X-T1 goes to Beach...

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Evan Effa
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,340Gear list
Like?
X-T1 goes to Beach...
4 months ago

I spent the Easter Weekend "Camping" in Tofino on the Wet & Wild West Coast of Vancouver Island.

I was curious to see whether the Fuji could satisfy me as a landscape camera. If so, it would be a welcome relief coming from my shlepping a Canon 1 DsIII & glass all over the place when travelling...

I have found a out a few things.

1> Colour, Tonality are excellent IMHO.

2> Handling is quite satisfying & closer to a WSIWG experience than my DSLR's.

3> The Fuji Lenses are little jewels. the 55-200 is excellent but not a substitute for the Canon 100-400 for wildlife.

4> Maximizing the quality of detail requires an alternative RAW processor from my default Lightroom. (Iridient has potential but the green fringing around tree branches etc is intolerable to me. Capture One is probably my personal best choice for the printable images when fine detail needs to be maximized.)

All in all though, I am quite pleased with what this little system can do in such a small package.

A few samples:

McKenzie Beach Surf

Low Tide: Middle Beach.

Mussels galore

Rain forest Breather

Tide returning...

Evening Light...

Day is waning...

Beach foam

Camper's view (56@1.2)

A few more here:

http://eheffa.zenfolio.com/p286212090

I think my Canon bodies may be going to market...

Any C&C welcome.

-evan

-- hide signature --
 Evan Effa's gear list:Evan Effa's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Fujifilm X-T1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
woodographer
New MemberPosts: 10Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 goes to Beach...
In reply to Evan Effa, 4 months ago

Evan, Fantastic images! McKenzie Beach Surf, Evening Light, and Day is Waning strike a cord with me. Day is Waning is my favorite (nice bird in the background).

 woodographer's gear list:woodographer's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm X100S Nikon D90 Nikon D7100 Fujifilm X-T1 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MrChristopher
Contributing MemberPosts: 899Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 goes to Beach...
In reply to Evan Effa, 4 months ago

brilliant shots.

 MrChristopher's gear list:MrChristopher's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Luego
Contributing MemberPosts: 947
Like?
Re: X-T1 goes to Beach...
In reply to Evan Effa, 4 months ago

Pleasant images... and you shot RAW.

Question: "Why did you use ISO 400 and ISO 800 during daylight?"

Cheers,

Luego

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Birddogman
Senior MemberPosts: 1,084Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 goes to Beach...
In reply to Evan Effa, 4 months ago

Great photos - thanks for posting.

Is that your Airstream?  I had one of those years ago - loved it.

 Birddogman's gear list:Birddogman's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 goes to Beach...
In reply to Evan Effa, 4 months ago

These are lovely.  So I'm wondering why the pixel peepers aren't all over you telling you that the watercolor effect is spoiling your shots?  Or is is that they daren't come on this thread?  I wonder why that is?  Come on guys, tell us what you don't like about these (to my eyes) wonderful shots. I'd love to know. Please!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Evan Effa
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,340Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 goes to Beach...
In reply to woodographer, 4 months ago

woodographer wrote:

Evan, Fantastic images! McKenzie Beach Surf, Evening Light, and Day is Waning strike a cord with me. Day is Waning is my favorite (nice bird in the background).

Thank you woodographer.  I appreciate your compliments & interest.  (Yes, that bird was a gull.)  I did try to get some good images of an Osprey fishing but failed to get anything worth posting.

-evan

-- hide signature --
 Evan Effa's gear list:Evan Effa's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Evan Effa
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,340Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 goes to Beach...
In reply to MrChristopher, 4 months ago

MrChristopher wrote:

brilliant shots.

-- hide signature --

Thank you Chris.

-evan

-- hide signature --
 Evan Effa's gear list:Evan Effa's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 goes to Beach...
In reply to Evan Effa, 4 months ago

Can you show us why the Fuji lense can't substitute for the Canon one?  What is it about the Canon one that you like and which one are you talking about? I'm asking because I usually stick to primes, but I'd like a longer lense for landscape.  I used Canon lenses in the past, and I'd be interested in using the Fuji but why don't you think the Fuji ones compare to the Canon? Thanks!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Evan Effa
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,340Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 goes to Beach...
In reply to Luego, 4 months ago

Luego wrote:

Pleasant images... and you shot RAW.

Question: "Why did you use ISO 400 and ISO 800 during daylight?"

