I'm not doubting that you can tell the difference or prefer one wine over another in a comparison, but I doubt anyone who claims the ability to identify a wine in a blind tasting.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
I'm not doubting that you can tell the difference or prefer one wine over another in a comparison, but I doubt anyone who claims the ability to identify a wine in a blind tasting.
Oh by no means, just a quick google example. I was trying to find another set of shots with the Biotar I was amazed by, but couldn't find them. As it is, I'll get my Rokkor 58mm 1.4 soonish, then I can do some portraits.
If you're buying new, make sure you do it at Yodobashi Camera. Show your passport to knock off sales tax and use a VISA card to get an extra 5% off.
Hi all, first time posting in this thread in ages. I've kinda let my love for photography fall to the wayside for the last three years but have recently been jonesing to get back into it. I've been eyeing the FujiFilm mirrorless cameras. I mostly focus on shooting "street" photography (as nebulous as that term is) by that I mean industrial areas, houses, events, etc. as well as impromptu/low pressure portraits. I'm also looking to shoot a lot of video with it. I'm leaning into either investing in a 23mm or 18mm lens, but I've also seen that the 18mm-55mm lens kit is also pretty good. Hoping to get some more insight and/or any personal experience with these or any other mirrorless cameras.
X-T2 is the value option, X-T3 is the "best" option for video codecs, but X-H1is the best all around option for combination of IBIS/codecs if your videos need IBIS/you don't want to use a gimbal. 23/2 is a fantastic weather sealed walkaround/street lens. 56/1.2 is the defacto portrait lens, but slow AF for video.
A 3 of those bodies have piddly little batteries so you'll probably want a grip for max video shooting.
I bought into the system recently, specifically prior to my trip to SE Asia. The bodies are of similar size and with the 23mm f/2, they are perfect for the street. If video is one of the main use cases, you have to go with the stabilized body mentioned above, otherwise I'd suggest the XT-30 for best bang for the buck, high tech, cheap price. You just lose the stabilization and weather sealing.
I bought the XT3 w/ the 23mm f/2, here are a few shots, straight from camera:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7875/33222385298_b86f6d79cd_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7811/33222387618_f5319cc821_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7884/33222389718_a8c5e9db0d_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7925/46183941855_8a4def6c47_h.jpg
I think the systems color rendition and processing capabilities are outstanding. Basically perfect for traveling and street, once you figure out the controls and customize, you set it and just take photos.
If you can find an X-H1 at a good price get that over the X-T2, get the X-T3 if you do tripod work and want the better video features and more responsive AF. The 23F2 is good, I just prefer the 23 1.4 over it. I hate the 18-55, but that's mostly just a "me" thing. I have shot pretty extensively on Fuji till my Sony acquisition, but they're very good cameras.
Funny y'all are talking about Fuji cameras, I just came back from a "short-film jam" with my buddies who were using an XT-3 and that entire production convinced me that I need a Fuji now lol. The other teams had badass gear like a C300, A9, and URSA Mini, but that XT-3 was a beast on its own.
Judging hasn't been done so unfortunately I haven't seen how the other teams footage looked like but our footage looked fantastic thanks to Eterna, though we had to switch to F-Log a couple of times for dynamic range purposes, and 10-bit recording is really nice too.
The weirdest thing about the experience was that it kinda convinced me I don't need IBIS. We had a Ronin to solve that, but we had to shoot a scene where we needed some shaky cam so we obviously couldn't use the Ronin. We were using a 16 1.4 with no OIS, and handheld it just looked terrible so we placed it on a pistol grip and it was tons better. But to give us some options, we switched the lens out for the 18-55 2.8-4 with OIS(still on the pistol grip) just to see if it'd be any better(it was also the only lens we had that had OIS lmao). And IMO, it was a loooooot better. It obvioously wasn't as smooth as the Ronin but I felt that it achieved the look that we were going for.
Anyway, that was a really fun experience and I'll share the film provided we lose the contest lol. Also, all this is to say that yes, Fuji is awesome and I'm potentially a convert now.
Judging hasn't been done so unfortunately I haven't seen how the other teams footage looked like but our footage looked fantastic thanks to Eterna, though we had to switch to F-Log a couple of times for dynamic range purposes, and 10-bit recording is really nice too.
The weirdest thing about the experience was that it kinda convinced me I don't need IBIS. We had a Ronin to solve that, but we had to shoot a scene where we needed some shaky cam so we obviously couldn't use the Ronin. We were using a 16 1.4 with no OIS, and handheld it just looked terrible so we placed it on a pistol grip and it was tons better. But to give us some options, we switched the lens out for the 18-55 2.8-4 with OIS(still on the pistol grip) just to see if it'd be any better(it was also the only lens we had that had OIS lmao). And IMO, it was a loooooot better. It obvioously wasn't as smooth as the Ronin but I felt that it achieved the look that we were going for.
Anyway, that was a really fun experience and I'll share the film provided we lose the contest lol. Also, all this is to say that yes, Fuji is awesome and I'm potentially a convert now.
I prefer Fuji to Sony for video to be honest. I'm honestly looking at Sony as my next event photography cameras since depending on shoot length the D4 and D810 combo leaves me sore, granted I'm getting tired of how much the black rapid straps I have dangle. The weight distribution on these things are terrible.
This one is sooooo Fuji. Instantly recognizable. In a good way ;)
Yeah I stayed at Velvia as I was still figuring the camera out, to be honest I'm pretty shocked things worked as well is as they did, getting a brand new unfamiliar camera right before a trip isn't ideal, but my OMD basically died after my trip in Costa Rica (it was in my backpack constantly, I believe moisture got in and killed the LCD). Typically I love vibrancy so I don't mind but Velvia isn't for all situations.
Yeah, Velvia was definitely my favorite film simulation, followed closely by Astia.
I don't like Velvia for people. You really have to play with it to get the skin tones right, it leans too yellow and orange for me.
For sure, it's great for landscapes, city stuff like graffiti, when you wanna make things pop etc. Astia/Across are better for people, soft or hard depending on what you're looking for.
when dealing with film Velvia was always seen as one of the stocks you shouldn't shoot people with
Fuji's Provia rocks tho
I actually have a weird like for Classic Chrome.
Provia and Astia are really good. I wish I could put the film sims on my Sony files.
i love classic chrome for shots of people outdoors. Especially here where we have big green trees EVERYWHERE. Took a lot of photos of my sister's family out at a festival here in the summer, most of them in classic chrome and they add a lot of character to them. My mom who hasn't really taken many photos since the 80s remarked that they looked like the photos my dad took from before they were married.
Yeah, most stuff that makes Velvia really good for landscapes are things you usually don't want for portraits - deep contrast, exaggerated saturation, tendency towards red/orange, fine grain with a lot of high frequency contrast. Will give you really dramatic skies full of deep royal blues and purples, lush greenery, piercing depth and dimensionality; will make people look like carrots.
That said, I've seen an amazing fashion shoot done in Velvia that just abused that visual signature by placing tanned models against blue swimming pools for extreme visual contrast.
No. I mispoke though, the Mastin Labs one I have is their Ilford simulation, the Fuji/Kodak pack is called Replichrome I: Icon from Totally Rad.
https://gettotallyrad.com/replichrome/icon
Their Replichrome II: Slide series has Velvia, Provia, and Astia.
https://gettotallyrad.com/replichrome/slide
Replichrome III: Archive has Acros.
https://gettotallyrad.com/replichrome/archive
I don't think we'll ever see a decent Kodachrome emulation, there was literal special sauce in that film.
Last edited:
This IS the internet...I'm just giving detailed information about what to look for ;-)
You can't buy LR locally any more. Doesn't really matter, I was spending the same amount of money buying local copy upgrades every year, and for the same price, I now get Photoshop and Lightroom Mobile syncing for "free" so to speak. It's 2019, time to get over the mental barrier of software as a service, this is the new world we live in.
