What does Ken Rockwell mean?

PDine said:

I like my x100, but I would say it is better for environmental portraits (your kids plus minivan example) than it is for headshots. The later requires you to get very close, often within arms length for a single person headshot. And such a close distance gives a distorted perspective (makes peoples nose look bigger, etc). I have seen a lot of nice portrait pictures taken on flickr though, so it is possible to do nice portraits. Though headshots do tend to look a lot nicer with a lens over 50mm in length on apsc sensor cameras.

I bought my x100 primarily for family snapshots while out and about. It works well but you often need to get closer to the subject than you might otherwise have done with a book zoom camera.

Regards cropping, if you are regularly cropping more than half the image away then chances are it is not the right focal length for you. You can do perfectly nice photo prints at 4mp and posting to the web requires only 1mp, but zooming in so tightly requires dead on focusing, hence why I don't recommend zooming in that far.

Click to expand...

ryan2007 said:

Gurudas said:

Hello!

Thank you very much for taking the time to help!

The question really is whether I need a dslr with which I can change lenses or will my current fixed lens camera suffice. I take photos of mostly family (wife and 3 little kids) and occasional nature.

I have read Ken Rockwell's review of the x100s, which I have, and he says that x100s is perfect for family photos and travel. While I understand that I can crop out unwanted parts of a photo, what I don't understand is whether simply magnifying the wanted part of a photo will be clear and sharp enough. Btw, I do not have experience with photo editing software yet.

In my head, I think I need a zoom lens to get as close as possible to the desired end product that I want and process it minimally, if needed.

Just to be clear, say, for example, I took a picture of the entire length (sideways) of a minivan with my children standing in front of it with my x100s. But, I decide that I want only their faces. Will cropping their faces and simply magnifying the picture work and still be sharp/clear?

Thanks again! I hope I explained it clearly.

Click to expand...

This is what I would say no matter the lens. Shoot for the crop, leave headroom. In short every time you crop you loose pixels/information. The advantage of getting a sharp images with some extra room is if you are going to make an enlargement and print it. If you shoot to tight the image gets cropped and you loose parts of the shot causing you to make a smaller print.

A zoom lens for a DLSR or Fuji X like the 55-200 you can do in camera cropping by zooming to eliminate something unwanted. For example take a photo in front of the castle at Disney Land with a 35 mm X100s type camera you have everything in the shot. You an physically walk closer to the subject matter and the castle and person stay the same size, perspective is not changed.

Now use a zoom lens and you can crop out the crowd or something unwanted and then re-crop after wards if you need to fine tune.

*Software, Photoshop Elements is easy to use with some practice, but for a beginner I'd highly suggest the Apple Mac computer. It was designed for video and still use of the bat. iPhoto and iMovie are easy to use.

I'd suggest the web site Lynda.com for online training. Just search what you want to learn it is there. It does cost maybe $25/month on the low end. I know their are other training sites, maybe Kelby as a faint guess if I recall correctly.

Click to expand...

Les Lammers said:

Just to be clear, say, for example, I took a picture of the entire length (sideways) of a minivan with my children standing in front of it with my x100s. But, I decide that I want only their faces. Will cropping their faces and simply magnifying the picture work and still be sharp/clear?

Maybe, It depends on how large you want to print. You could consider the 50mm conversion lens.

Click to expand...

cesjr said:

My only camera on a recent two-week trip to France with my wife for our 10th was my x100s. It's just less obtrusive and involved than a ILC with a bag of lens. The point if that trip was not to be carrying camera gear everywhere. Instead I took the x100s with me every time I left the hotel room.

I have an xt-1 too. There's no built in flash. The lens are bigger for the aperture. See how small that 2.0 lens is on the x100s? It's completely silent. The flash works better in daylight too with the leaf shutter. It's less and more camera at the same time.

Still the xt-1 is more versatile and you can put the 27 pancake on it and approximate the x100s

Click to expand...

