Fujifilm X-mount Image Thread
/forum/topic/1097477/104

1       2       3              104      
105
       106              578       579       end

cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 6041
Country: United States

^ Cool shot Helena, looks like you're inside a big Star Wars worm or something.

and yeah too bad about the toes - it's all I can do to get the shot without my daughter noticing and making faces

or

No no you don't understand. That's call "photographic tension" and I did it on purpose



HelenaN
Registered: Jul 18, 2008
Total Posts: 1708
Country: Norway

cputeq wrote:
^ Cool shot Helena, looks like you're inside a big Star Wars worm or something.

and yeah too bad about the toes - it's all I can do to get the shot without my daughter noticing and making faces

or

No no you don't understand. That's call "photographic tension" and I did it on purpose


He he, OK! But seriously, hope I didn't offend you. I think it's a great photo. It's just that I always appreciate it when people aren't afraid to give some critique, because then I know that they mean it when they say something nice too. So, I try and do the same for others.

Thank you btw! It was interesting to see a "raw" tunnel. Normally you can't get inside while they are working on them, and once they are finished they have put up cement "walls" all around.



Ian Boys
Registered: Feb 09, 2009
Total Posts: 3766
Country: United Kingdom

xbarcelo wrote:
Wonderful shots, Jordan, xenor, cputeq and Helena!

Two with the CV 15/4,5 and the X-E1















Loving these!


cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 6041
Country: United States

HelenaN wrote:
cputeq wrote:
^ Cool shot Helena, looks like you're inside a big Star Wars worm or something.

and yeah too bad about the toes - it's all I can do to get the shot without my daughter noticing and making faces

or

No no you don't understand. That's call "photographic tension" and I did it on purpose


He he, OK! But seriously, hope I didn't offend you. I think it's a great photo. It's just that I always appreciate it when people aren't afraid to give some critique, because then I know that they mean it when they say something nice too. So, I try and do the same for others.

Thank you btw! It was interesting to see a "raw" tunnel. Normally you can't get inside while they are working on them, and once they are finished they have put up cement "walls" all around.


Oh trust me, no offense taken and i appreciate any feedback i get. I did 5 years US Army, 11 years (and counting) Air Force, straight-shooting Southerner and am a stubborn mule...pretty much impossible to offend



barisaxer
Registered: Feb 21, 2005
Total Posts: 576
Country: United States

I just got a 35mm 1.4 and am loving it



phillie5o3
Registered: Mar 25, 2010
Total Posts: 192
Country: United States

whoa, kevin hart.

big fan man, love your comedy.



ssnap
Registered: Feb 14, 2005
Total Posts: 459
Country: United States

Half-day Friday! I took the family out for some portraits Here's one of my favorites...I promise that I'll get around to sharing something other than family photos. On the upside this was taken with the 55-200.

164mm @ f4.6 1/250 sec

DSCF9192 by snappshotk1000, on Flickr



cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 6041
Country: United States

Lovely family and congrats on the new addition



umsl12
Registered: Dec 09, 2012
Total Posts: 298
Country: United States

Very nice family picture. The colors and sharpness are so great!



umsl12
Registered: Dec 09, 2012
Total Posts: 298
Country: United States

Ssnap,

How fast is AF 0f 55-200 relative to the kids? I have 2 toddlers and i'm wondering if it's fast enough to catch them. Thanks!



ceder
Registered: May 13, 2011
Total Posts: 299
Country: Sweden

Umsl12, the 55-200 is the next slowest of them all, only the 60mm is slower. I was hoping for a firmware fix, but the up oming firmware is for all other lenses, 55-200 is excluded. So, the difference will be even more pronounced...



ssnap
Registered: Feb 14, 2005
Total Posts: 459
Country: United States

umsl12 wrote:
Ssnap,

How fast is AF 0f 55-200 relative to the kids? I have 2 toddlers and i'm wondering if it's fast enough to catch them. Thanks!

When I shoot photos of my toddler and his cousin I'm using either the X100s or NEX-5N. The XP1 (with 35 or 55-200) is too slow. I've used the 18mm before and had better success using a wider aperture. When the kids are running around it's simply frustrating. I may get a handful of photos but most are missed focus.

Here are photos I tried taking of my dogs running back to the house. These are OOC JPEG.










barisaxer
Registered: Feb 21, 2005
Total Posts: 576
Country: United States

55-200 first one. Very nice and sharp pretty slow focus. single focus good but tracking is not. I like it for stuff I shoot not moving.
Second is inside a silo at a friends 18-55 at 18mm. Love the kit zoom sharp and small.

Lat is market with 18-55



umsl12
Registered: Dec 09, 2012
Total Posts: 298
Country: United States

Thank you, Ssnap.

That's my concern. My kids never stay still for me to take pictures and that's the only reason I need to keep my DSLR. When they get older, then I will get 55-200.
thanks



Spyro P.
Registered: Mar 24, 2008
Total Posts: 3417
Country: Australia

meh
I always shoot my kids like I shoot street: wide, stopped down and prefocused



umsl12
Registered: Dec 09, 2012
Total Posts: 298
Country: United States

ceder wrote:
Umsl12, the 55-200 is the next slowest of them all, only the 60mm is slower. I was hoping for a firmware fix, but the up oming firmware is for all other lenses, 55-200 is excluded. So, the difference will be even more pronounced...



Oh noooo, 55-200 is event slower than 35mm?

Thanks for the information!



felixj
Registered: Nov 02, 2010
Total Posts: 93
Country: United Kingdom

Some great photos here.

I gotta say I love the new firmware for the new function button. It makes it twice as usable.

My selection of 'thrifty fifties'. Thrifty because they are cheap!



A couple taken from the Konica Hexanon 50mm f1.7 lens. Check out my flickr for more samples if you like.

This is a great lens. All metal built and it 'feels' the best compared to all the other vintage lens I have tried so far. It also looks really good on the X Pro 1. I love the rendering of this lens. Considering it cost me 17 from eBay, it is a no brainer. I am still deciding which of these legacy lens to keep but this Konica will definitely be making the list. The only downside is that it flares very easily so I will need to look for a cheap metal hood for it. I seen quite a few on eBay for 2-4 so it isn't a bank breaker.




millsart
Registered: Apr 29, 2009
Total Posts: 6122
Country: N/A

I think the issue isn't so much the 55-200, but rather the CDAF of the camera being an issue for any and all lenses. Just isn't a strength of it for tracking motion. Even what I consider the best CDAF camera on the market, the Olympus OM-D, the tracking focus was pretty poor, compared to even an entry level DSLR, and just night and day from the likes of my Nikon D3s which are unreal in their ability to lock and follow even the most random action.

Really rather than trying to treat the camera like a DSLR though and expecting it to track focus, I think its better to take on the mindset of working with a manual focus camera, where you have to anticipate and pre/zone focus. After all, people got plenty of great action shots in days gone past, but just not hundreds of frames of every step the kid takes around the yard motor driving at 10 fps like we can do today. Thing is though, do we really need dozens or hundreds of frames ? Probably not as we are only going to select a few to edit and post/share/print or whatever.

I've found that many times even with the best AF on my DSLR's I still often will prefocus on a given spot. Say I'm wanting to get the dogs running at me. Instead of leaving it to the AF, I'll pick a spot that has a nice background, light coming from the right direction, and focus on a given spot on the grass. Then I'll have someone toss a ball past me so the dogs run right towards me and snap some shots when they pass through the in focus zone. Maybe I'll have to do that more than once to get the perfect moment captured but the dogs (just as kids) seemingly have endless energy to do it over and over

Sometimes it even adds a bit of fun in that its a little more challenging IMHO



ssnap
Registered: Feb 14, 2005
Total Posts: 459
Country: United States

Spyro P. wrote:
meh
I always shoot my kids like I shoot street: wide, stopped down and prefocused


That what makes the 18mm usable with my kids, I can stop it down and get just about everything in focus (f/4 - 8). I like to shoot f1.4 - f4.0 with the 35mm and the 55-200 is more for portraits and less for candids. That's my blow out the background lens.

Even when I had my 7D and 70-200 2.8 IS II that camera was used more for portrait sessions. I used it once for candid shots at an outdoor birthday party. However, the focusing speed is much faster on the 7D / 70-200 combo.

Today I will be at another outdoor birthday and I'll see how the 55-200 performs. I'll report back on my finding later tonight ;-)



ssnap
Registered: Feb 14, 2005
Total Posts: 459
Country: United States

Well, I took the 55-200 out to my nephews birthday party and it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. It wasn't amazing, but I got some good images before the rain came

In all honesty, there wasn't a lot of running around today.







Here's an indoor with the 55-200 of my newborn.


DSCF9268 by snappshotk1000, on Flickr

Here's a photo taken with the 35mm f1.4 that I simply loved!


DSCF9327 by snappshotk1000, on Flickr



1       2       3              104      
105
       106              578       579       end