Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Why do you suggest that? because of longer focus throw? modern mirrorless lenses are often internally focusing, to reduce the mass of the focus group to work better with low inertia CDAF systems. therefore I don't know if longer focal lengths have a greater focus throw or not.
  2. artuk

    X-Pro2 Shutter Delay

    If I correctly understand what you are describing, this has been an issue since the original X Pro 1, and was nicknamed "aperture dance" - the aperture insists on closing, opening and closing to taking aperture when the shutter is pressed, even when in manual focus mode. An author who was supposedly close to Fuji claimed that it was a consequence of the firmware architecture and couldn't be fixed. It was always most pronounced when the aperture was under user control and was a small value (open) but the light was bright. I remember an X-T1 or X-T2 owner finding a similar problem when in manual focus mode, and photographing a stop watch said the delay was variable but he found up to 0.6 seconds in some circumstances. I did report it to Fuji twice within the first couple of years of the release of the X Pro 1, but it appeared that it was impossible to fix, or they were unable to do so, and so remained a significant issue in some circumstances when sharp shutter response was needed. I can only suggest you notify Fuji in your country of the issue, and ask for details of how to report the issue to Fuji Japan (your local customer service will probably ask you to email a local email address and forward the details to Fuji Japan). Unfortunately I never found a satisfactory solution, so apart from trying VJCs suggestion, I don't know what else to suggest. If the camera is new you might consider returning it to your dealer for a refund if it does not satisfy your needs, or contacting Fuji or your dealer and asking for a fix. If they are unable to resolve the problem under warranty, you may be eligible for a replacement or a refund, depending on sales laws in your country. If it is a big enough issue for you, it might be worth a try.
  3. It's always been my understanding from some years ago that converting to DNG effectively means that the native RAW file is demosaiced using the Adobe raw engine, and then converted back into DNG format raw data. As a result, any issues with the Adobe raw engine (of which there have been many with X Trans Raw files) is then encoded into the DNG. Happy to be proven wrong that it ISNT doing demosaicing, and that actually it's just converting data points from one raw package to another... but that wasn't how I believed it worked. It was just a watch out as it may effectively result in "Lost data" in the resultant DNG files if the OP deletes his RAF files. p.s. I haven't used Adobe for several years, as the raw support of RAF files in earlier versions was so poor - maybe it's improved - although my experience was always that the implementation of raw support for cameras that weren't made by Canon or Nikon was often mediocre at best.
  4. One of the potential issues with concerting to DNG format is that it is believed that the data in the source raw file is converted into an image and then back into DNG raw format - hence what ends up in the DNG format is the result of the Adobe development process, complete with any issues that may contain (in the past, Adobe conversions of RAF files were almost comically bad compared to other development software, so converting to DNG embedded all those Adobe issues in the target file). It's not something I would recommend, but you may not feel it is an issue if you are using Adobe software anyway, since the results are unlikely to be any worse than simply opening your RAF file in Adobe software. If you want to use your raw files with other software at a later date, I definitely wouldn't recommend it.
  5. welcome. contrary to other peoples opinions, I did read the OPs question and gave my honest answer based on experience earlier in this thread. He's been using a camera with a 28-100mm equivalent lens when "travelling", and asks if replacing it with a 28mm or 35mm prime lens camera is a good replacement. Depending on his subjects and interests, as my later post tried to demonstrate, I dont think either is an ideal "travel" camera. In my opinion you need a decent zoom, of which there are several good examples outside the Fuji brand. If he must have a Fuji then I guess the X30 is the compromise. I would only consider a 28-35mm fixed lens if I knew exactly what I needed it for, and without further information from the OP about his photographic interests and style, its impossible to say if either camera would suffice.
  6. "Travel photography" is largely a meaningless term, since what people photography when travelling varies so widely. Even taking the perhaps more classic definition - stock photos of a location and life there - gives rise to the potential need for a large selection of focal lengths to cover scenery, architecture, street life / locals, close ups and still life, food, portraits etc. Those things often don't need a 28mm or 35mm equivalent lens, and zooming with your feet is a nonsense (David Kilpatrick wrote an excellent article a few months ago on his photoclubalpha website, which explains very clearly why varying focal length has a great impact on composition that moving the camera does not replicate). If people tell you that an X70 or X100 or similar camera is all you need, it's because they only take pictures of certain types of subject. Personally, I don't like wide lenses for lots of subjects as the wider field of view requires you to be uncomfortably close to a subject, or creates a background that is too distracting because for the same sized subject they capture more angular coverage that creates busy backgrounds (it suits some things, but not others). Of course using certain equipment and focal lengths makes you gravitate to subjects that suit it! For different people, "travel" may mean landscapes, city scapes, architecture, reportage, interiors, social / people, food, low light, tripod based work and a whole host of other things. Therefore the equipment that most suits will depend on each person's interests and needs. However, I would always recommend zoom lenses over primes for many of the above, since the enormous flexibility of focal length using a "standard" zoom (24-70, 28-85, 24-105 etc) together with a wide angle zoom (12-24, 16-35) cover most of the focal lengths that are likely to be needed. I would then suggest a faster aperture prime for situations when shallow DOF may be required, or when working in low available light - the length may depend on your interests, but will probably be something "normal" like a 50mm. My travel, which can last from weeks to months, includes city scapes, architecture, street portraiture, reportage, event and competition coverage, and "formal" portraiture. As a result, my typical "travel" kit includes a 16-35mm, 24-70mm for travel, a 55mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 for reportage, portraiture and street portraitures, a 70-200mm for event work, perhaps a wider fast prime for some street work, and a couple of flash guns and a wireless controller. It's not exactly many people's classic "light" travelling kit, but it's what I feel I need to take the pictures I like to shoot (samples below using 55mm, 85mm, 16-35mm, 90mm, 85mm, 28mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm respectively). Other people's needs will vary based on their photographic interests - but I would ALWAYS suggest taking a zoom over a prime, unless you want to take a classic 28/50/85 or similar, and spend a lot of time swapping lenses!
  7. "Travel" photography is an often misleading term, as many people photograph whilst travelling, which isn't always the same thing as classic "travel photography". Therefore depending om what type of.photographs the OP takes under the banner of "travel", I wouldn't recommend a fixed lens camera with a wise lens. Yes, I know, some.people travel and find subjects that suit a 35mm Equivalent lens, but I photography great deal when travelling and can say a fixed focal le gtg is entirely unsuitable for many uses. "Zoom with your feet" isn't actually an answer, and since the OP current has an X10 with a zoom lens, I would suggest he wants something similar. The X70 and X100 suit quite different types of photography, so if he wants to stay with Fuji, I guess he should look.at an X30 or something. If he would consider other brands, Panasonic and Sony make excellent pocket cameras with fast or very considerable zoom lenses that suit tje diverse requirements of travelling.
  8. artuk


    I assume you are a Fuji ambassador or someone who gets free equipment from them ?
  9. artuk

    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.
  10. artuk


    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.
  11. artuk


    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.
  12. artuk


    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.
  13. artuk


    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.
  14. artuk


    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).
  15. artuk


    what do you think are the reasons why the XH1 is "half baked"? (just curious as previously you were encouraging me to buy it!)