XT2 - metering/underexposure by 1/3 - 1 EV?

Started Jan 21, 2017 | Discussions
jrwdds Forum Member • Posts: 60
XT2 - metering/underexposure by 1/3 - 1 EV?
3

After a couple months of use, I feel like my XT2 regularly underexposes by 1/3 - 1 EV, particularly on indoor pictures. I've seen this while using multi metering and spot/focus lock spot metering with jpg shooting. It's typically not a major discrepancy, but it's noticeable and requires correction in Lightroom. The histogram is weighted to the left in both the camera and Lightroom histograms. Yes, I know the histogram doesn't have to be centered, but almost all of my 1000s of pictures with this camera are weighted left. Here are some recent unedited images I took; the camera is not at max set ISO (usually 6400) in any of these, and I try to keep the aperture pretty open. Suggestions? Is this normal behavior for the camera? Thank you!

Maybe 1/3 underexposed. Metering was spot AE lock with focus lock on his messy face.

Again, spot AE lock metering with focus spot set on his eyes. This is the original jpg, I had to boost +0.70 in LR to get ideal exposure.

Multi metering, original image. Looks more "natural" in LR after boosting exposure +0.45 - +0.65.

Not a great picture, but a good example of my issue - no major light sources in the frame, but need 1/3 or 2/3 exposure compensation. ISO was set at 6400 max, image is 4000, f/2.0. Multi metering, I think.

nixda Veteran Member • Posts: 5,515
Re: XT2 - metering/underexposure by 1/3 - 1 EV?
2

A few comments:

First off, it is quite common for people to set a constant EC in the camera (any camera), so feel free to go ahead if you prefer somewhat brighter images.

Spot metering: I am not surprised that overall image brightness might not be what you think is "natural", whatever that means. Spot metering is meant to render the area in the metering spot with the intensity of middle gray. The rest of the image then could be way too dark, or way too bright, giving an overall impression of a wrong brightness.

Matrix metering: That mechanism seems to work quite well on the Fuji's, but if your viewing environment is a bit too bright, or your monitor isn't bright enough, then you'll get the impression that images are too dark. So first, make sure your entire image generation and viewing system is reasonably well set up. Then make sure your JPEG-processing parameters are set properly.

Underexposure/brightening: Fuji tends to be quite conservative when it comes to exposure to avoid clipping highlights. But the JPEG engine usually makes up for fewer photons by "brightening" the image appropriately. Like EC, it is not unusual for people to change the amount of brightening in post compared to the intent of the in-camera engine. tastes differ between people, and they might well differ between the Fuji engineers/marketing and a given user. It wouldn't be the first time...

DR: Your EXIF data aren't complete and a bit confusing (e.g., you say you used spot metering in some cases, but the EXIF data say "Multi-segment" in all cases), so I can't tell, but if you use the DR expansion modes, keep in mind that LR doesn't honor the DR tag and might render images darker than Fuji intends them to be.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +1 more
baobob
baobob Forum Pro • Posts: 13,634
Re: XT2 - metering/underexposure by 1/3 - 1 EV?

What I notice is there is a definite difference in the result according to the diffrent exposure settings

I found at the end od the day that it is both a matter of taste .... and experience for choosing the best exposure mode according to the scene

Anyway having to adjust in PP by +- 1/3 EV is not at all an issue

Optimizing the initial OOC file is a standard step of PP

To finish with I also noticed that exposure is also highly dependant on lens, at 400mm the exposure can chage rapidly in slightly moving the lens resulting in either under or over exposed shots

At 400mm it is advisable to record RAW to get a better latitude in PP adjustment

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

 baobob's gear list:baobob's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus Tough TG-4 Panasonic ZS200 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm X-T3 +10 more
Kraz8
Kraz8 Regular Member • Posts: 216
Re: XT2 - metering/underexposure by 1/3 - 1 EV?

i experience this also. I use multiple systems for different reasons.  I am "newer" to Fuji then my other systems. I have the X-T2 and i am more then impressed with this camera. I have many of the lenses  and i'm impressed with my images. However, i do find no matter what i shoot, indoor, outdoor, sunny, overcast, museum i'll look at the picture and say WOW I LOVE IT,,, but it PP to every picture i take i'm adding exposure.  I always just assume its ME doing something wrong being a newer user.  I shoot Raw and Jpeg (i'm primarily a Raw shooter from my old days) trying to now take advantage of the fuji Jpeg but find regardless of jpeg / raw everything i add exposure.  Thanks for the post, helpful to others

