• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Fuji X100 Series Photos

Andrew Stannard

pro member
Hi,

A few months ago there was some discussion around the Fuji x100, where a few us were wondering whether to take the plunge. Well just after Christmas I decided I would...

Delighted so far! My reasoning was to have something lighter than my 5DMkII that I could use for family outings, taking on runs and carrying on long hikes up the mountains - but still with great image quality.

So far the x100 is fitting that bill perfectly. Am enjoying the fixed 35mm and 'zooming with my feet', and feel it helps me think about composition more than I do with a zoom lens. The AF speed is adequate - fast moving kids is requiring zone focus, but AF speed fine for when they slow down. Really pleased with image quality - OOC JPGs are great, although still shooting RAW for landscapes to give some extra dynamic range.

Anyway some photos!

(Asher - can't find your post about picture limit. If I've broken it then let me know and I'll remove some!)


2013_01_ASx0722_AndrewStannard.jpg



2013_01_ASx0744_AndrewStannard.jpg



2013_01_ASx0805_AndrewStannard.jpg



2013_01_ASx1097_AndrewStannard.jpg



2013_01_ASx0773_AndrewStannard.jpg



2013_01_ASx1014_AndrewStannard.jpg






Thanks for looking,
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi,

A few months ago there was some discussion around the Fuji x100, where a few us were wondering whether to take the plunge. Well just after Christmas I decided I would...

Delighted so far! My reasoning was to have something lighter than my 5DMkII that I could use for family outings, taking on runs and carrying on long hikes up the mountains - but still with great image quality.

So far the x100 is fitting that bill perfectly. Am enjoying the fixed 35mm and 'zooming with my feet', and feel it helps me think about composition more than I do with a zoom lens. The AF speed is adequate - fast moving kids is requiring zone focus, but AF speed fine for when they slow down. Really pleased with image quality - OOC JPGs are great, although still shooting RAW for landscapes to give some extra dynamic range.

Anyway some photos!

(Asher - can't find your post about picture limit. If I've broken it then let me know and I'll remove some!)

2013_01_ASx0722_AndrewStannard.jpg



Andrew,

These pictures are immediately impressive. With images like this we should have as many as you wish, they're so wonderful! Just group according to theme, like landscape and the kids images separately. Right now it's 6 pics per post and as many as you wish.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I discovered this in my search for Fuji X series related threads. These mages deserve attention and provide a contribution to our understanding of this breed of cameras with such a loyal following.

I hope you will enjoy the pictures again!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief



2013_01_ASx0744_AndrewStannard.jpg


Andy,

The nature of this image really deserves more attention. I wondered whether this is a stitched view? In any case, it's powerfully wide! Then I realized that the camera uses a 23mm lens. That explains the look. I'm immersed with the experience of a giant powerful hand that has grasped the earth here and clawed in it's marks, as if to tell us something about what we have before us.

In this interpretation, I now look at the sky and wonder about how the RAW image might have locked away more depth and spread of tonalities and color. Also,given the striking texture and shape in the earth, a version in B&W might be another consideration to explore. I really feel that if the sky delvers a tad more, as I expect, this is a stellar picture.

Impressed and moved!

Asher
 
Hi,

A few months ago there was some discussion around the Fuji x100, where a few us were wondering whether to take the plunge. Well just after Christmas I decided I would...

Delighted so far! My reasoning was to have something lighter than my 5DMkII that I could use for family outings, taking on runs and carrying on long hikes up the mountains - but still with great image quality.

So far the x100 is fitting that bill perfectly. Am enjoying the fixed 35mm and 'zooming with my feet', and feel it helps me think about composition more than I do with a zoom lens. The AF speed is adequate - fast moving kids is requiring zone focus, but AF speed fine for when they slow down. Really pleased with image quality - OOC JPGs are great, although still shooting RAW for landscapes to give some extra dynamic range.

Anyway some photos!

2013_01_ASx0805_AndrewStannard.jpg



2013_01_ASx1097_AndrewStannard.jpg







Thanks for looking,
Love these two… I wonder if you use the OVF finder or the EVF finder more? …and why? …Also, does anyone knows if Fuji X(xxx) mount is able to support a FF sensor, like Nex mount does?
 

Andrew Stannard

pro member
Hi,

Asher - thanks for reviving this thread in the new Fuji X forums.

As you said the Fuji X100 has a fixed 23mm lens, although with the APS crop this is actually 35mm - so perhaps not as wide as you might expect.

As I've used the camera over the past year, one of the things I've found with the 35mm focal length is that with the right composition it can be made to look fairly wide, or with other composition (particularly with a bit of a crop) it doesn't look wide at all.

I'm fairly certain I took the countryside shot with RAW+JPG, so will have to re-investigate the RAW. If memory serves me correctly the very centre is blown even in the Raw, but the should still be scope to pull some more tonal detail into the sky, and to look at a B&W interpretation.


Theodoros - Thanks for the comments. Generally I tend to use the OVF. For me the X100 has a little too much lag in the EVF, and a lot of the time I like being able to see outside my frame lines with the OVF. Don't know if the lag is better on the X100S, or the other Fuji X cameras?

If I want to be really accurate in my compositions, and not have to crop the image much, then I will tend to use the EVF (particularly for landscapes). With the OVF I often find I end up cropping the image somewhat, and losing pixels, which isn't ideal if I want to print a landscape big.

Cem - Thanks for the kind words. I've loved using the camera over the course of this year, and has been out more than my 5DMkII. Will look to find some other pictures to post.....


Thanks,
Andrew.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Andrew,

As you said the Fuji X100 has a fixed 23mm lens, although with the APS crop this is actually 35mm

The focal length of this lens is actually 23 mm.

This camera has the same field of view as would a full-frame 35 mm film camera equipped with a 35-mm lens.

I know that is what you meant!

Best regards,

Doug
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Fahim,

I would say the fl is more like 34.5mm; at least to the first place of decimal.

The focal length is 23 mm.

I make the full-frame 35-mm equvilent focal length 35.03, although of course four significant figures are not warranted given the precision to which the inputs are specified (and we don't always know that those are)!

The sensor in the camera of interest is stated as having dimensions of 23.6 mm × 15.8 mm, or a diagonal dimension of 28.40 mm. (It is appropriate to carry "excess" significant digits in an intermediate result, which this is with respect to the value we actually are trying to determine; rounding here can result in unjustifiable error in the final result.)

The frame size of a full-frame 35-mm film camera is 36.0 x 24.0 mm, or a diagonal of 43.26 mm.

This the full-frame 35-mm equivalent focal length factor for the camera is 1.523.

If we assume that the focal length of the lens on the camera can be properly expressed as 23.0 mm (and we of course do not know what precision is "asserted"), then the full-frame 35-mm equivalent focal length would be 35.0 mm.

If we assume that the focal length of the existing lens is properly stated as 23 mm, then the full-frame 35-mm equivalent focal length would be 35 mm.

You evidently used a published rounded form of the full-frame 35-mm equivalent focal length factor for this camera (evidently 1.5).

This is of course a valid expression of the factor itself to two significant figures, but using it in further calculations shows the fallacy of rounding intermediate results.

Best regards,

Doug
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Hi Doug.

As stated by Fuji, and I have no reason to doubt that the lens under discussion is of 23mm fl. That is the physical fl of the lens is given as 23mm.

The 35mm figure ( again given by Fuji ) refers to the angle of view this lens would cover when mounted on a camera with a crop factor of 1.5 ( Fuji's figures ).

I could take a wider angle lens and crop it to give me an approximate angle of view of 35mm. I do this with a 28mm lens. If enough pixels are available one can crop to a 50mm angle of view too.

And what is FF anyway. For a Fuji XE-1 ( e.g ), FF is equivalent to a 35mm FF multiplied by a factor of 1.5 ( approximately ). FF is an arbitrarily chosen nomenclature. FF for MF cameras is what their sensor produces. For my RX 100, FF is what its sensor produces. And 35mm film is just one standard ( albeit ) a commonly used one.

To Ansel Adams, FF might have meant something totally different.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Fahim,

And what is FF anyway.

Dunno. I never say it.

I only say "full frame" when I am discussing that an image I provide is not cropped from what the sensor captured.

I will sometimes say "full-frame 35-mm" (and yes, I will sometimes abbreviate it as "ff-35) as a way of suggesting a format size that many people want to have mentioned in that fashion (rather than perhaps sayng "43.3 mm format").

And when I was collecting large-format cameras, I would sometimes speak of a "full frame back for an 8 ×10 view camera." That would be one that took "8 in × 10 in" film holders. Of course I had backs that held smaller film holders. Those would not be "full frame backs for an 8 ×10 view camera."

Best regards,

Doug
 
Top