Jump to content

The 4K Fuji X-T2 is here


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

@jonpais

Jon, I know you are shooting with the X-T2. I saw some very good photos and footage out of this camera and hold this camera for some hours in my hands but there was not time enough for all tests I need.
I would like to know - if possible - how about the focusing ability (AF) of the X-T2 in low light and low contrast situations? (for shooting photos and video)

Thank you!

Sorry, Arikhan, but I'm the wrong guy to ask. I don't shoot in low light and I don't shoot stills. Maybe Sebastian can answer this one...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 996
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My first video review, shot on the X-T2  

Wow... two thousand grand is... TWO MILLION BUCKS!!! That is a lot of scratch for a camera and grip - I'd at least want a lens, and 5 Ferraris...

I take back what I said in my last post. I just did some side by sides with my Nikon D5500 on the Flat profile (which i've previously described as having as much DR as the C100 II) and the Fuji is act

Posted Images

Lots of video focused improvements in the upcoming FW update, glad to see a histogram, the ability to use the eye sensor to move between EVF and LCD while recording,  tap the shutter or AF-on to refocus while recording and change the ISO while recording. Looking forward to the AF improvements the most. The XT2 is already really good in that regard, but the face detection compared to Sony's is awful. I don't even use it, I just move the AF point around with the joystick to follow my subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

This is part of a ten shot burst of an erratic fast moving subject at ISO5000, all of which were in focus.

It acquires fast and tracks well. At least the 50-140 f2.8 which this was shot on does.

 

DSCF9651.jpg

Love that lens to death

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members
1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Love that lens to death

Have you tried the 50-230mm?

I was at a photo show the other day and a company were flogging the silver version (which does look hideous) very cheaply at £149.

I remember reading somewhere that it was a bit of a sleeper so thought I'd take a chance as at least I could use it as a light travel zoom.

So I put it on earlier and, erm, well, sleeper is a bit of an understatement. OK, its slow (in every aspect) but image quality wise its a bit of a performer.

I've just done a few quick comparison tests against the 50-140mm f2.8. 

I was shooting handheld so its not exactly perfect alignment of framing for both but you can get the gist hopefully. The crops are fairly arbitrary as well but again you can get the idea.

Shots are :

1: Lamp @140mm - The max native end of the 50-140

2:  Palm Tress @200mm -  This is using the 50-140 with its 1.4TC which is virtually lossless performance wise. Obviously the 50-230 still had some range left.

3: Chart @50mm - The min end of both lenses

Obviously, apertures were matched to the slower 50-200mm so the 50-140 would obviously be king of the shallow DOF !

The bottom line for me here is that under decent conditions there isn't 10 times the difference (or anywhere even approaching that) and whilst the slow speed (in terms of aperture and focus), the weather sealing, the robustness etc means I could never use it for my day job, there is no way I'm going to be sticking the 50-140 in my bag when I'm doing a bit of sightseeing when I've got this.

Aside from the light weight, its horrendous looks also make it a boon for travelling as no one is going to think that a) you are filming anything for professional use and b) that its worth stealing!!

 

 

 

Comp2.jpg

Comp1.jpg

Comp3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Have you tried the 50-230mm?

I was at a photo show the other day and a company were flogging the silver version (which does look hideous) very cheaply at £149.

I remember reading somewhere that it was a bit of a sleeper so thought I'd take a chance as at least I could use it as a light travel zoom.

So I put it on earlier and, erm, well, sleeper is a bit of an understatement. OK, its slow (in every aspect) but image quality wise its a bit of a performer.

I've just done a few quick comparison tests against the 50-140mm f2.8. 

I was shooting handheld so its not exactly perfect alignment of framing for both but you can get the gist hopefully. The crops are fairly arbitrary as well but again you can get the idea.

Shots are :

1: Lamp @140mm - The max native end of the 50-140

2:  Palm Tress @200mm -  This is using the 50-140 with its 1.4TC which is virtually lossless performance wise. Obviously the 50-230 still had some range left.

3: Chart @50mm - The min end of both lenses

Obviously, apertures were matched to the slower 50-200mm so the 50-140 would obviously be king of the shallow DOF !

The bottom line for me here is that under decent conditions there isn't 10 times the difference (or anywhere even approaching that) and whilst the slow speed (in terms of aperture and focus), the weather sealing, the robustness etc means I could never use it for my day job, there is no way I'm going to be sticking the 50-140 in my bag when I'm doing a bit of sightseeing when I've got this.

Aside from the light weight, its horrendous looks also make it a boon for travelling as no one is going to think that a) you are filming anything for professional use and b) that its worth stealing!!