I think the way to color likeKodachrome would be photoshop. Start with b&w layer and color each section with new layers. It would take a shit load of time
I simply don't buy that any preset can be applied to all photos to achieve a consistent look of film... I may be wrong, but it just seems unbelievable to me and none of these sites ever tend to offer free samples.
They don't give samples because it would be easy to figure out what they're doing
Sure, but when they are trying to sell a pack of a bunch and there's no telling how well any of them will work, it would certainly give people like me a reason to at least try one. There's no way I'm paying for a pack of presets when I'm skeptical that there claims are even possible, but I guess I'm not the target audience.
Still, if there were actually a way to make any and all of my Sony files look almost identical to Velvia in the latest Fuji cameras, I would probably grab it to have as an option or starting point. I just don't think it's possible, honestly.
Thanks for the responses, I've looked at more review/discussion videos on the XT3 and spoken to a personal friend who is more knowledgeable about cameras and he recommended it to...Gotta say I'm pretty convinced so far about it, and feel like it would make a worthwhile investment for what artsy fartsy photos and being able to capture stills and videos of my kids.
I think despite the difference in color science you can probably get the Sony files to look like Velvia 100
In my experience you can get the Sony files to look like just about anything you want, they are SO manipulable.
With a 3D LUT you can replicate pretty much any kind of color transformation response (it can encode DR, density curves, any kind of density-dependent hue shift, etc). Main problem for Kodachrome emulation is, of course, that there's no way to get the kind of calibrated test chart samples that are needed to map these color transformations, since we can't process it anymore.
That's one advantage Capture One has, although if you want to keep up with updates and buy the discount upgrades, it'll cost you as much as a Lightroom sub but you don't get Photoshop in return. But if you want it as a 'pay one, never worry' deal, it's pretty great.
Unless you get a new camera...they only add camera support to the version that's out when the camera comes out.
Oh yeah that too, and even lens support is tied to version too iirc. Although lens correction can be added yourself (but the built in profiles are pretty great). An advantage though is that versions can go on sale and they had the Sony deal in the past, which meant you could buy in for €70.
Every time I see a GFX photo sharing thread on FM, I'm blown away by how boring or artistically devoid most of the images are. Fuji users, in general, are one of the more artistic userbases, but for some reason that's not holding true here. I'm convinced the GFX line is widely viewed like the Leicas, a rich man's toy, and rarely put in good hands to take full advantage of the platform. It's a damn shame, because the good photogs that have one are pumping out INCREDIBLE images.
The GFX is more or less limited to still life, granted that's not an excuse. You can still take an excellent portrait with it. Granted I don't check that thread that often. If they're worse than what's in the FM Sony images thread then I don't know what to say.
What do y'all use to get rid of purple fringe and a bit of lens flare? Sometimes I kind of like it for sunny shots/ sunbursts but would maybe like to know a good way to get rid of it. I've read about some software, or maybe some kind of filter?
Checking the "remove chromatic abberation" box in Lightroom usually helps. Also CA is usually limited to wide open/low apertures, getting into f4 or higher usually mitigates it. I was going to comment on your post in the other thread, never seen a starburst fringe like that.
Medium format in general is a pretty specific use case type of set up in general. I feel like the GFX starts to border on general purpose, but I can't help but feel like some of what Medium Format is can be limiting in some ways.
Yeah it was a super off the cuff go onto my deck this morning and take a few shots wearing slippers and had a cup of coffee and also a cigarette going lol. I kinda like the purple though in the shot. It was so bright i was shooting not anywhere near wide open so makes sense. Was difficult to get many shots without completely blowed out sky before my hands were freezing off. And getting the burst I was crouching like a mad man on my deck lol. Some people were walking by clearly like what the fuck is this dude doing lol. My eyes were fucked for a bit after this lol.
Last edited:
Now imagine laying stomach down in a public street to photograph a lock on the ground.