Cheers,

Luego

Good question Luego,

I  was using variants of the Auto ISO & Auto Dynamic Range settings.  (Something quite new to me as my Canon Bodies are a little older & don't even have Auto ISO)  Some of these scenes were fairly intense with deep blacks & vivid highlights, i.e. Wide DR so the camera was choosing the DR 200 & 400 Settings.  This necessitates a higher ISO by design.

The camera handled this pretty well I think as recovering the highlights and shadows seems pretty straightforward in Post with very little noise.

(I was using LR 5.4 &/or Capture One interchangeably for these images...)

-evan

-- hide signature --
 Evan Effa's gear list:Evan Effa's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Evan Effa
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,340Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 goes to Beach...
In reply to Birddogman, 4 months ago

Birddogman wrote:

Great photos - thanks for posting.

Is that your Airstream? I had one of those years ago - loved it.

Thanks Birddogman.

Yes.  Our Airstream - "Walle".  It's a love/hate relationship. Wonderful to tow & a great interior layout.  Like a Hotel room on wheels but lots of leaks due to shoddy workmanship & missing caulk lines etc. prompted a more or less complete rebuild of the unit last Spring.  It seems pretty good now.  3 days of monsoon rains in Tofino & no evidence of leaking.  I'm happy now...Touch wood.

Rubber Boots - essential equipment in Tofino

-evan

-- hide signature --
 Evan Effa's gear list:Evan Effa's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tlinn
Regular MemberPosts: 458Gear list
Like?
Re: X-T1 goes to Beach...
In reply to masterofdeception, 4 months ago

+1

I'd love for you to elaborate on why the 55-200 isn't a 100-400 replacement.  Shorter focal length?  Slower AF?  I'm guessing it's not IQ.

 tlinn's gear list:tlinn's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Evan Effa
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,340Gear list
Like?
Re: Watercolor Effect
In reply to masterofdeception, 4 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

These are lovely. So I'm wondering why the pixel peepers aren't all over you telling you that the watercolor effect is spoiling your shots? Or is is that they daren't come on this thread? I wonder why that is? Come on guys, tell us what you don't like about these (to my eyes) wonderful shots. I'd love to know. Please!

Thank you for looking & your nice compliments.

Yes it is easy to get so caught up in the mechanics of the process that we lose sight of the image as a whole.

You make an interesting observation. Many of these were processed in LR 5.4. (It's VERY easy to dial in the color & effect I want using LR; but , the watercolor effect is there when you look closely.  SOme images more than others, but it is there. This doesn't matter at all for web presentation, but for printing larger images, it would definitely be visible.)

I have to admit, I am a pixel peeper at heart. The detail rendition of the Low Tide: Middle Beach image in LR for example, is not good enough if one wanted to get the best detail out of this image. (I tried Iridient for this example, but the trees silhouetted against the sky had a nasty green fringing to them that I couldn't eliminate. The detail rendition in the middle ground & shadows was excellent though.)  (I would like to try Aperture but there are no trial versions available anymore.)

Capture One seemed to give me the best overall detail rendition and a reasonably robust image to port into Photoshop.  I personally dislike the C1 workflow though as it needs more work and a trip to Photoshop to get the best out of it but for Fuji X images where I want the maximum quality (e.g. printing larger) it would be my first choice.

-evan

-- hide signature --
 Evan Effa's gear list:Evan Effa's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Evan Effa
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,340Gear list
Like?
Re: 55-200 vs 100-400
In reply to masterofdeception, 4 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

Can you show us why the Fuji lense can't substitute for the Canon one? What is it about the Canon one that you like and which one are you talking about? I'm asking because I usually stick to primes, but I'd like a longer lense for landscape. I used Canon lenses in the past, and I'd be interested in using the Fuji but why don't you think the Fuji ones compare to the Canon? Thanks!

I'd love for you to elaborate on why the 55-200 isn't a 100-400 replacement. Shorter focal length? Slower AF? I'm guessing it's not IQ.

Well,

I may have spoken prematurely as I don't have enough experience using the 55-200 yet.

My sample of the 100-400 is so sharp & quick focussing that I have probably been spoiled. My quick off-the-cuff shots of an Osprey, my dog romping on the beach and a few other moving subjects with the 55-200 have so far been a little disappointing. (poor focus & ?internal flare)  That could quite possibly be just my poor technique & not having a good feel for the AF-C mode on the X-T1. (The focus hunting and odd behaviour in AF-C mode have me using AF-S as my default. This from a guy who has been using AI-Servo with the rear AF button on Canons for years..)

On static subjects, the 55-200 lens seems quite stellar. I'm just not sure for moving subjects.

The jury is out for me on that yet.

What about you?

-evan

-- hide signature --
 Evan Effa's gear list:Evan Effa's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: 55-200 vs 100-400
In reply to Evan Effa, 4 months ago

Evan Effa wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Can you show us why the Fuji lense can't substitute for the Canon one? What is it about the Canon one that you like and which one are you talking about? I'm asking because I usually stick to primes, but I'd like a longer lense for landscape. I used Canon lenses in the past, and I'd be interested in using the Fuji but why don't you think the Fuji ones compare to the Canon? Thanks!

I'd love for you to elaborate on why the 55-200 isn't a 100-400 replacement. Shorter focal length? Slower AF? I'm guessing it's not IQ.

Well,

I may have spoken prematurely as I don't have enough experience using the 55-200 yet.

My sample of the 100-400 is so sharp & quick focussing that I have probably been spoiled. My quick off-the-cuff shots of an Osprey, my dog romping on the beach and a few other moving subjects with the 55-200 have so far been a little disappointing. (poor focus & ?internal flare) That could quite possibly be just my poor technique & not having a good feel for the AF-C mode on the X-T1. (The focus hunting and odd behaviour in AF-C mode have me using AF-S as my default. This from a guy who has been using AI-Servo with the rear AF button on Canons for years..)

On static subjects, the 55-200 lens seems quite stellar. I'm just not sure for moving subjects.

The jury is out for me on that yet.

What about you?

-evan

-- hide signature --

Thanks. I don't have the 55-200 but have been considering it, for landscape on an X-Pro1 only though so that's something to consider.  I won't use it for action, or sports, and I guess the Canon is going to rip it to shreds if i wanted to use it for action, but that's not a concern.  I just thought maybe you thought the Canon lense had an advantage IQ wise, but I guess not.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Luego
Contributing MemberPosts: 947
Like?
Re: X-T1 goes to Beach...
In reply to Evan Effa, 4 months ago

Evan Effa wrote:

Luego wrote:

Pleasant images... and you shot RAW.

Question: "Why did you use ISO 400 and ISO 800 during daylight?"

Cheers,

Luego

Good question Luego,

I was using variants of the Auto ISO & Auto Dynamic Range settings. (Something quite new to me as my Canon Bodies are a little older & don't even have Auto ISO) Some of these scenes were fairly intense with deep blacks & vivid highlights, i.e. Wide DR so the camera was choosing the DR 200 & 400 Settings. This necessitates a higher ISO by design.

The camera handled this pretty well I think as recovering the highlights and shadows seems pretty straightforward in Post with very little noise.

(I was using LR 5.4 &/or Capture One interchangeably for these images...)

-evan

-- hide signature --

Thanks for your explanation , Evan.

You realize that DR Auto is an aid for JPEG shooters and if you shoot RAW the same can be accomplished with the EC dial. This way you can shoot base ISO 200 and have the full DR range at your disposal in PP.

Cheers,

Luego

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: Watercolor Effect
In reply to Evan Effa, 4 months ago

I'm totally amazed if some people can look at these images and the their first reaction is "look at the watercolor effect at 100%!"

That says so much more about them then it says about your images.   The only thing I'm concerned about is that you seem to have thought about it too.  Why?

Thanks for posting.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Evan Effa
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,340Gear list
Like?
Re: DR expansion Modes in RAW
In reply to Luego, 4 months ago

Luego wrote:

Evan Effa wrote:

Luego wrote:

Pleasant images... and you shot RAW.

Question: "Why did you use ISO 400 and ISO 800 during daylight?"

Cheers,

Luego

Good question Luego,

I was using variants of the Auto ISO & Auto Dynamic Range settings. (Something quite new to me as my Canon Bodies are a little older & don't even have Auto ISO) Some of these scenes were fairly intense with deep blacks & vivid highlights, i.e. Wide DR so the camera was choosing the DR 200 & 400 Settings. This necessitates a higher ISO by design.

The camera handled this pretty well I think as recovering the highlights and shadows seems pretty straightforward in Post with very little noise.

(I was using LR 5.4 &/or Capture One interchangeably for these images...)

-evan

-- hide signature --

Thanks for your explanation , Evan.

You realize that DR Auto is an aid for JPEG shooters and if you shoot RAW the same can be accomplished with the EC dial. This way you can shoot base ISO 200 and have the full DR range at your disposal in PP.

Cheers,

Luego

I'm not sure about this question of DR expansion. I don't think that it just applies to jpeg shooters.

From the DP review: ( http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t1/15 )

It's tempting to think of DR settings as being most relevant for JPEG shooters, but they apply equally to Raw capture. As usual, it's possible to recover highlight detail that's lost in the camera's JPEGs even at DR100, but there's potentially an extra stop of fully-recoverable highlight data at DR200, and two stops in a DR400 file. This does depend on the dynamic range of the scene and the camera's metering, though; often DR 200 will retain all of the useful highlight data.

Both Adobe Camera Raw and Capture One recognise the DR mode tags in the Raw files, so render their output at the correct brightness, but neither applies the different tone curves necessary to incorporate any additional highlight information. This means so you'll need to manually adjust DR200 and 400 images to get the full benefit.

...Because there's so little penalty to shooting at DR200, and it can frequently be beneficial in real-world images, we're generally inclined to leave it set by default. Then whenever the ISO is set to 400 or higher, the camera will retain this additional highlight detail all the time. We generally wouldn't recommend JPEG users shoot at DR400 unless it's absolutely necessary, because most of the time you end up with a slightly flat-looking file, but little practical benefit in terms of highlight detail. However for Raw shooters wishing to retain the best possible options for highlight recovery, there's really no penalty to using the DR400 setting.

I have been doing a bit of experimentation and the DR200 & DR400 settings.  These settings do seem to provide more headroom and shadow recovery compared to the Base ISO 200 setting... even when shooting RAW.  I'm not totally sure as to how much effect there is or whether it is a bit of gimmickry; but, I note that DPR in its review said something to the effect that they are experimenting with this question & will report back.

-evan

-- hide signature --
 Evan Effa's gear list:Evan Effa's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Evan Effa
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,340Gear list
Like?
Re: Watercolor Effect
In reply to masterofdeception, 4 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

I'm totally amazed if some people can look at these images and the their first reaction is "look at the watercolor effect at 100%!"

That says so much more about them then it says about your images. The only thing I'm concerned about is that you seem to have thought about it too. Why?

Thanks for posting.

I admit it.  I'm a pixel peeper.  I love studying the fine details of an image. It's part of my disease. 

The LR conversions are excellent in terms of colour, tonality, DR recovery etc. but at the Pixel level, other converters such as C1 do a better job IMO.

Having said that, unless one is printing large, this is pretty much irrelevant and gains far too much attention.

Good composition, colour, tonality, mood etc. are far harder things to quantify or systematize, but are far more important in the creation of compelling images.  FUJI has a long history of creating film stock with excellence.  They seem to have created a certain magic to their secret sauce jpegs too in terms of colour & tonality.  The fact that LR 5.4 can emulate the FUJI look, is quite wonderful.  Only the pixel peepers will be disappointed in the results.

-evan

-- hide signature --
 Evan Effa's gear list:Evan Effa's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Evan Effa
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,340Gear list
Like?
Re: 55-200 vs 100-400
In reply to masterofdeception, 4 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

Evan Effa wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Can you show us why the Fuji lense can't substitute for the Canon one? What is it about the Canon one that you like and which one are you talking about? I'm asking because I usually stick to primes, but I'd like a longer lense for landscape. I used Canon lenses in the past, and I'd be interested in using the Fuji but why don't you think the Fuji ones compare to the Canon? Thanks!

I'd love for you to elaborate on why the 55-200 isn't a 100-400 replacement. Shorter focal length? Slower AF? I'm guessing it's not IQ.

Well,

I may have spoken prematurely as I don't have enough experience using the 55-200 yet.

My sample of the 100-400 is so sharp & quick focussing that I have probably been spoiled. My quick off-the-cuff shots of an Osprey, my dog romping on the beach and a few other moving subjects with the 55-200 have so far been a little disappointing. (poor focus & ?internal flare) That could quite possibly be just my poor technique & not having a good feel for the AF-C mode on the X-T1. (The focus hunting and odd behaviour in AF-C mode have me using AF-S as my default. This from a guy who has been using AI-Servo with the rear AF button on Canons for years..)

On static subjects, the 55-200 lens seems quite stellar. I'm just not sure for moving subjects.

The jury is out for me on that yet.

What about you?

-evan

-- hide signature --

Thanks. I don't have the 55-200 but have been considering it, for landscape on an X-Pro1 only though so that's something to consider. I won't use it for action, or sports, and I guess the Canon is going to rip it to shreds if i wanted to use it for action, but that's not a concern. I just thought maybe you thought the Canon lense had an advantage IQ wise, but I guess not.

I'm not sure.  Ask me again in a couple of months.

-evan

-- hide signature --
 Evan Effa's gear list:Evan Effa's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads