. Side by side comparison shows at the same ISO settings, X cameras expose about +2/3ev more than other brands, which makes it look that the ISO values are being exaggerated, so I remain unconvinced about noise claims. The downsides are greater processing demands to do the demosaicing, problems with organic fine detail, and in my experience noise reduction and smoothing that cannot be turned off due to the nature of the demosaicing process. As some others have commented, the cure seems worse than the illness.
  6. X-H1

    I am sure some members will become very annoyed with what I am about to say, but its the "truth" from my perspective. I agree. When The X-T1 was released, I still had my X Pro 1and lenses, but had mostly given up on it as it was so slow and frustrating to use, with too many limitations and issues (aperture dance, shutter lag, slow af, control issues / bugs etc). I looked at the XT1, but like the XPro had been, it was very expensive, only 16mp again when other makers had moved to 24mp, and the sensor limited the pdaf focusing to the centre of the frame, not a wide area like new rivals. Comparisons seemed to show the af still wasn't as good as its latest rivals, and it still had some of the issues of previous cameras (aperture dance, shutter lag, control issues etc). The competition seemed more capable, and was cheaper, and seemed to offer "more" capability and features. I'm glad I didn't get an XT1 as I think I would have remained frustrated and disappointed. It seems like the XT2 was a significant improvement. History seems to show that every first generation model has issues and became better on a second or third attempt. My X Pro 1 ownership (£1500 for a "professional" apsc camera with so many issues , when I could have got a new FF slr for the same money) created such a bad feeling and the XT1 wasn't enough to overcome it. Fuji are generally conservative and bring models and features late to the market, but often this doesn't seem to reflect in a greater operational maturity. I've used IBIS cameras since 2005. It is a valuable feature for high resolution stills, particularly in less than ideal light. I don't think I would pay nearly £2000 for an aps camera, nor a m43rds model. I don't know much about the new cameras video quality; I think the current generation of apsc sensors have issues with data throughput which limits quality, but I think that will be resolved in the next generation. Fuji make it hard for themselves due to the processing demands of the sensor layout, which must make the data pipeline for video feed even more technically problematic.
  7. RawTherapee

    How do you find it? I tried the Windows Beta, and it was dreadful, barely beta, and very slow. Worse, I didn't think the features and usability were particularly good. Even after full release, I was staggered to find that it couldn't save the edits to a raw file in a way that you could return to - you could only export the result - as this was a feature that was "coming later" (I would have thought it was a basic feature that such software should have).
  8. X-H1

    what do you think are the reasons why the XH1 is "half baked"? (just curious as previously you were encouraging me to buy it!)
  9. AF speed and accuracy of the new X-H1

    If I am not mistaken, the S2Pro was a Nikon made camera with a Fuji sensor inside, so the Af module may have come from Nikon. SLRs *generally* still perform slightly better than mirrorless cameras under demanding situations, although i think some of the best focusing mirrorless cameras may be as good. I agree with KIWI that historically Fuji's AF has lagged behind the competition, and although it has improved, so has the competition too. When I used Fuji cameras, the AF performance was also greatly influenced by the lens used, some being good and some being rather sluggish.
  10. X-H1

    I've also noticed that general trend - mirrorless cameras that started so small with models such as the NEX-5 and OM-D have gradually been getting larger, heavier and more SLR like, whilst SLRs have in some cases been getting smaller and lighter. The result is that there often isn't that much difference between camera types when lenses are also factored. Even more bizarrely, even much smaller formats such as m43rds have camera + lens combinations that save little over APS-C or even FF.
  11. I've published an article on the Dear Susan website that forms the first of a short series of 3 pieces on travel to cities in South East Asia, and different aspects of my approach to street portraiture. The first piece is written from Kuala Lumpur, the capitol of Malaysia, and talks about the city and my attitude and approach when photographing street portraiture. I use Sony E mount cameras and lenses. Dear Susan is a collaborative website with articles written by a number of members on different subjects, but mostly around the themes of travel photography and photography as art. Please do take a look at the article and leave a comment on the Dear Susan website, or here, and let me know what you think.
  12. Fujifilm XT-2 Digital Camera

    At least it doesn't have a "Fujicron" lens... ;-)
  13. Thanks for pointing that out. Have you tried the newer versions of SilkyPix? The output quality is much better than anything I've seen from Adobe. so it is well worth a free trial. Hopefully, my overview will help new users get used to it - I've been using it for several years now, and I am very happy with the image quality.
  14. At long last, my review of Ichikawa software's "SilkyPix Developer Studio Pro v8" has been published on the "Dear Susan" website. It gives an overview of SilkyPix and it's features and controls, how to use it, and compares the quality of results with Capture One. I have used it for several years on raw files from a number of cameras including Fuji X system, and always found the quality of the results. Please take a look at the article and feel free to leave some feedback over at Dear Susan.
  15. There's nothing wrong with Lexar cards - I use them in other brand cameras without problem. The issue is using Lexar cards in Fuji cameras. Some Kingston CF cards gave issues and poor write times in Sony cameras, but worked fine in other brands. The problem is undoubtedly an issue with the cameras or cards implementation of the card standards at driver level, and it's impossible to say who's at fault - although if cards word correctly in other devices it tends to suggest the driver in the camera may not be quite right.