|
Is there a good solution for an external battery pack for the Fuji XT1? It looks like there are DC couplers that could be rigged to whatever, but I'm not sure about e.g. cable compatibility, etc.
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 20:55 |
|
|
Edward IV posted:You may want to hold off on the 18mm and 27mm. There are rumors that Fuji is going to focus their upcoming lens lineup on compact lenses which may include a 23mm f/2 similar to that on the X100. God I hope this is true. I'd really love if they released some wider pancake lenses. If they could make an interchangeable version of something like the 18.5mm f/2.8 lens on the X70 that would be perfect. I really want something ultra-portable and reasonably wide angle for things like backpacking/hiking/mountaineering, and with the current lens lineup I'd probably prefer to just buy an X70 rather than stick the 18 f/2 on my XT1. The XF 18mm f/2 isn't a *terrible* lens, but I can't justify the price when it's just flat out optically inferior to the 18-55. If they could make a stopped down, smaller, better corrected and optically superior 18mm prime (or even 23mm), and make it weather resistant to boot, I'd be thrilled.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Saros posted:Oh god I need this so badly. Probably not a big deal for the lens, although with no gasket to seal the lens from the camera I think your sensor/camera are more vulnerable than they would otherwise be. I think there are aftermarket rubber o-rings you can use to weather seal the lens mount, but I'm not so sure. Even a non weather sealed AF lens is probably going to be fine in light conditions, especially if its a relatively compact lens with the hood on (a zoom is more iffy if you are extending the barrel in and out). But corrosion can really be a bitch, and I value weather sealing mainly for the corrosion margin it gives in light/moderate conditions, rather than any faith I have in the weather sealing to protect the camera in sustained rain or something like that. I think for me, the bottom line is that weather sealing a prime lens (especially a smaller one) is not that hard, and doesn't introduce much of a design compromise, so especially for glass that is being marketed and priced as "pro" I feel a little shortchanged when it isn't there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Meh, unless you are shooting near salt water a bit of water on the camera isn't a huge deal at all. People used nonweather sealed lenses for years without issues in all kinds of conditions. I think it's great to have it but it being a deal breaker when trash bags and rubber bands exist is weird. Well first off, "shooting near salt water" basically means "any time there is an ocean and wind", and that's not exactly a fringe case  I think it really boils down to how often and for how long you are using your camera in environments where there is some exposure to moisture, dust, etc. If I am going to be spending 2-10 days in the wilderness with a camera, in variable weather, several times a year, there is often going to be intermittent exposure to low-grade conditions like light rain/drizzling, dust blown by strong winds, very cold temperatures, etc, for 10-14 hours a day each day. You really rack up a lot of "weather exposed" hours in a year doing that kind of thing. A little bit of water on a non weather sealed lens/body is very probably fine, but if you start multiplying a lot of very probablys together the odds start to turn. Plastic bags / sleeves are more or less mandatory, even for a WR camera in any kind of sustained weather, but its pretty annoying to have to operate the camera with a plastic bag all around it all day just because its on/off drizzling or dusty and windy. I prefer weather sealing because it narrows the scope of things I have to potentially worry about from "every goddamn niggling thing" to something more manageable. I don't think weather resistance is a deal breaker for me, and I always say that my best weather protection is my insurance policy...but if I'm going to shell out several hundred to a thousand bucks for a prime lens, It's a strong preference, especially on prime lenses where weather sealing just doesn't constitute the same compromise in terms of size/cost as for zooms. In the absence of insurance, a lack of weather sealing probably would be a deal breaker for me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:it's a fringe case for anyone that doesn't live near a coastline, which is only 60% of the world's population. Are you serious, man? Billions of people *do* live near oceans, and believe it or not some people travel to other locations and take pictures with their cameras. It has been known to happen, from time to time. I mean, I know it is A Thing for photography enthusiasts to go to irrational lengths arguing that personal preferences contingent on their particular situation are universal truths, but you are basically saying I don't need to worry about salt water because some people aren't by oceans, and denying elementary probability theory. I'm used to having to deal with people saying that, e.g. crop sensors are worthless and there is no reason to ever shoot anything other than FF, but you have taken things to a whole new level. Next you're going to tell me that I don't need to wear a coat outside because not everywhere is cold, and I that I might as well not use condoms because That's Not How Odds Work. I mean I'm not saying that all lenses need to be weather sealed, or that its a big deal for all people. But for at least some people, myself included, who spend a lot of time shooting outdoors, it is a nice thing to have, and can be reasonably expected to extend the lifetime of our gear.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
harperdc posted:.. I mean, unlike some of the other f2 vs. f1.4 Fuji primes (here's lookin' at you giant rear end 16mm f/1.4), the two 35mm lenses have very similar size and are within 20g of each other. Sharpness is basically identical and so is distortion after automatic correction is applied. The f/2 focuses faster, has weather sealing, and is cheaper. If those things are more important to you than being 1 stop faster, then it's an easy choice. If you need f/1.4, be happy that you can get it for basically the same size and weight as the f/2 at this focal length.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
tino posted:I hiked the white mountain with a 14mm/2.8. If I do it again, I would rent the 10-24 and bring an extra 360 camera. Optically the 8-16 looks amazing but it's huge as gently caress. I honestly wish they'd stuck with a smaller constant aperture or variable aperture and kept the size/volume more manageable. Especially since the relatively wide 16mm upper range pretty much necessitates bringing a second, longer focal length lens (while the 10-24 has just enough reach to be less of a compromise if it's the only lens I bring). I get that they want to differentiate it more from the 10-24, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2019 09:11
|
|
|
DJExile posted:👏 MEGAPIXEL 👏 COUNT 👏 DOES 👏 NOT 👏 MATTER 👏 ABOVE 👏 LIKE 👏 7MP 👏 Other people have already chimed in with the usual responses to this, e.g. modern displays being both (much) larger and higher resolution than typical prints were back when these guidelines were first promoted. But, more fundamentally, consider that the resolving power of a diffraction-limited optical system is completely independent of focal length. So, at equivalent numerical aperture, a 24mm lens is exactly as capable of resolving distant objects as a 600mm lens, provided both lenses are optically very good. The practical reason you can't just crop the image from a 24mm lens to get the same image as you would from 600mm lens is that the spatial resolution of your sensor/film is not good enough. The spatial resolution of film has been more or less fixed for decades, and only recently have digital sensors with a high enough megapixel count emerged to match this. But as megapixel counts continue to increase (as they very assuredly will), you will eventually reach a point where a cropped image from a 800MP camera with an excellent wide angle lens will have parity with a 12MP camera using an excelllent long telephoto. This will probably be a disruptive and important development. Morbus fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Mar 24, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
bloops posted:Would be interesting if Fuji releases a new sensor in the X-T4. I hope to god they just go to a standard bayer layout + AA filter design. There is no real technical advantage to use their goofjob pixel layout, and it certainly isn't worth the problems it creates when demosaicing or sharpening. Morbus fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Feb 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2020 05:39
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Then they'd be Just Another Mirrorless and why would anyone buy one over a Sony or m43 or whatever canikon is selling? Even m43 got rid of AA filters. This one has knobs isn't enough of a selling feature on its own, pretty 'film' grain is. GFX uses a bayer layout, so do the X-T100 or X-T200. The images from those cameras do not look remarkably different from their X-trans counterparts. People like those cameras for the same reasons they like other Fuji cameras such as: -Fuji image processor generally regarded as having uniquely good color rendition and excellent SOOC JPGs -Excellent FX lens lineup -Ergonomics Take out the AA filter if you want (this is an objectively stupid thing to do, but there's no major downside to handling aliasing in post and getting to market your camera as "sharper" so, whatever). But it's just annoying to have to deal with the clusterfuck of x-trans demosaicing for literally no reason. If you want to use a novel sensor layout at least go for RGBW or something that has some demonstrated benefit. If you're the one guy out there who uses Fuji because of the peculiarities of X-trans chroma noise, I'm sure their engineers can replicate it in a film simulation for you (not a big ask since most of the "look" of x-trans noise is a consequence of aggressive post processing to begin with).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
frogbs posted:Does anyone know why Fuji doesn’t put the in-body ND filter from the X100 series in any of their interchangeable lens bodies? Would love to have seen one on the XT-4... There are some (not insurmountable) engineering challenges in integrating an ND filter to an interchangeable lens camera in a way that -is not too bulky -is reasonably cheap -works well (and is truly neutral) for all lenses at all aperture settings With integrated lens cameras, it's easier, in part because the ND filter does not have to exist just in front of the sensor, (which is not an ideal place to put it if you want to satisfy the above criteria), and because the lens and filter can be co-designed. Given the difficulties, the value proposition probably just isn't there. If someone really wants to have that functionality without dealing with lens filters, and is willing to incur some added bulk, there are lens throttle adapters with ND filters (I think? Not actually sure for x-mount).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2020 08:01
|
|
|
teraflame posted:How many people use back button focus? Is it worth doing? It's pretty common to have a situation where you don't want to meter at your focus point. There are several ways to deal with this, such as: 1. Use manual focus 2. Use manual exposure 3. Use the shutter to set focus, let it meter at the focus point, and use exposure compensation to get the desired metering 4. Compose and meter as needed, and use the d-pad / touchscreen / whatever to set the desired focus point. 5. Use AE-L to set the appropriate metering, use the shutter (half press) to focus at the desired point and recompose as needed 6. Use AF-L/BBF to focus at the desired point, use the shutter (half press) to meter as desired and recompose as needed. Any of these will work, and they have their pros and cons, but there is a good argument that #5 and #6 are the fastest methods to get the focus, metering, and composition you want with the least amount of fuss. Morbus fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Mar 6, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:My experience was that the initial transition was a pain, but once I became used to BBF I'd never go back. Three functions on the shutter button is just ineffecient for most shooting I've found. But, I've also seen lots of folks try it for half a day and declare it useless, which I generally understand the sentiment, but think they'd at the very least get over the annoyance even if it's not their best solution. To be fair some of it boils down to ergonomics. Pretty much every camera has a nice beefy exposure compensation dial and/or good shutter & aperture controls, but BBF buttons are often lovely recessed tiny buttons that are seemingly wrongly for everyone's thumb. This can especially be an issue when wearing gloves. Though, usually, there will be at least some function button somewhere on the drat thing that you can configure as an AF-L button and have it work well for you. There's also a pretty good argument that for many situations where your focus point really matters, any kind of focus + recompose method is less than optimal since rotation/tilting of the camera when recomposing will slightly change the distance to your subject and gently caress up the focus. This is often a noticeable problem for close subjects and wide apertures, to the point that you are truly better off composing and selecting a non-center focus point, or using manual focus. And if you're shooting distant subjects at f/8 or whatever, the whole argument mostly boils down to "who gives a poo poo" and there's not necessarily a disadvantage to using shutter focus.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
powderific posted:Resolution isn’t the only thing that makes an image though, and while the workarounds Olympus has come up with are really cool they’re not as flexible as just having a better sensor. Dynamic range is one area, outside the world of cinema cameras anyway, where the newer/bigger/better sensors do better and I think it’s pretty noticeable in images even if people don’t seem to focus on as it much in photography. And that’s also a domain where medium format and full frame cameras have usually had an advantage over smaller sensors even when the Olympus sensor came out. Dynamic range is (at least fundamentally) determined by signal to noise ratio. Which, in turn (especially for modern sensors) is mostly a function of photon shot noise, i.e. how many photons did you collect*. Oly's "High-res mode" (and pretty much any other supersampling technique) composite together multiple exposures after slightly translating the sensor in the image plane, which doesn't just increase the resolution of the resulting image--it significantly increases the amount of light collected and therefore improves SNR. A supersampled image composited from 8x exposures will have sqrt(8) ~ 2.8x better (shot) SNR--equivalent to a single exposure (under the same conditions) from a sensor area 2.8x as large. This improves the effective dynamic range of a 225 sq. mm m43 sensor to be "equivalent" to a hypothetical 630 sq. mm sensor, so, just shy of full frame, significantly better than APS-C, still 3-4 times smaller than MF. In a similar way, it should also be noted that for exposures where subject motion is not an issue (i.e. the only shots where supersampling / "high-res mode" make sense to begin with), you can achieve--in principle--an arbitrarily good dynamic range just by taking multiple exposures and averaging them together (after aligning if needed). Most landscape/architecture photographers don't usually exploit this despite it being easy to do...in part because dynamic range off a single exposure is usually good enough (i.e. far better than the dynamic range of the viewing medium and sufficient for adjusting whites or shadows by a couples stops or more). But at the end of the day, a larger sensor will collect more photons in a shorter time, without needing to resort to extensive post processing and multiple exposure, and it will always generate a very high resolution image (even at small apertures where diffraction limits supersampling). Is that worth the much higher cost and weight and size of the equipment? Depends on what you are shooting, whether it's moving or not, and your particular needs & priorities. *This is a simplification but a pretty accurate one unless you are shooting in very dark conditions or with very long exposures (even then it's pretty good).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2020 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 20:55 |
|
|
Thoren posted:Guys can your cameras do AEL with manual Aperture and SS, but auto ISO? X-T1 definitely behaves the same way. Kind of annoying but I guess the consolation is if your photo is too dark or light purely due to the camera not adjusting ISO the way you wanted it to, this is easy to address in post. So unless you are for some reason taking a lot of shots this way its not a big deal. But yes, I think it's dumb for the AE-L button metering to not behave exactly the same as shutter half-press metering.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2020 11:20
|
|