got my xt2: some negative observations and questions

[Sjeupie]

I THINK YOU PROBABLY NEED TO REVISIT THE BASICS OF PHOTOGRAPHY INSTEAD OF COMPARING CAMERAS.........HAVE YOU REALLY BOUGHT THIS CAMERA TO COMPARE TO YOUR FAVOURITE ONE?

No need to shout bro.

Although I'm not impressed by the way you express yourself neither what you're actually saying, I'll respond to you nonetheless:

I bought the XT2 as an upgrade from my D5000. I felt like I was ready for a more professional camera and felt excited to take on a new step in my photography. The Nikon is the only DSLR I've ever owned and thus obviously my benchmark.
The observations I've expressed in my original post are the limitations of basic photography I've bumped into. Which is strange, because I have hardly ever bumped into those limitations with my Nikon in these conditions. And the Fuji should be outperforming the Nikon on every field.

Now, this means:

1 I either have had a very exceptionally performing Nikon D5000,

2 or I have a poorly functioning Fuji,

3 or thirdly I could have pretty bad observations skills.

And perhaps a combination of these 3. But something seems to be off.

I started to write a long reply but decided it was taking far too long. My best advice is the same advice offered here prior. You need to revisit the basics of exposure and learn the correlation between ISO, aperture value and shutter speed. Exposure is exposure and the brand camera being used has not her to do with your exposure. The laws of physics don't change by camera brand. You can't just select random shutter speeds, aperture values and ISO settings and expect your photos to come out. Everything is in direct correlation. 125/th at f2.8 ISO 800 is the same as 1/15th at f2.8 at ISO 100 is the same as 1/2000 at f2.8 at ISO 12,800 Or 1/125th f11 at ISO 12,800. You can't just say I want to shoot f22 at ISO 200 and expect a fast shutter speed in very low light. Based on my comparison exposures 1/15 f22 would require an ISO of 6400.

Scott

 

[Sjeupie]

I'd recommend folks follow stevo23's advice if they really want to delve into this.

I have some APS-C Nikon gear, and had a few spare minutes to provide some highly unscientific and worthless data. I metered my living room, which has "plenty of light", and the following was the given correct exposure (needle at 0).

Nikon D7100, 24-85 3.5-4.5 VR G @35:

1/15, f/4, ISO 200

Fuji XT2, 18-55 2.8-4 @35:

1/8, f/4, ISO 200

Imported both shots into Lightroom and my Nikon was 1 stop underexposed, the Fuji 2/3 underexposed, so make of that what you will. None of that really matters and both cameras are capable of making great photographs (just not of my living room ).

Hi Jake,

Thanks for taking the time to do this! I have not yet taken anything into LR and the 1/15 vs 1/8 ss is backing my feeling of relatively slower ss compared to the Nikon.

I'm more than certain that both camera's can take great pics in the hands of the right person. That was not what I wanted to put in doubt.

 

[Sjeupie]

You don't really know what you are doing and it shows.

Oh sorry, I forgot we all have to be pro's for to be allowed to share any thoughts on a forum. Silly me.
But whilst my incompetence shows in my posts, your arrogance shows in yours. Which is completely unnecessary. Your post is by no means helping anybody, a part from your own ego perhaps.

Next time you've got the feeling the brakes in your car feel weird and spongy and you bring it to a mechanic, maybe he'll give you your exact response and then walks away. Let's see how you feel then. Confident and ready to hit the highway again, I assume?

We all have our strong and weaknesses, mate. If you've got nothing friendly, true and necessary to say, don't say anything at all.

 

[Sjeupie]

F10 in your kitchen??????????????

I don't think this is a camera issue.

I was just trying the camera out, bro. Different settings, turning dials and knobs, taking pictures of my dinner boiling in a pot, my garden during lunchbreak and my dog playing in the snow.

It's like taking a testdrive in a car. Will you always climb that hill in 4th? No, but you can still see if it could do it. Same applies for the 0-100km/h times. You'll never dragrace from the traffic light. But when you're in a Ferrari, you might as well try out the acceleration, right?

And I had the impression that, contrary to my any spec or expectation, my former camera climbed that hill a bit easier in 4th and was a wee bit faster in the acceleration. I didn't time it, just had this feeling and was wondering if anybody else had that feeling to. That's it.

 

[JakeInChicago]

I'd recommend folks follow stevo23's advice if they really want to delve into this.

I have some APS-C Nikon gear, and had a few spare minutes to provide some highly unscientific and worthless data. I metered my living room, which has "plenty of light", and the following was the given correct exposure (needle at 0).

Nikon D7100, 24-85 3.5-4.5 VR G @35:

1/15, f/4, ISO 200

Fuji XT2, 18-55 2.8-4 @35:

1/8, f/4, ISO 200

Imported both shots into Lightroom and my Nikon was 1 stop underexposed, the Fuji 2/3 underexposed, so make of that what you will. None of that really matters and both cameras are capable of making great photographs (just not of my living room ).

Hi Jake,

Thanks for taking the time to do this! I have not yet taken anything into LR and the 1/15 vs 1/8 ss is backing my feeling of relatively slower ss compared to the Nikon.

I'm more than certain that both camera's can take great pics in the hands of the right person. That was not what I wanted to put in doubt.

Not a problem, but I wouldn't look too much into those metering samples; even different model Nikons will have variations from one another.

Cheers, and good luck in your quest!

 

[Sjeupie]

I think the lenses with the same f-stop (opening size) could have a slightly different t-stop (amount of light actually getting to the sensor).

I have observed this difference once, comparing X-T10 with 27mm prime vs X-T1 with 18-135. X-T1 combo required a higher ISO at the same aperture and shutter speed when on automatic exposure.

On my Nikon I shot mainly a relatively large wide angle lens (Tokina 11-20mm) with a fairly large glass opening. An 82mm on the Tokina vs 58mm filter thread on the Fuji for to give you an idea.

I'd be interested to see if that Tokina requires a different ss at 18mm than for example the Nikon 18-55mm (55mm thread), all else being equal. Not sure if it should or shouldn't.

 

[JConrad]

I THINK YOU PROBABLY NEED TO REVISIT THE BASICS OF PHOTOGRAPHY INSTEAD OF COMPARING CAMERAS.........HAVE YOU REALLY BOUGHT THIS CAMERA TO COMPARE TO YOUR FAVOURITE ONE?

No need to shout bro.

Although I'm not impressed by the way you express yourself neither what you're actually saying, I'll respond to you nonetheless:

I bought the XT2 as an upgrade from my D5000. I felt like I was ready for a more professional camera and felt excited to take on a new step in my photography. The Nikon is the only DSLR I've ever owned and thus obviously my benchmark.
The observations I've expressed in my original post are the limitations of basic photography I've bumped into. Which is strange, because I have hardly ever bumped into those limitations with my Nikon in these conditions. And the Fuji should be outperforming the Nikon on every field.

Now, this means:

1 I either have had a very exceptionally performing Nikon D5000,

2 or I have a poorly functioning Fuji,

3 or thirdly I could have pretty bad observations skills.

And perhaps a combination of these 3. But something seems to be off.

I started to write a long reply but decided it was taking far too long. My best advice is the same advice offered here prior. You need to revisit the basics of exposure and learn the correlation between ISO, aperture value and shutter speed. Exposure is exposure and the brand camera being used has not her to do with your exposure. The laws of physics don't change by camera brand. You can't just select random shutter speeds, aperture values and ISO settings and expect your photos to come out. Everything is in direct correlation. 125/th at f2.8 ISO 800 is the same as 1/15th at f2.8 at ISO 100 is the same as 1/2000 at f2.8 at ISO 12,800 Or 1/125th f11 at ISO 12,800. You can't just say I want to shoot f22 at ISO 200 and expect a fast shutter speed in very low light. Based on my comparison exposures 1/15 f22 would require an ISO of 6400.

Scott

--
"Keep Calm and .JPEG On"

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your reply. I fully agree and off course, everything is related. And I'm not either expecting a fast shutter speed at F22 (it was in very bright light, not low light. But anyways). I just had the feeling my old Nikon gathered allowed for higher speeds/gathered more light in similar situations.
Apparently, this feeling is a clear indication for everybody that I understand nothing of photography basics. So be it.
I was interested in knowing if my observation was shared by other people and if there would have been any justification for it since I know (despite not understand sh*t of photography), the camera brand etc should not be of influence.

I know you like sunstars, but unless you truly can't get what you're after at f/11 or f/13 or the like, you really shouldn't be shooting at f/22 on a crop body. Diffraction takes such a heavy toll at that aperture on this photosite size that you're losing huge amounts of detail. I'll occasionally go to f/16 on APS-C if I really need the depth of field, but if I need more, I'll generally focus stack two exposures.

As to the exposure thing, Fuji's ISO ratings are around 0.6 EV below Canon and Sony, and Nikon underrates their ISO by around 1/3 stop, so that's why you're seeing up to a 1 stop difference in exposure for the same settings, but in practice it shouldn't make a difference. If you're shooting landscapes, I'm curious why you're so big on handheld anyway...with the best light being around sunrise/sunset, or in twilight before and after, and with deep depth of field required, a good portion of landscape work really needs a tripod for the best results, and that's the case regardless of camera.

 

[Sjeupie]

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your reply. I fully agree and off course, everything is related. And I'm not either expecting a fast shutter speed at F22 (it was in very bright light, not low light. But anyways). I just had the feeling my old Nikon gathered allowed for higher speeds/gathered more light in similar situations.
Apparently, this feeling is a clear indication for everybody that I understand nothing of photography basics. So be it.
I was interested in knowing if my observation was shared by other people and if there would have been any justification for it since I know (despite not understand sh*t of photography), the camera brand etc should not be of influence.

I know you like sunstars, but unless you truly can't get what you're after at f/11 or f/13 or the like, you really shouldn't be shooting at f/22 on a crop body. Diffraction takes such a heavy toll at that aperture on this photosite size that you're losing huge amounts of detail. I'll occasionally go to f/16 on APS-C if I really need the depth of field, but if I need more, I'll generally focus stack two exposures.

As to the exposure thing, Fuji's ISO ratings are around 0.6 EV below Canon and Sony, and Nikon underrates their ISO by around 1/3 stop, so that's why you're seeing up to a 1 stop difference in exposure for the same settings, but in practice it shouldn't make a difference. If you're shooting landscapes, I'm curious why you're so big on handheld anyway...with the best light being around sunrise/sunset, or in twilight before and after, and with deep depth of field required, a good portion of landscape work really needs a tripod for the best results, and that's the case regardless of camera.

Re-bonjour,

Indeed I shoot a lot from a tripod and for my type of shooting, the exposure issue (if actually true at all and not just a misleading feeling) is a a non-issue for me. Yet I noticed it and thus shared my thoughts.

Sometimes you see a shot though and do not have all your gear with you. This one for example, was taken hand held at f16 since I had no tripod with me. I really like this shot and would love to take more of this kind.

Pic

The ss of 1/160 seems on pair with what the fuji is showing me these days and thus fine. If the Fuji would result in a ss of 1/80, I would be a bit less happy in that particular occasion, standing rather unstable on a steep cliff. Sure, bumping the ISO would solve the problem and we're all happy again. But I've always worked with the thought of keeping the ISO as low as possible because on the Nikon, ISO 800 showed a drastic amount of noise already, hence my initial concerns.
Luckily, ISO 800 does not seem to be of any significant influence on IQ with the Fuji.

 

[bclaff]

I have some unpublished data on metering that suggests the X-T2 sometimes exposes quite a bit lower than expected.
So, compared to your Nikon experience I'm not too surprised.

 

[bclaff]

...

The X-T2 is essentially an ISO invariant camera. ...

Provided you understand that it uses dual conversion gain technology so there are two ISO Invariant ranges:

From ISO 200 to ISO 640 and from ISO 800 up.

That said, I think ISO Auto is a good approach most of the time.
But, if you know it's low light, you might be better of with ISO 800 as the base.

--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at http://www.photonstophotos.net )

 

[Robert Seso]

You might want to check the discussion at https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53391280.

In short - Fuji seems to use a different (but still legal) method to measure the ISO and their ISO values seem to be approximately 2/3-1EV off compared to the "standard" ISO as measured by most other brands and light meters. DP also confirmed this in their X-E2 review (see the discussion above for more details).

That means that for any given aperture-shutter speed combination you will have to increase the ISO by one step compared to most other camera brands to get the same results (e.g. 400 instead of 200) . Or, conversely, for any given aperture-ISO combination you will have to slice the shutter speed to half to get the same results as on other cameras.

This is not bad by itself since Fuji has very good high ISO performance, but it does confuse when you come from another brand. I configured my XT-20 to use Auto ISO with the max ISO of 12.800 - that way I can focus on the aperture and the shutter speed and let the camera set the ISO to whatever it needs to be. And the ISO 12.800 is still very usable.

 

[steras]

would you mind elaborate a bit more on this please?

 

[bclaff]

would you mind elaborate a bit more on this please?

This will be clearer when I get around to publishing my findings

The short answer is that neutral gray appears much lower in the raw data than you would expect and the reason appears to be underexposure due to metering (as opposed to some fiddling with ISO).

 

[steras]

would you mind elaborate a bit more on this please?

This will be clearer when I get around to publishing my findings

The short answer is that neutral gray appears much lower in the raw data than you would expect and the reason appears to be underexposure due to metering (as opposed to some fiddling with ISO).

 

[Icarex35]

Hahaha, this is a really good one.

Guys this is a joker, cant you see?

Your 6th post and you're accusing me of being a liar and a troll. Really?

No, I am not calling you a liar, nor a troll, I am calling you a joker.

Alternatively you are quite new to photography and have not mastered the basics yet.

 

[rich789]

You don't really know what you are doing and it shows.

Very useful. Nice chap.

 

[TravisDog]

F10 in your kitchen??????????????

I don't think this is a camera issue.

I was just trying the camera out, bro. Different settings, turning dials and knobs, taking pictures of my dinner boiling in a pot, my garden during lunchbreak and my dog playing in the snow.

It's like taking a testdrive in a car. Will you always climb that hill in 4th? No, but you can still see if it could do it. Same applies for the 0-100km/h times. You'll never dragrace from the traffic light. But when you're in a Ferrari, you might as well try out the acceleration, right?

And I had the impression that, contrary to my any spec or expectation, my former camera climbed that hill a bit easier in 4th and was a wee bit faster in the acceleration. I didn't time it, just had this feeling and was wondering if anybody else had that feeling to. That's it.

My XT2 does exactly what I expect it to, so I wonder if you either have a duff version or perhaps your expectations need recalibration. What you might like to do is download a cheap light meter phone app (such as my light meter pro) for a couple of dollars and wander around taking lightmeter readings. This should give you some idea of the amount of available light and what kind of SS and Aperture you would need to use at various ISO settings. This way you have a reasonably accurate third opinion which will will hopefully show that all is well with the xt2 (or not).