Gurudas said:

Thanks, what you said makes sense!

Click to expand...

KKJohn said:

I've been using a X10 for the last couple of years, and was used to it's nice zoom lens. It was fine in most situations, particularly Macro. However, I finally decided to jump into the Fuji X system and got a XA1 with kits lens-16-50 and 50-230 plus 35/1.4. I thought I would use the kit lenses mostly, but have found that I leave the 35 on the camera most of the time and am learning how to use this great lens. Tho, in Macro mode it's not as good as the X10 and can't get nearly as close, but in good light for flowers and most other close ups, if my focus is spot on, I can crop my Macro and get the same Super Macro effect as my X10. The better IQ of the 35 is sufficient to give me a pretty sharp Macro. I haven't done any tests, but have been pleased with the results so far, tho I have on occasion gone back to the X10 for it's Super Macro. But must admit, using the 35 is a new experience, and is teaching me a new way to photograph. I once looked at the X100/S and decided it was too limiting, but now I would reconsider after working with the 35 on my XA1.

Perhaps this is what KR means? Anyone have similar thoughts?

Click to expand...

Gurudas said:

I have read Ken Rockwell's review of the x100s, which I have, and he says that x100s is perfect for family photos and travel.

Click to expand...

57even said:

Gurudas said:

I have read Ken Rockwell's review of the x100s, which I have, and he says that x100s is perfect for family photos and travel.

Click to expand...

No wonder you're confused. Perfect is a personal opinion.

When I travel I like people pics and architecture as well, plus the odd skyline. I can't so with one focal length (I had an X100 as a 23mm adjunct to my Xpro1 but sold it when I got the 18-55.

I may just use the 23 (or 27 pancake) when I am going to a place I know, but if you want to use the camera for more than one purpose it is too limiting.

For family photos 23mm is not a good portrait length. You can't "zoom with your feet" because you don't change the focal length and 23 will distort features when you get too close. The 35 is OK and the 56 is better.

The zoom is a great all rounder, and the IOS is very useful.

Click to expand...

Gurudas said:

57even said:

Gurudas said:

I have read Ken Rockwell's review of the x100s, which I have, and he says that x100s is perfect for family photos and travel.

Click to expand...

No wonder you're confused. Perfect is a personal opinion.

When I travel I like people pics and architecture as well, plus the odd skyline. I can't so with one focal length (I had an X100 as a 23mm adjunct to my Xpro1 but sold it when I got the 18-55.

I may just use the 23 (or 27 pancake) when I am going to a place I know, but if you want to use the camera for more than one purpose it is too limiting.

For family photos 23mm is not a good portrait length. You can't "zoom with your feet" because you don't change the focal length and 23 will distort features when you get too close. The 35 is OK and the 56 is better.

The zoom is a great all rounder, and the IOS is very useful.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the input.

Can 35 and 56 excel in areas other than portraiture?

Click to expand...

Gurudas said:

My plan is to keep the x100s, buy X-T1 with 18-55 or 18-135, 35 or 56. I am like you as far as what you like to take photos of.

Click to expand...

AB8ND said:

If you want a tighter shot of a subject you just moves closer, thus thus becoming a human zoom. There shouldn't be any need to crop the photo later.

Click to expand...

AB8ND said:

Yes I have, but a 23mm on a crop sensor is 35mm on full frame, that is not a wide angle_ especially considering 40mm a normal lens for 35mm film. Probably the reason a 35mm has been the primary lens used journalists for years and the reason Davijd Hobby and Zack Arias use the X100s to photograph people.

Click to expand...

bowportes said:

AB8ND said:

Yes I have, but a 23mm on a crop sensor is 35mm on full frame, that is not a wide angle_ especially considering 40mm a normal lens for 35mm film. Probably the reason a 35mm has been the primary lens used journalists for years and the reason Davijd Hobby and Zack Arias use the X100s to photograph people.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...