gyoung143 wrote:
Any auto system has it's tolerances, it's margins for error, if you look hard enough you can find those margins. I's naive to expect exact accuracy all the time. There are so many factors affecting usage never mind the efficiency of the programming. If you understand how an AF system works it will be obvious why in the field exact accuracy is unlikely. But in use we have DoF and camera shake etc etc, I the end it's the WHOLE PICTURE captured that matters, an error of a metreor two at 15m at f/8 is not an issue, you won't notice when viewing the whole picture. If it's only noticeable at 100 % it's merely an interesting technical exercise.
The Fuji distance scale in the viewfinder too is pretty unreliable, especially with shorter focal lengths, the fact that duplicate presses s of the shutter release gives different readings is a shame but doesn't seem to indicate actual distancedifference s, the scale is only useful when used if AF mode as a rough indication of DoF. It seems mich better in MF.
We have a small number of frequent contributors who harp on the same 'inadequacies over and over again. There are dozens more here, and millions out there beyond forums who are perfectky happy with the performance of. If you are so far out of step with the majority look to your own technique and levels of expectation....Show more →
It’s not that it’s impossible to get a sharp picture with Fuji‘s AF. It is „fine“ most of the time.
That said their AF-S is just too unreliable compared to all other brands. It does miss focus a significant number of times and it does focus beyond infinity. That’s not a matter of technique or user error, it’s a camera error and Fuji needs to fix this with the next generation. It’s a shame they weren’t able to fix it on current bodies..
AF-C / tracking of course also needs to catch up to Sony/Canon/Nikon. I have the suspicion they may end up only matching Panasonic though.. not the end of the world for me personally as long as they fix AF-S reliability.
In terms of expectations: I’d expect similar-priced cameras to perform similarly. So the upcoming Fuji X-T6 needs to match a Nikon Z5II and soon-to-be-released (?) Canon R8 mk II..
EB-1 wrote:
I'm interested in the Fuji X 100-400, some kind of normal zoom to meet up with that range and an ultrawide zoom. We might try that 150-600 for special purpose though it is stupidly slow.
I don't use lenses with the borkahs nor have any idea about what Fujis are unit focusing other than assuming short primes. The system will not be used for human species. The fastest aperture lens I could imagine using would be f/2.8 but mostly f/4-7.1. Normally I use the continuous AF, but I'm not sure if the AF-C with BBF is at last as good as AF-S for landscapes where it will be on a tripod. With modern Sony and Canon I usually just leave it at AF-C because there is little to no difference once I know it is in focus.
Does the X-H2S have the best AF in all circumstances? ...Show more →
For a normal zoom, the 16-55/2.8 mkII is really hard to fault. Its small and light with really exceptional IQ. And it auto focuses quickly and accurately, better than most Fuji lenses. Lots of good primes, my faves are 18/1.4, 33 or 35/1.4, and 50/2. The 150-600 really is special purpose, animals in good light. I'm still working on my skills with bird photography, to soon to blame the lens
I was thinking of the 16-80/4 and 100-400/5.6 for starters. 16-55 is more like a 24-70. I have 5 various 24-70s and they have a good place, but the user is going to have enough of a problem with the gap from 80 to 100 without figuring out another lens inbetween. Ideally there would be a lens similar to the 24-120 Z Nikkor but scaled down to APS-C like the old 16-80 DX Nikkor and good by f/7.1.
I prefer the big guns that Fuji X doesn't have, but the user rarely has interest in more than 400mm on APS-C due to size.
EB-1 wrote:
I was thinking of the 16-80/4 and 100-400/5.6 for starters. 16-55 is more like a 24-70. I have 5 various 24-70s and they have a good place, but the user is going to have enough of a problem with the gap from 80 to 100 without figuring out another lens inbetween. Ideally there would be a lens similar to the 24-120 Z Nikkor but scaled down to APS-C like the old 16-80 DX Nikkor and good by f/7.1.
I prefer the big guns that Fuji X doesn't have, but the user rarely has interest in more than 400mm on APS-C due to size.
EBH...Show more →
I used the 16-80/4 for a couple years as the mkI 16-55 was too hefty for my X kit. I went to the mkII 16-55 and it is an overall better lens. But mainly for the f2.8, IQ is a little better but not by a large amount. if you don't care about the f4, then the 16-80 should work well. They are essentially the same size and the 16-80 much less expensive.
Leaving the AF discussion aside, as a person who recently got an X-E5, I thought the camera is gorgeous to look at, but the controls are really....... fussy. Maybe it's just the learning curve but the lack of a PASM dial and lack of a lot of controls in general makes it a bit difficult to configure. I might get used to it over time.
I'm fine with it since it's sort of a fun side camera for me, but if I needed it to be a main camera, I think I'd much prefer the X-T5.
It looks like SOny has PASM, Nikon and Fuji sometimes have PSAM.
It seems that some things about the X-T series are good and some things about the X-H are good, like they need some in between.
I'm very used to the Sony and Canon with 3 configurable control dials for the right hand, so I can use ISO, aperture and shutter speed in full manual and EC via ISO in auto ISO, though the user is not necessary. I'm not sure what to do with the PASM/PSAM since wouldn't it be in M always then?
The H series has the AF point selector nub up high on the body, whereas the T is rather lower on the body. What are the experiences of that difference ergonomically?
EB-1 wrote:
I was thinking of the 16-80/4 and 100-400/5.6 for starters. 16-55 is more like a 24-70. I have 5 various 24-70s and they have a good place, but the user is going to have enough of a problem with the gap from 80 to 100 without figuring out another lens inbetween. Ideally there would be a lens similar to the 24-120 Z Nikkor but scaled down to APS-C like the old 16-80 DX Nikkor and good by f/7.1.
I prefer the big guns that Fuji X doesn't have, but the user rarely has interest in more than 400mm on APS-C due to size.
I was excited when Fuji released the 16-80mm and bought one immediately. Unfortunately it‘s not a good lens..
The center area is quite sharp but it suffers from severe astigmatism so corners never get critically sharp - even stopped down - and just look off.
Maybe I had a horrible copy, but several reviews seem to confirm my impression (e.g opticallimits).
I really wanted to like it as it’s the perfect size & focal range, but it’s just not good enough. So I’d also suggest looking at one of the 16-55mm or the new 16-50mm kit lens instead.. or wait if Fuji releases any new lens with the X-T6 in September..
EB-1 wrote:
It looks like SOny has PASM, Nikon and Fuji sometimes have PSAM.
It seems that some things about the X-T series are good and some things about the X-H are good, like they need some in between.
I'm very used to the Sony and Canon with 3 configurable control dials for the right hand, so I can use ISO, aperture and shutter speed in full manual and EC via ISO in auto ISO, though the user is not necessary. I'm not sure what to do with the PASM/PSAM since wouldn't it be in M always then?
The H series has the AF point selector nub up high on the body, whereas the T is rather lower on the body. What are the experiences of that difference ergonomically?
For the X-E5, you have shutter speed dial, which you can set on "A" to do auto shutter speed, or "T" to use the wheel to set shutter speed. Then for aperture, the lenses usually have an aperture ring, which also has an "A". But what "A" does is either auto aperture, or allow you to set aperture with a second wheel depending on menu settings.
Sounds simple, but in practice I find myself poking through the menu a lot, and constantly forgetting how I've set things up... when a simple flick of the PASM dial for other cameras would have accomplished the same.
It's fine. It's a beautiful camera and fun to use.
But somehow, the Zf I have accomplishes the same retro look, tactility, etc. while being more intuitive. I do think the X-E5 is just crazily overpriced.
Note that the X-T5 doesn't have a PASM dial either, but it gives you an ISO dial, so at least it doesn't leave you wondering if you have AUTO Iso on, or not.
Yeah, Fuji is so silly for having bodies with no PASM dial/switch option (X-E5, X-T5, etc), and bodies with one (X-H2, X-H2s, most GFXs)...
Except for Nikon, who has a ZF with a PASM switch, and dials for the shutter and ISO... and then on their other bodies, what, no dials for those? Ahh man.
Seems other manufacturers have different styles and different ergonomic options to consider, and some have a lot or a few custom buttons to mix everything up.
EB-1 wrote:
It looks like SOny has PASM, Nikon and Fuji sometimes have PSAM.
It seems that some things about the X-T series are good and some things about the X-H are good, like they need some in between.
I'm very used to the Sony and Canon with 3 configurable control dials for the right hand, so I can use ISO, aperture and shutter speed in full manual and EC via ISO in auto ISO, though the user is not necessary. I'm not sure what to do with the PASM/PSAM since wouldn't it be in M always then?
The H series has the AF point selector nub up high on the body, whereas the T is rather lower on the body. What are the experiences of that difference ergonomically?
I cannot speak to Fujifilm’s implementation of the PASM interface on the XH models, though I know that some people like it a lot. (I use a PASM interface on my Canon system.)
The Fujifilm XT gives you the same options that you get with the PASM dial on other cameras, but you get them in a different way. Because we’re used to the PASM dials it seems odd to some users at first, but it makes a lot of sense once you catch on. I don’t have any issues wth it and I switch back and forth between a (Canon) PASM camera and my XT5 without difficulties. (The fact that focus and zoom rings work in opposite directions occasionally catches me off guard, but I digress….)
In a sense, the XT (XT5 in my case) could sort of be thought to be in M mode by default, since you have immediate access to any manual shutter speed or aperture setting just by choosing it. Rather than some global setting for P, A, S, or M modes (as on my Canon) you simply move a manual control to the A (automatic) setting and you are effectively in one of those modes. Move the aperture ring to A and you are now in shutter priority mode. Move it back to some aperture and put the shutter setting on A and you are now in aperture priority mode. Put both aperture ring and shutter setting on A and you are effectively in P mode.
As to ISO, you can choose it via the ISO knob.. or set the knob to its A position, at which point the camera is determining all three settings. (You have some ability to override its decisions or “shape” them.)
That’s a lot of words to describe a pretty simple thing. Imagine if an old school manual camera added A settings to the aperture and shutter controls and you’ve got it.
Basically, if you want a parameter (shutter, aperture, ISO) to be automatic you must set its control to A. That’s it.
AF point selection on my XT5 is done with the small button/joystick on the rear of the camera. (You can quickly change the size of the AF zone using a separate control wheel.) It works pretty well in my experience, with one small caveat. When I do street photography, I carry the camera by holding the grip with a wrist strap attached. Because of the way my hand aligns with the camera, at first I found myself accidentally moving the AF points by inadvertently hitting the control button. (I no longer do that.)
EB-1 wrote:
I'm not sure what to do with the PASM/PSAM since wouldn't it be in M always then?
An X-T series camera will elevate your preferences for camera ergonomics. You'll realize how retarded the PASM interface is, and why it should have been escorted out and shot back in the 80s when it arrived to the party. By the way, it also causes face cancer. I always recommend a one-inch block of lead between that carcinogenic dial and a face. You can use the flash socket to mount a block of lead to. (Leica people keep recommending brass, but their naive souls don't understand what we're dealing with here)
PASM makes some sense on a camera with 'only' a top screen and 'wheels' to change SS and A etc, as used on Nikon film cameras such as my F90 etc, and all their digital cameras, Canon too I suppose from EOS onwards.
With cameras with shutter speed dials and aperture rings it would surely be confusing to have a PASM dial while the separate controls read a speed or aperture. Fujis have it quite simple, whichever parameter you want auto set you put the dial on A, simple. As also done I think on older 'traditional' Nikons such as the FA, although I never owned that, just an FM2 which I still have, and F, F2 'pro' bodies.
I'm probably directing too much attention to the PASM "issues." It's merely my handicap/slowness between switching between M-mode (with auto ISO), and A-mode (with auto-shutter speed). Functionally what I'm doing is turning on/off Auto ISO and Auto shutter speed.
Probably what bugs me most is Auto-ISO.
1. Without an ISO dial like the X-T5, I often accidentally nudge the front wheel and take it off of Auto ISO. Took me awhile to figure out how to shut this off, but sometimes I want to leave it on. So half my gripes with the X-E5 is not having an ISO dial.
2. When you have AUTO Iso on, it displays the maximum ISO, not the ISO that the camera is using to meter the scene. This drove me absolutely bonkers. I only later learned that when you half press the shutter it will show what ISO the camera is using to meter the scene.
I'd like to say it's me, but having shot Nikon, Sony, Canon, Olympus, and Panasonic, and now Fuji, I can say that wrestling with the Fuji X-E5 interface has been challenging
nineblade wrote:
I'm probably directing too much attention to the PASM "issues." It's merely my handicap/slowness between switching between M-mode (with auto ISO), and A-mode (with auto-shutter speed). Functionally what I'm doing is turning on/off Auto ISO and Auto shutter speed.
Probably what bugs me most is Auto-ISO.
1. Without an ISO dial like the X-T5, I often accidentally nudge the front wheel and take it off of Auto ISO. Took me awhile to figure out how to shut this off, but sometimes I want to leave it on. So half my gripes with the X-E5 is not having an ISO dial.
2. When you have AUTO Iso on, it displays the maximum ISO, not the ISO that the camera is using to meter the scene. This drove me absolutely bonkers. I only later learned that when you half press the shutter it will show what ISO the camera is using to meter the scene.
I'd like to say it's me, but having shot Nikon, Sony, Canon, Olympus, and Panasonic, and now Fuji, I can say that wrestling with the Fuji X-E5 interface has been challenging ...Show more →
I have front dial set to control aperture on lenses without aperture rings, which I think is the default, that's mainly Nikon lenses on a Fringer adapter. That comes naturally to me inherited from long use of Nikon slr and dslr cameras.
Pressing the shutter release halfway to get actual iso chosen is an irritant I wish Fuji would sort. But I cope,
One thing that is nicer on Fuji is EC dial, which I can change with camera at my eye, whereas on my Nikon DSLR and film cameras is a two handed job pressing the button while rotating the wheel. I don't know if the Nikon Z bodies continue that, hope not.
nineblade wrote:
1. …So half my gripes with the X-E5 is not having an ISO dial.
I wish they had used a combined shutter speed and ISO knob like on my old XPro2. It seemed awkward at first, but eventually became second nature to use.
(Or they could have used the top panel area that they devoted to sim selection to a separate ISO knob, leaving sim selection to a programmable control wheel.
I'd like to say it's me, but having shot Nikon, Sony, Canon, Olympus, and Panasonic, and now Fuji, I can say that wrestling with the Fuji X-E5 interface has been challenging
Honestly, we get so used to particular interfaces that it can initially be very difficult to give up that learned familiarity and move to a different interface.
When I got my first Fujifilm camera a dozen years ago (the XE1) when I first took it out to photograph I started to think that I had made a grievous mistake. The controls had different names, were in different places, and did not fall naturally under my hand… by comparison to the Canon cameras I used and had learned thoroughly.
A few weeks later — at most one month — after shooting the little camera a lot the awkwardness disappeared. In fact, after one long trip where I left the Canon gear at home and just used Fujifilm, when I got home and picked up the Canon… now IT felt awkward!
- - -
By the way, this is true of interfaces of all sorts, not just cameras. We just got a new stove and it took me weeks to remember which way the dials turned. The last new car I purchased had a very different interface, and it was weeks before I was comfortable with som of the features. So I’m leery of people who are used o one interface, try another one, and pronounce he new one no good… mainly because it isn’t like the one they are familiar with.
gyoung143 wrote:
I have front dial set to control aperture on lenses without aperture rings, which I think is the default, that's mainly Nikon lenses on a Fringer adapter. That comes naturally to me inherited from long use of Nikon slr and dslr cameras.
Pressing the shutter release halfway to get actual iso chosen is an irritant I wish Fuji would sort. But I cope,
One thing that is nicer on Fuji is EC dial, which I can change with camera at my eye, whereas on my Nikon DSLR and film cameras is a two handed job pressing the button while rotating the wheel. I don't know if the Nikon Z bodies continue that, hope not.
The lack of a third dial for EC on most Nikons does suck, compared to the better Sony and Canon bodies that have 3 configurable dials.
What I cannot find is if the XT series EC dial can be programmed to do something else in full manual exposure like ISO? I could then have the front dial be aperture and the rear dial be shutter speed. Having ISO on the left is no good for handheld with big lenses. Having single-purpose labeled 20th century controls is quaint, but not versatile when you want to control everything looking through the viewfinder.
EB-1 wrote:
The lack of a third dial for EC on most Nikons does suck, compared to the better Sony and Canon bodies that have 3 configurable dials.
What I cannot find is if the XT series EC dial can be programmed to do something else in full manual exposure like ISO? I could then have the front dial be aperture and the rear dial be shutter speed. Having ISO on the left is no good for handheld with big lenses. Having single-purpose labeled 20th century controls is quaint, but not versatile when you want to control everything looking through the viewfinder.
EBH
You know you can have two functions per dial and push to toggle between, yes?
EB-1 wrote:
I know there are multiple options for the front and rear dials, but are there other options for the EC dial? I'm not finding it in the X-T5 manual.
Ideally there would be a lens similar to the 24-120 Z Nikkor but scaled down to APS-C like the old 16-80 DX Nikkor and good by f/7.1.
