Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I have not succumbed to the X-pro, but I like my X100 so much, and my X10 and X20, that I might go for one of those one of these days. Probably should get all the lenses, too, so it would wind up being expensive . . .
Fuji is starting to get to me!
- Thread starter Huss
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 99
- Views 11K
gavinlg
Veteran
Funny, I had the same experience. Shutter speed dial cap fell off my e-p1, baseplate bent from light tripod use and my E-3 lost several screws over a small period. Never had another digital body (canon, Nikon, Fuji) come apart like those Olympus's.
farlymac
PF McFarland
At the rate I'm having issues with film labs, I just might go all digital, and that X100V looks like a good place to start though I'm still hung up on it being a fixed mount lens.
PF
PF
Last edited by a moderator:
Dogman
Veteran
Love the XPros, at least the "1" and "2". Don't really need or want the "3". Also love the X100...the "S" is the model I use and I don't have any desire for the newer models. Can't say enough good about the handling or look of the images.
'Course I only shoot Raw and I process about 99% as B&W. I seldom do color. I do recall that when I got my first Fuji camera I tried some of the film simulations and I totally hated them. All of them. To my eyes the colors were a just...wrong. Shooting in Raw and processing the color in Adobe Standard to taste looked better to me. Again: I almost never shoot color anyway.
Fuji menus are simple compared to Olympus. I really like the way the OMD EM1 does B&W but I hated the way the camera handled and the menus were a nightmare.
'Course I only shoot Raw and I process about 99% as B&W. I seldom do color. I do recall that when I got my first Fuji camera I tried some of the film simulations and I totally hated them. All of them. To my eyes the colors were a just...wrong. Shooting in Raw and processing the color in Adobe Standard to taste looked better to me. Again: I almost never shoot color anyway.
Fuji menus are simple compared to Olympus. I really like the way the OMD EM1 does B&W but I hated the way the camera handled and the menus were a nightmare.
olifaunt
Well-known
I am not so sure. One of the first images of classic negative mode, the kayak on the water, shows very ugly banding in the sky. This is the kind of problem, still unresolved in 2020, that pushed me away from digital and has me still using film for the foreseeable future for color. For B&W, the difference is even more stark; no digital capture comes even close to film there.
Corran
Well-known
I'm not a digital apologist (and I more or less only shoot film) but I guarantee that is either bad editing or bad compression (or both) in post.
goamules
Well-known
I upgraded my XE-1 I'd used for 6-7 years to a X-T2 this Winter. I do love the color choices. I barely shoot color film anymore. I shot the new Ektachrome. But after $12 for a roll, then $18 for processing and scanning (so-so scans that I can do better on), and the week delay....it's not worth it. I am satisfied with the Velvia setting, High Negative, and I'm playing with the Classic Chrome now.
Huss
Veteran
I don't see any banding, viewing the image on a recent MacBook Pro.
Not saying you don't see it, just I don't.
Also be aware that these are images compressed etc for the web. Everything I post via Flickr looks horrible compared to the actual images I have (for example)
Huss
Veteran
You have to scan film yourself (digicam). I would not be shooting film if I had to pay for that. Too expensive (I shoot a lot), most times mediocre results and I hate the wait. Especially because I used to mail it out and so would wait until I had enough rolls to send (as shipping one roll or many cost the same).
Brian Atherton
Well-known
philosli
Established
Why simulating if you can use the real?
Huss
Veteran
jsrockit
Moderator
Because they are never the same...as film. if you prefer digital, then maybe a simulation might be the look you are looking for. Why use ordinal over D76? Why use Ekatchrome over Velvia? I prefer RAW, but some people like a simulation and there is nothing wrong with it...
olifaunt
Well-known
I wonder if we are looking at the same image:
https://i2.wp.com/jonasraskphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/DSCF4409.jpg?w=3000&ssl=1
Banding is obvious to me on several different machines, including my calibrated laptop and iPad Pro. Especially the purple band above the kayak, but also several bands in the top right quarter of the image. It is more obvious when viewed through my slightly tinted reading glasses but even without them it is visible if you look for it. You can click on the mage to enlarge to full size and then it is really very obvious. This is supposed to be a camera jpeg and the full size version is large so I doubt PP or web compression has anything to do with it.
Huss
Veteran
I checked that link, looked at it full size, do not see any banding. My MacBook Pro has a calibrator on it that runs continuously. The only 'band' I see is the lake's horizon line above the kayaker. Which is part of the image.
olifaunt
Well-known
I guess that shows the danger of publishing images viewed using only a Macbook then (as the author probably also did).
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It looks like I’m not yet to quit on film.
I get 4 cad Kodak Gold in local Walmart and it is developed for 6 cad, same week, near work. 7 usd in total. And I own two scanners. They are not expensive.
Corran
Well-known
I 100% see the banding. It's not as obvious as some I've seen, but I do really think it is from editing or compression, and has nothing to do with digital capture.
Even the 3000 x 2000 image is resized from the "original" SOOC jpeg.
Even the 3000 x 2000 image is resized from the "original" SOOC jpeg.
Brian Atherton
Well-known
I would hope so! Intriguing…
Full size or not, on three separate machines (Apple and PC), what I see with my eyes on my screens appears different to what you see with your eyes on your screen.
You see banding, I don’t.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
On decent PC with dedicated graphic card, not on-board one. If it is not visible on Macs, then FujiFilm should specify it in written. I check images regularly on same PC and no defects like this. Only if it comes from the image.
Similar threads