 Kraz8's gear list:Kraz8's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Olympus E-M1 II Sony a9 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro +4 more
nixda Veteran Member • Posts: 5,515
Re: XT2 - metering/underexposure by 1/3 - 1 EV?
3

Kraz8 wrote:

i experience this also. I use multiple systems for different reasons. I am "newer" to Fuji then my other systems. I have the X-T2 and i am more then impressed with this camera. I have many of the lenses and i'm impressed with my images. However, i do find no matter what i shoot, indoor, outdoor, sunny, overcast, museum i'll look at the picture and say WOW I LOVE IT,,, but it PP to every picture i take i'm adding exposure. I always just assume its ME doing something wrong being a newer user. I shoot Raw and Jpeg (i'm primarily a Raw shooter from my old days) trying to now take advantage of the fuji Jpeg but find regardless of jpeg / raw everything i add exposure. Thanks for the post, helpful to others

So, you're saying that you observe a systematic difference between your Fuji system and your other systems when it comes to output image brightness. Whenever there is a systematic difference, as opposed to random differences, one must ask "which system is closer to the truth?". The "truth" here would be that all regions in a scene are rendered with the exact same intensities (and colors) in an image taken with a given camera, processed properly and viewed on-screen or printed. Many photographers strive to achieve exactly that, or to come as close as possible, but it requires a big effort that most photographers aren't willing to invest. And although the technology has come a long way, it's still far from that ideal, so one has to make compromises trying to get the most important aspects "right" while sacrificing others.

I will assume here for a moment, that you don't have a well-calibrated system, and you're not viewing images under reference conditions - correct me if I''m wrong. Is it possible that you have simply gotten used to certain image brightnesses from your previous systems, and now Fuji comes along, does a few things quite differently, and you perceive image brightness to be a bit different?

Fuji indeed does a few things differently than others. One of them is that the sensor/JPEG engine combination is calibrated such that a lower exposure (amount of incident light) results in higher output image brightness when viewed, compared to other systems. That is, if one applies a certain amount of analog amplification in the camera and a certain amount of scaling of the digital numbers in post-processing (call it "brightening"), then the image comes out darker than on other cameras. That calibration allows for more highlight headroom and is based on the observation that darker regions in a scene can be rendered with acceptable IQ even when fewer photons are collected compared to other camera systems. It is also reflected in the EXIF direction to brighten every image by 0.72EV in addition to what one would "normally" do. Initially, many raw converters did not honor that directive (Raw Exposure Bias), most notoriously LR, which caused a big uproar in the community about Fuji images being darker. So, when one processes raw images, one indeed needs to add 0.72EV (~2/3 of a stop) to render a patch of middle gray with the same intensity as processing data from most other cameras would result in. But again, the purpose here is to allow more headroom in the highlight regions, which leads to a reduced danger of clipping. Take your pick: do you want to have more highlight headroom, or do you want middle gray to come out the same when you process images from different cameras in the same manner?

So, I think you could take a step back and investigate which of your systems gives you the best results in the end, regardless of whether they require an additional brightening step, and the simply live with the differences, because your systems are different. Very often, people expect systems to behave the same, or at least very similarly, but these systems are quite different. So, if you adjust your expectations, then all will be good.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +1 more
OP jrwdds Forum Member • Posts: 60
Re: XT2 - metering/underexposure by 1/3 - 1 EV?

Bumping this thread to see if anyone else is experiencing constant underexposure with their X-T2, because I still am consistently 1/3 - 1/1 stop dark with all three lenses I use (18-55, 35/f2, 18-135) in almost all conditions, indoors or outside. Histogram data in the camera playback LCD and my Lightroom software is heavily weighted left in both.

Important facts, i.e. "I think I'm doing everything correctly and still getting dark pictures":

- I use either matrix metering, which could understandably darken a subject, or spot metering locked to a small, single focus point, which should keep the subject well-exposed regardless of the surrounding light.

- I'm not "maxing out" on my auto ISO settings (usually ISO 6400 and 1/80). Underexposure is occurring when I'm several stops away from hitting those limits.

- I'm shooting in jpeg only, mainly because I don't want to do much post processing with RAW files, and yet I'm still having to adjust 90% or my jpeg by at least +0.5 EV.

Any thoughts, hints, or similar experiences? I certainly don't mind using the exposure comp dial when needed, but shouldn't shooting in autoexposure yield a more neutral exposure instead of obviously dark images? Because two separate software histograms are reading the images as dark, I don't think this is just a matter of personal taste or viewing environments, I think the camera itself is erring too dark.

Travelshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 3,383
Re: XT2 - metering/underexposure by 1/3 - 1 EV?

Have you tried center weighted?

-- hide signature --

www.MartinDareff.com

 Travelshooter's gear list:Travelshooter's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony RX10 IV Sony RX100 VI Samsung Galaxy S7 edge +9 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,369
I Agree -- but not always....
2

I reported on at least two threads that during my recent Patagonia trip where I shot thousands of images with five Fuji lenses, that I noticed when I got to LightRoom that many of the landscape images were underexposed by at least half a stop -- often a full stop.  This really surprised me.  It was easy to deal with in post but it was noticeable.  Hard to tell exactly when it happened.  I shoot manual in that I set everything on the camera but I do use evaluative metering.  I also use a lot of exposure comp when I feel like it.  I feel after 45 years of shooting I have an expert feel for exposure and could probably shoot consistently well without a meter if I had too.  I think the evaluative meter often underexposes landscapes on the XT-2.  I never noticed this with the XT-1.  I know I shot at least 80,000 images with the XT-1 and just never noticed that phenomenon.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Fujifilm X100F Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
elfroggio
elfroggio Senior Member • Posts: 2,981
Re: I Agree -- but not always....
1

Greg7579 wrote:

I reported on at least two threads that during my recent Patagonia trip where I shot thousands of images with five Fuji lenses, that I noticed when I got to LightRoom that many of the landscape images were underexposed by at least half a stop -- often a full stop. This really surprised me. It was easy to deal with in post but it was noticeable. Hard to tell exactly when it happened.

It's most likely the AutoDR and Lightroom doesn't now how to deal with the AutoDR concept, which under-expose to prevent the highlight from 'blowing up'.

The simplest/easiest to check is:

  1. to get out is to get out of Lightroom
  2. use an image viewer that can read the embedded jpeg within the raw file.

If the embedded jpeg looks good, then it's the AutoDR. If the embedded jpeg also under-exposed then I'm way off-base...

-- hide signature --

Thanks
http://www.sritch.com
The Dogs of Vancouver, BC

Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,369
Re: I Agree -- but not always....

elfroggio wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

I reported on at least two threads that during my recent Patagonia trip where I shot thousands of images with five Fuji lenses, that I noticed when I got to LightRoom that many of the landscape images were underexposed by at least half a stop -- often a full stop. This really surprised me. It was easy to deal with in post but it was noticeable. Hard to tell exactly when it happened.

It's most likely the AutoDR and Lightroom doesn't now how to deal with the AutoDR concept, which under-expose to prevent the highlight from 'blowing up'.

The simplest/easiest to check is:

  1. to get out is to get out of Lightroom
  2. use an image viewer that can read the embedded jpeg within the raw file.

If the embedded jpeg looks good, then it's the AutoDR. If the embedded jpeg also under-exposed then I'm way off-base...

Thanks Frog.  Wait ... I shoot RAW.  Auto DR has no effect on that right?  And there should not have been a noticeable change from the XT-1 to the XT-2.  Right?  As far as changing from LR.... Not going to happen, but it is good to know where the glitches are if what you say is true.....

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Fujifilm X100F Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
nixda Veteran Member • Posts: 5,515
Re: I Agree -- but not always....
1

Greg7579 wrote:

elfroggio wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

I reported on at least two threads that during my recent Patagonia trip where I shot thousands of images with five Fuji lenses, that I noticed when I got to LightRoom that many of the landscape images were underexposed by at least half a stop -- often a full stop. This really surprised me. It was easy to deal with in post but it was noticeable. Hard to tell exactly when it happened.

It's most likely the AutoDR and Lightroom doesn't now how to deal with the AutoDR concept, which under-expose to prevent the highlight from 'blowing up'.

The simplest/easiest to check is:

  1. to get out is to get out of Lightroom
  2. use an image viewer that can read the embedded jpeg within the raw file.

If the embedded jpeg looks good, then it's the AutoDR. If the embedded jpeg also under-exposed then I'm way off-base...

Thanks Frog. Wait ... I shoot RAW. Auto DR has no effect on that right?

DR modes have an effect on raw as they reduce the amount of analog amplification. DR200 -> 1EV less amplification; DR400 -> 2EV less amplification.

And there should not have been a noticeable change from the XT-1 to the XT-2. Right? As far as changing from LR.... Not going to happen, but it is good to know where the glitches are if what you say is true.....

Yes, AFAIK, LR still doesn't honor the DR flags.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +1 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,369
Re: I Agree -- but not always....

Thanks, but I'm having trouble with this explanation.  I'm not following you.  I don't understand.  This could be important to me so I'm going to head to the LR forums and ask for an explanation from the LightRoom Gurus....  I want to learn all about what affect DR settings on the XT-2 have on the RAW file.

I thought that the DR setting had zero affect on the RAW files so I have never paid attention to it.  If it does effect the RAW file and actual exposure, then I must start paying attention to it.  I shoot only RAW and have no interest in any setting that does not affect the RAW, like in-camera film simulation settings.    So since I shoot RAW only and I do my post in LightRoom, what DR setting do you think I should use while hiking?

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Fujifilm X100F Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
DavidB2 Regular Member • Posts: 468
Re: I Agree -- but not always....

I haven't done any testing to see if it matters but I'd think DR100 (the base setting) would be safest.

 DavidB2's gear list:DavidB2's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D7200 Fujifilm X-E3 Sony a7R III Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +22 more
nixda Veteran Member • Posts: 5,515
Re: I Agree -- but not always....

Greg7579 wrote:

Thanks, but I'm having trouble with this explanation. I'm not following you. I don't understand. This could be important to me so I'm going to head to the LR forums and ask for an explanation from the LightRoom Gurus.... I want to learn all about what affect DR settings on the XT-2 have on the RAW file.

I thought that the DR setting had zero affect on the RAW files so I have never paid attention to it. If it does effect the RAW file and actual exposure, then I must start paying attention to it. I shoot only RAW and have no interest in any setting that does not affect the RAW, like in-camera film simulation settings. So since I shoot RAW only and I do my post in LightRoom, what DR setting do you think I should use while hiking?

Maybe this little article will help.

For now, DR100 will give a consistent result, namely, the amount of analog amplification is the one that is specified by the actual ISO setting. The DR modes are basically "analog amplification compensation" means;  they reduce the amount of analog amplification from that specified by the ISO setting.

With DR-AUTO, you never know what you're gonna get (like that box of chocolates). That's not really what a raw shooter usually aspires to.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +1 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,369
Re: I Agree -- but not always....

Wait -- something is wrong here.  DR settings have zero impact on the RAW file.  It has zero impact on how LR displays your first view of the image when you start  work in the development module.

That is what I thought and what I was just told again by an expert.  Now I want to get to the bottom of this, so I'm asking again.  Is what is said above about the DR setting true or not?  I think not.  I believe the in-camera DR setting on the Fuji cameras have absolutely zero effect on the RAW image and what is displayed in the development module of LR.  It only effects an out of camera JPEG, just like any other secondary setting.  Only shutter speed, ISO, and aperture effect the RAW file and the actual exposure.  The in-camera ISO setting is displayed on the RAW file as a start point.  None of that other stuff, like DR setting has any effect on the RAW file whatsoever.  None.  Zero.

Right?

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Fujifilm X100F Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
elfroggio
elfroggio Senior Member • Posts: 2,981
Re: I Agree -- but not always....

Greg7579 wrote:

Thanks Frog. Wait ... I shoot RAW. Auto DR has no effect on that right? And there should not have been a noticeable change from the XT-1 to the XT-2. Right? As far as changing from LR.... Not going to happen, but it is good to know where the glitches are if what you say is true.....

  1. Who asked /said to switch from Lightroom? No me. I said, take any other image viewer, like faststone or anything else, that can show the embedded jpeg inside your raw. Then you will know if the AutoDR is the problem.
  2. The AutoDR affects nboth the raw and the ooc jpegs. It reduces the ISO by 1 stop (for DR200) or 2 stops (for DR200)

The other way of viewing the embedded jpeg in the raw with Lightroom.

  1. Remove your image from the catalog (not from the drive)
  2. Go the import screen
  3. Import the image, but before the importing, look at the small/tiny preview. This one is the embedded jpeg. Does it look good or not.
-- hide signature --

Thanks
http://www.sritch.com
The Dogs of Vancouver, BC

nixda Veteran Member • Posts: 5,515
Re: I Agree -- but not always....
3

Greg7579 wrote:

Wait -- something is wrong here. DR settings have zero impact on the RAW file.

They do have an impact.

It has zero impact on how LR displays your first view of the image when you start work in the development module.

I can't answer that question as I am not an LR user.

That is what I thought and what I was just told again by an expert.

Must be one hell of an expert.

Now I want to get to the bottom of this, so I'm asking again. Is what is said above about the DR setting true or not? I think not. I believe the in-camera DR setting on the Fuji cameras have absolutely zero effect on the RAW image and what is displayed in the development module of LR.

I just told you twice what the DR settings do: they reduce the amount of analog amplification. The raw data are written after analog amplification. Thus, the DR setting has an effect on the raw data.

It only effects an out of camera JPEG, just like any other secondary setting.

Nope.

Only shutter speed, ISO, and aperture effect the RAW file and the actual exposure.

Nope.

Only shutter speed and aperture affect the exposure, but DR affects analog amplification (4th time now, who's counting?)

The in-camera ISO setting is displayed on the RAW file as a start point. None of that other stuff, like DR setting has any effect on the RAW file whatsoever. None. Zero.

Right?

NOPE!

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +1 more
nixda Veteran Member • Posts: 5,515
Re: I Agree -- but not always....
2

elfroggio wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Thanks Frog. Wait ... I shoot RAW. Auto DR has no effect on that right? And there should not have been a noticeable change from the XT-1 to the XT-2. Right? As far as changing from LR.... Not going to happen, but it is good to know where the glitches are if what you say is true.....

  1. Who asked /said to switch from Lightroom? No me. I said, take any other image viewer, like faststone or anything else, that can show the embedded jpeg inside your raw. Then you will know if the AutoDR is the problem.
  2. The AutoDR affects nboth the raw and the ooc jpegs. It reduces the ISO by 1 stop (for DR200) or 2 stops (for DR200)

Not quite: ISO stays the same. ISO relates to the total amount of scaling of the signal from incident light to output sRGB values. That scaling can be done by analog amplification or in software (through manipulating digital numbers, also sometimes incorrectly called 'digital amplification'), or a combination of the two. The DR setting for JPEG shooters maintains the overall ISO but reduces the amount of analog amplification while increasing the amount of scaling of the digital numbers to compensate.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +1 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,369
Re: I Agree -- but not always....

Frog,  Thanks for the explanation, and I'm not arguing with you two guys who are trying to help me understand this.... But something is amiss here.  I always believed, and I'm being told by other experts right now, that what I thought was correct .  The DR setting has zero effect on the RAW file or anything that you are going to see or work on as a start point in the development module.  None.  Absolutely Zero.  I don't care what it does to the imbedded JPEG or the out of camera JPEG (which I never use).  It does not change the exposure recorded in RAW in any way -- not the aperture, not the shutter speed and not the ISO.  It also does not affect the white balance that you see when you open the file in the development module.

In other words, the DR setting is of zero -- absolute zero -- interest to me as a RAW shooter.  It doesn't matter where it is set.

Please correct me if I am wrong because this goes against everything I thought I knew.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Fujifilm X100F Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
nixda Veteran Member • Posts: 5,515
Re: I Agree -- but not always....
1

Greg7579 wrote:

Frog, Thanks for the explanation, and I'm not arguing with you two guys who are trying to help me understand this.... But something is amiss here. I always believed, and I'm being told by other experts right now, that what I thought was correct . The DR setting has zero effect on the RAW file or anything that you are going to see or work on as a start point in the development module. None. Absolutely Zero. I don't care what it does to the imbedded JPEG or the out of camera JPEG (which I never use). It does not change the exposure recorded in RAW in any way -- not the aperture, not the shutter speed and not the ISO. It also does not affect the white balance that you see when you open the file in the development module.

In other words, the DR setting is of zero -- absolute zero -- interest to me as a RAW shooter. It doesn't matter where it is set.

Please correct me if I am wrong because this goes against everything I thought I knew.

In the article I linked I am describing how it works.

But, don't take my word for it. Do a simple experiment: set the camera to ISO800 and dial in some exposure time and some shutter speed. Take images at DR100, DR200, and DR400 while maintaining the exposure. Then pull up the raw data and check their values. If you don't have one yet, you may need a program that allows you to look at raw data (like rawDigger, which I believe has a trial version). Would be useful in any case, since you're a raw shooter.

BTW, the DR modes are called "DR expansion modes" for a reason. They reduce the amount of analog amplification relative to DR100 and thus result in a larger DR relative to DR100. That surely has an effect on the raw data.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads