Fuji X-E1 shooters

[ricktas]

I agree with AM. Though I did not want to see them to give CC.

I don't see how I can possibly prove my claim and convince anyone that I really enjoyed taking these picture, but here are a few.

I wanted to see how the camera performed technically. The photos look great. I would have liked to see EXIF data so I could say check the ISO of the night bridge shot as it looks very clean and devoid of noise and EXIF would have told me the long exposure time, and thus long exposure noise comes into play. Knowing the Fuji can handle that well, is an important factor that needs to be considered when purchasing, esp for landscapers. All of the photos show good detail in the shadow areas which shows the sensor has a good dynamic range. Providing photos is of course going to prove your claim, cause the technical aspects of the photos tell us a lot about how good the equipment is. Yes you as a photographer need to be creative compositionally etc to get photos that have the wow factor, but the quality of the sensor etc is also very important.

Thank you for giving us some examples so we could assess the quality of the output. EXIF would have been interesting, but this is why I kept asking to see examples. I wanted to see what the sensor could do. Certainly from what you have presented, it looks like you are right, in that it is a good camera, from a technical ability point of view.

[CandidTown]

the bridge from memory is f11 at 30s iso 200 shot in raw.
the other are hand held can't recall exact specs.

[ricktas]

the bridge from memory is f11 at 30s iso 200 shot in raw.
the other are hand held can't recall exact specs.

thanks, do you get why I wanted to see photos now?

[arthurking83]

I started this thread in the OTHER manufacturers forum to get in touch with Fuji x-e1 shooters to exchange ideas and share experiences. Why am I being hounded by trolling Nikon fan-boys?
I'm not allowed to call my own camera great because it's not a Nikon? ... wow!

YES you bought a magnificent camera, congratulations. Now go and worship your Nikon in your own forum. PLEASE!

I've been on AP for quite a while now, and this is the first I've heard that specific groups of members 'own' particular areas of the forums!!
(interesting attitude)

But(for a moment) lets go back to the topic of the cheapness and durability of the plasticky cheap DSLRs at the lower end of the spectrum, and compare the quality of the product(at least one) with the higher quality mirrorless system of your choice.
(my knowledge usually only extends to Nikon products, and I'm unsure if most other manufacturers will have similar specs .. but my interest is only with Nikon related camera bodies)

So by your reckoning, the cheap plastic entry level Nikon(in this instance say a D3200) is going to provide 50,000K shutter actuations .. a figure of random and unfounded hyperbole of which I have no idea where you conjured up from.

From Nikon's own literature:

".... The D3200's shutter unit is tested for 100,000 cycles with the shutter actually loaded to prove its high durability."

see here for source.

Yest it is cheaper than a Fuji XE-1, but as for this apparent cheapness(of quality) .. compared to the XE-1 ... well that's compare the durability of the XE-1's shutter system:

" ..... .... "

Quoted from Fuji's site: Yep! that's right .. no one iota of information as to it's shutter durability from my searching.
This leads one to the conclusion that it most likely has no durability as such ... and most likely that it won't match the Nikon D3200's 100,000(as opposed to your random guesstimate of 50,000 .. which by the way is still quite substantial anyhow!)

So to begin with, your assertions of cheapness are muddied by an emotional response to some abstract endearing affair with the XE-1 .. and not really bound in any way by factual knowledge.

Secondly, I made no reference in my initial reply about any affair with Nikon .. and hence your conclusion of my fanboism to the brand is yet another random emotional response(again).
My reply was simply that this is what I have .. I certainly make no bones about my dislike for many things that Nikon do(or more accurately don't do). Fanoboi .. most certainly not.
(but of course you haven't been here long enough to know that)

But what is obviously clear is that you have a serious case of fanboism for the Fuji brand .. based on the total lack of understanding, that you have displayed, of how to assess facts and figures when it comes to choosing a durable, quality product!

Chosen for it's lightness .. fair enough! It'd certainly be a lighter smaller alternative to a DSLR. But choosing an XE-1 over a plasticky DLSR(eg. D3200), using quality and durability as a basis, can only be described as a laughable conclusion.

With no hard data from the manufacturer, the durability of the shutter in the XE-1 could be any random value .. which basically covers their behinds if it breaks down at 10,000 actuations.
And in contrast, Nikon have categorically stated that the lowliest in their stable can in fact last for 100,000 actuations, which comes back to the consumer as a specific in terms of warranty terms.



So if durability of the shutter is a concern .. which camera would the knowledgeable person choose?

if you're going to create an argument for one product over another, at least have the courtesy to provide some usable information!

Am mentioned something about the disparaging remarks towards Canon/Nikon .. and that really has no bearing on anything in the scheme of things ... you don't like X, you're most welcome to describe this dislike any way you like. But to insult one's intelligence for their choice of product is usually a cause for concern as to the intent of those comments.


As said many times already in this thread .. shoot with what pleases your own sense of self .. and allow others to choose theirs(without insulting their ability to reason).
If you want to believe that the Fuji is more durable than the cheapest of plastic DSLRs .. then that's your choice, but keep the facts and figures at a realistic level.

[ricktas]

Ok, now you have piqued my interest too. I just noticed the three photos above are named:

fiji-xe1-001.jpg / fiji-xe1-002.jpg and fiji-xe1-004.jpg

Now I have a few concerns that these photos were not even taken with the said camera. Firstly they are called FIJI, not FUJI and the file sequence suggests they were taken basically straight after each other. This to me suggests the files have been renamed, (with incorrect spelling) for some unknown reason. Now I am going to ask, please place one of these files on the site, with EXIF intact so we can all assess it. Being able to assess EXIF lets us see how well a camera performs in low light etc by being able to see what settings were used.

As someone who has been a photographer since they were 8 years old and who had a wedding photography business,as your website states, I seriously doubt you would rename files in such a manner. DAM conventions have been completely missed in these filenames. You would also keep the originals (whether that is RAW or JPG) for future alternate edits, or to provide prints to others.

I think the onus is on you to prove to us your claims re the Fuji now. Put up one of the photos with the EXIF intact.

[CandidTown]

Rick, seriously, I'm bored with the subject now.
First, you ask me to "prove' to you that a fuji camera is capable of taking a picture.
You, out of all people here, being the owner of a photography forum should have heard of the fuji brand..
They have been pioneers of digital photography. Asking someone to prove that a fuji can take a picture is like asking a toyota owner to prove that their car can drive. It's just embarrassing.

Second, you are comparing a Fuji camera to some Diana, you mentioned before...
With a statement like that, do you really think you are qualified to judge my or other people's work?

I could not care less whether you or the likes of you believe if I took these images with a Fuji. Your continual questioning it borders on paranoia.
You asked me to provide you with an image taken with a Fuji x-e1 and I provided you with 3. I chose a few that I liked from my collection and I renamed them. Yes, I made a typo, you can crucify me for that.

And Arthur, save yourself the trouble.
You’re off topic and I could not be bothered reading it. Life’s too short, mate.

[CandidTown]

For those who are genuinely interested in this camera and its capabilities, here is the same bridge image WITH EXIF included.


fiji-fuji-whatever-999.jpg

[ricktas]

thanks. For a 30 second night exposure that is very clean, did you use any noise reduction in post? How much shadow detail did you need to recover, if any? Certainly it looks like this camera offers the goods.

[arthurking83]

......

You’re off topic ....

LOL!

[CandidTown]

With night shots and with sunsets I always recover a little bit of shadows, more with sunsets. With this image I did very little pp.
It wasn't even cropped in any way.
I did reduce the highlights a tiny bit as teh city lights were a little overpowering .. and recovered the shadows quite a bit.
The camera has a very good Dynamic Range so I usually expose more for the highlights knowing that the shadows will still retain a fair amount of detail.
I did a tiny bit of sharpenning and increased clarity a bit... but no noise reduction, and at ISO 100 i didnt expect too much anyway.