Which lens is which? :):)  Looks like you made a killing! For 150 pounds, that lens is great... for good light.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members
1 hour ago, no_connection said:

How is the 18-55 stabilized lens with it?

I tried it on an X-Pro1 once and it made a hissing sound when on, and the bokeh was butt ugly. Don't have any reference as I have not tried any other.

It does make a hissing noise.

But compared to the 50-140 its negligible.

If you pine for the sound of the ocean then the 50-140 is in this sort of territory.

 

shell.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Arikhan said:

@jonpais

Jon, I know you are shooting with the X-T2. I saw some very good photos and footage out of this camera and hold this camera for some hours in my hands but there was not time enough for all tests I need.
I would like to know - if possible - how about the focusing ability (AF) of the X-T2 in low light and low contrast situations? (for shooting photos and video)

Thank you!

It is very good. Don't usually have troubles. With the older lenses like the 35mm f1.4 it can be less decisive and accurate though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

The bottom line for me here is that under decent conditions there isn't 10 times the difference (or anywhere even approaching that) and whilst the slow speed (in terms of aperture and focus), the weather sealing, the robustness etc means I could never use it for my day job, there is no way I'm going to be sticking the 50-140 in my bag when I'm doing a bit of sightseeing when I've got this.

I never get statements like this, the same could be said for any f 1.2/1.4/1.8 lens, or FF vs APS-c and so on - the incremental differences are never reflected in price as faster lenses and constant aperture zoom are more complex designs. The benefits of a f2.8 zoom are not shown in any of your sample images. Go shoot a basketball game - or any indoor/night sport and the differences will be obvious. The same could be said for many budget lenses and plastic zooms, in good light and at certain apertures most capable of producing images indistinguishable from more expensive options. The 55-200 is my travel zoom and its a great lens, but I could really use a faster lens at times so I could keep my ISO's down and/or shutter speeds up. Wider apertures make it much easier to shoot at higher shutter speeds if you're capturing action. The focusing and IS of the 50-140 is much better, light gathering is obviously much better at 2.8 through the range and bokeh is much smoother with a pronounced difference in subject isolation. I left my 50-140 behind because of the weight as I'm traveling around the world for a year on a tight budget. If I didn't have to carry everything I own in a backpack and a smaller camera bag, I would have brought both 2.8 zooms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He already explained why he shot with the 50-140 stopped down - he is comparing the lenses at the same f stop. He's already aware of the benefits of fast glass. BTW, the differences in bokeh rendition are obvious even at narrower apertures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Arikhan said:

@jonpais

Jon, I know you are shooting with the X-T2. I saw some very good photos and footage out of this camera and hold this camera for some hours in my hands but there was not time enough for all tests I need.
I would like to know - if possible - how about the focusing ability (AF) of the X-T2 in low light and low contrast situations? (for shooting photos and video)

Thank you!

I use the X-Pro2, which has the same focusing system and it Is excellent. Good enough to track fast moving dancers in f2.8 - 1/250 - 12800ISO kinda light.

12 hours ago, Kubrickian said:

All fuji lenses are focus-by-wire, yes? How is the responsiveness when twisting the focus ring in manual mode? 

The exceptions to this are the 14mm, 16mm and older 23mm. I've got the last one and it is a beautiful lens optically, and the clutch focus is very smooth and cool for manual focusing. About 225 degrees of throw. You can hear the lens elements moving though so be aware of that if you are recording audio on camera.

The focus by wire is a bit of a mixed bag, by which I mean it is mostly not very good on older primes like the 35mm and 56mm. The 16-55 by contrast is pretty useable. The sensitivity is just at the right point where you can usefully follow stuff in the frame.

17 hours ago, no_connection said:

How is the 18-55 stabilized lens with it?

I tried it on an X-Pro1 once and it made a hissing sound when on, and the bokeh was butt ugly. Don't have any reference as I have not tried any other.

Personally, I like it. Its cheap and cheerful, and if you don't expect miracles it is a sharp, small and well built handy zoom. It's something of a steal on the used market and he stabilisation is really good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting numerous "write error" messages after about 5-10 seconds of 4K recording using a Lexar 64gb UHS-II SD card.

SD worked flawlessly since purchase 3 weeks ago but but have pushed the XT2 a lot yesterday ( 3-4 hours of 4K) and started getting this issue at about the second or third hour. Then this morning immediately on first shot.

Is my SD corrupted? is there an in cam formatting option anywhere? help!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Members
3 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

I never get statements like this, the same could be said for any f 1.2/1.4/1.8 lens, or FF vs APS-c and so on - the incremental differences are never reflected in price as faster lenses and constant aperture zoom are more complex designs. The benefits of a f2.8 zoom are not shown in any of your sample images. Go shoot a basketball game - or any indoor/night sport and the differences will be obvious. The same could be said for many budget lenses and plastic zooms, in good light and at certain apertures most capable of producing images indistinguishable from more expensive options. The 55-200 is my travel zoom and its a great lens, but I could really use a faster lens at times so I could keep my ISO's down and/or shutter speeds up. Wider apertures make it much easier to shoot at higher shutter speeds if you're capturing action. The focusing and IS of the 50-140 is much better, light gathering is obviously much better at 2.8 through the range and bokeh is much smoother with a pronounced difference in subject isolation. I left my 50-140 behind because of the weight as I'm traveling around the world for a year on a tight budget. If I didn't have to carry everything I own in a backpack and a smaller camera bag, I would have brought both 2.8 zooms.

What the fuck?

You never get statements like that?

I tell you what I never get mate.

I never get people who don't read exactly what has been written, especially when all of the differences were clearly qualified, before they toddle off to Grandma's with an egg sucking tutorial.

I should go and shoot a basketball game or indoor/night sport??

Hahaha

Did you see the part where it said I couldn't use it for my day job?

Did you see my other post literally two posts earlier about the 50-140 ?!?

The one that contained the ISO5000 1/2000th f2.8 photograph that I'd taken 3000 metres up in the Sierra Nevadas at -5 degrees at the FIS World Championships?

My day job is a professional editorial sports photographer so, rest assured, I'm fairly au fait with the whole light/aperture/shutter speed thingy and because I shoot in all weathers and all environments I'm also acutely aware of why things that can perform under all those circumstances and withstand that punishment cost a few quid more.

What I'm also acutely aware of is that not everyone needs that and not everyone can afford it either so I thought I'd do a quick comparison because I had both to hand so that people who needed some reach could see what could be had for a much smaller outlay if they could live with the compromises that I'd clearly listed.

I was going to do another one today about a couple of lenses on different formats but fuck that.

 

15 minutes ago, Django said:

Getting numerous "write error" messages after about 5-10 seconds of 4K recording using a Lexar 64gb UHS-II SD card.

SD worked flawlessly since purchase 3 weeks ago but but have pushed the XT2 a lot yesterday ( 3-4 hours of 4K) and started getting this issue at about the second or third hour. Then this morning immediately on first shot.

Is my SD corrupted? is there an in cam formatting option anywhere? help!

For reasons best known to themselves, they've hidden the Format option away.

Menu>Spanner Thing>User Setting>Format

Alternatively, press the Trash button on the back of the camera for 3 seconds and then whilst still pressing it also press in the rear rotary command dial on the back of the camera

Link to post
Share on other sites

@BTM_Pix + @Inazuma + @j-oc

Thank you for answering! Now a last question: I use for such extreme low light (and low contrast) scenarios the D750 - it "can see" and focus in the dark (for stills)...
Some weeks ago, I had the D500 of a buddy of mine in my hands and was very impressed concerning the focusing ability (exceptional) in the dark (for stills)...

So is someone out there who owns the D750/D500 and could say something about a focusing comparison with a X-T2?

BTW: The A6500 with a 35mm 1.8 lens fails in many of my tests very often, when comparing to the focusing abilities (in the dark) of the D750/D500. Please consider, we are not talking about IQ or FF vs APS-C, but only about focusing ability in low light/low contrast for moving subjects when taking photos.

Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Arikhan said:

@BTM_Pix + @Inazuma + @j-oc

Thank you for answering! Now a last question: I use for such extreme low light (and low contrast) scenarios the D750 - it "can see" and focus in the dark (for stills)...
Some weeks ago, I had the D500 of a buddy of mine in my hands and was very impressed concerning the focusing ability (exceptional) in the dark (for stills)...

So is someone out there who owns the D750/D500 and could say something about a focusing comparison with a X-T2?

BTW: The A6500 with a 35mm 1.8 lens fails in many of my tests very often, when comparing to the focusing abilities (in the dark) of the D750/D500. Please consider, we are not talking about IQ or FF vs APS-C, but only about focusing ability in low light/low contrast for moving subjects when taking photos.

Thank you!

I used to own a D750. In terms of pure extreme low-light and low-contrast focusing ability it is better than the X-series cameras. With that said, even though I am a professional performing arts photographer and really appreciate the power to focus in the dark, I still prefer the Fuji.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...