mervyn_wilmington

I've just bought one as a back-up for my x-t1. It is really delightful! At first I had problems in getting the flash settings available via the q menu: but so have many people and the issue was fully explained several times on the web. However, now I can't get flash compensation via the q menu. It is 'grey' on the screen. Advice/help please. What am I missing!

<p>Thanks for that Don. Very helpful. Entirely by chance, I looked at that list earlier in the day. Great minds or something!</p> <p>Out of interest, if you download the 'latest' firmware, do you automatically download any earlier ones? </p>

<p>Thank you all for the further advice and comments.</p> <p>Regarding the firmware updates, the answer is that I don't know. The lens came from a very reputable dealer, and, perhaps wrongly, I had assumed they would have attended to that before sale. However, I have decided to return the lens, and will point that out to them.</p> <p>If I can find my Nikon fit Vivitar 90-180 macro lens, I will give that a try with an adapter. It certainly produced stunning images when I used it in the past. It also gets round the 'too close' issues.</p> <p>Thanks again for the help.</p>

<p>Thank you Edward for your valuable comments. Can I take the issue further though. It is almost exactly 58 years since I bought my first camera. I've had some 'interesting' lenses since then, but I think this one is the most frustrating.</p> <p>This afternoon I had the opportunity to test the lens outdoors in decent light. We live in the countryside, and I have a standard walk that takes in near, mid and distant views of a variety of subjects. I took around 40 shots. 80% were fine. Indeed, 'when right' the image quality/definition, even fully open, is very high. </p> <p>Let me give one example of the 'frustration'. There is a view that I often use. It is of a small group of houses in the mid-distance with a field in the foreground. I think the architecture lends itself to good focussing - at least it always has in the past. I took the first shot. It was lousy: just about as soft as they come. It wasn't camera movement. In any event, the shutter speed was more than enough. I immediately took another shot. I had changed nothing. This one was perfect. That sort of thing occurred on several other shots.</p> <p>What I also noticed was that while usually you can readily tell when a lens is struggling to find focus, there seem to be a variation with this lens. Looking through the viewfinder you can sometimes see a continuing softening and hardening of the image. It is not the juddering that I am more used to.</p> <p>As I say frustrating. I shall probably return it to the dealer, and have a think!</p>

<p>Thanks for that Jochen.</p> <p>In the past I have used lenses on a manual stop-down basis. It is slight nuisance, but I didn't find it terrible. Certainly with digital, as compared with film, there is so much 'latitude' in post processing that it is easier to out things right.</p> <p>I would only be working indoors, and I have three very sturdy tripods.</p> <p>The evf is very good on the XT1 in my experience. I have 6 Fuji lenses, including 4 primes. They have never given me any problems in post processing.</p>

<p>I've just bought the Fuji 60mm macro, but I can return it. I wanted it very largely for macro use, but for that purpose in autofocus mode it hunts, hunts, hunts. Of course, it can readily be used in manual mode, and it produces first class images.</p> <p>It seems to me that, bearing in mind the cost of the Fuji, there could be a good deal of sense in buying a manual Nikon (or Nikon fit) macro lens, and an adapter at a fraction of the Fuji price. Indeed, I already have, hidden away somewhere, the 'legendary' Vivitar 90-180 macro lens.</p> <p>Advice, comments, experience please?</p>

<p>Thanks RJ. That looks very useful. I'll investigate further.</p>

<p>RJ - thanks for that. I've no shortage of fairly high power guns now. But I wanted to try a few 'experiments' and need slaves that won't fire when the main unit pre flashes. I didn't think that the YongNuo has that facility?</p>

<p>RJ - I have now spotted another slave one, similar - where it says the auto pre-flash is to avoid red eye. Might not be the same...</p>

<p>Thanks for that RJ. They look small, but they are also cheap. They would not need to be powerful for where I need them. We have a huge, ancient beam across our sitting room with a white ceiling. I thought of putting, say three, on the beam pointing upwards and getting indirect flash off the ceiling.</p> <p>I've looked for 'better' ones with the pre-flash sensor, but without discovering anything. Any suggestions, please?</p> <p> </p>

<p>On ebay uk, there are several sellers offering 'mini digital slave flash auto pre flash sensor' They are obviously sourced from China and are marked W&S.</p> <p>I have asked two of the sellers whether auto pre flash sensor means that the unit ignores the pre flash from the main flash and doesn't go off 'early'. I can't get a sensible reply. One man says he is only in customer care and can't help!</p> <p>Has anyone come across these, please, and are they of any use?</p>

<p>The sad thing is that here in the UK now camera shops are few and far between, and odd bins are even fewer than that! Back in the 1970s and 80s I was always finding top quality filters and the like for no money. Now that I am reducing all my equipment just to Fuji, I seem to have masses of spare lens and body caps and filters. Ebay before long...</p>

<p>The small ones can be a bit fiddly, but the larger ones are ok. However, all my lenses have always had a top quality filter. Each lens has it own case, even when in the main bag. The ones that are in active use I tend to keep the lens hood on, even when in their cases. The risk of damage is virtually nil. At least, over 40 years I've never had a problem.</p>

<p>There are several references on the web to the EF42 simply being a rebadged PZ42X, and can be used on Fuji X cameras. Sunpak do not produce such a flash for the Fuji.</p> <p>The question is which dedicated PZ42 do you buy - for Nikon or Canon dedicated - and would it have full features when used on the Fuji camera including ttl?</p> <p>Advice appreciated.</p>

<p>Don, I don't have the 60mm, but it is next on my list, but for mainly macro use, although many people use it for more general purposes. The 90 obviously can be a bit long in some circumstances - that happened to me the other day, when I only had that with me - but it is a stunning performer. I used Nikon for 30 years, and I had nothing that bettered the 90mm Fuji. The 90 and 60 are really different lenses in terms of purpose - at least in my mind - but you are almost covering the 60 with your 18-55 unless you are looking for the macro performance.</p> <p>I have the 18-55. It was my first lens, but it now rarely gets used, and I may part with it. Nothing wrong in performance terms, but it mostly seems that I have a prime on the camera. However, I may have to cover a christening shortly - our grandson's - and it may be that a short zoom would be most useful. Babies are not inclined to wait until you change lenses!</p> <p>I also have the 55-200: I was using it yesterday. I feel that I really need to get it down to f8 for general use, but another winner!</p>

<p>I've just bought the 90mm f2. What a superb lens it is!</p> <p>Another joy is that the click stops on the aperture ring are positive. I have five other lens, used on an XT1. I've also had an XE2. Inadvertently moving rings on cameras and lenses, because of lack of good indent, seem a user hazard.</p> <p>I spoke to a Fuji technician in the hope that they might be capable of adjusting, but not possible.</p>

<p>Thanks for that Steve. I always use top quality batteries. However, while I can see that such - including Vartas , which I have used in other sizes - might improve recharge speed, do they improve the actual flash output? I would have thought not, but someone may correct me.</p>

<p>I use my XT1 with a Nissin i40. I often use bounce flash. It works very well, but sometimes can be a bit short of power and has longer recharge times.</p> <p>I was considering using another, remote, flash gun with a slave unit - I already have a slave unit. However, might it be the case that using the Nissin set to ttl, and perhaps other settings, that pre-flash would set-off the remote too early? Also any views on a 'cheap' gun for the slave?</p> <p>Advice would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Shun. Your point about sticking to topic is generally well made. That said, I've read virtually all the posts on this forum just about every day for several years. I continue to do so even though I am not now a regular Nikon user. There have been many occasions when posts have wandered around. Occasionally, I've wondered whether the discussion might get into the realms of who discovered the source of the Nile!</p> <p>I recall on one occasion, I posted concern when a 'newbie' had asked about something quite simple, but posts became so long and complicated that I feared he would be sorry he had asked the question in the first place. I quickly received posts to the effect that there was a wealth of expertise on the forum (which is very true), and it was inevitable that members would wander off topic.</p> <p>As to my 'spat', with EJ, this is no place to discuss medical problems, but I have had serious chest problems since a small child. I have had half of my right lung removed, and I now have only 50% lung function and capacity. It causes major problems, but it would be more than strange for that to have any bearing on my interest in the postings on the forum. It is not all that unusual for me to disagree with what someone else might say, and occasionally I might post to that effect. But these are good natured differences of opinion - the very essence of making the forum interesting.</p> <p>But there is a world of difference when someone posts to the effect that if someone is looking towards a lighter camera, he should go to the gym instead. That is offensive and ridiculous by any standards. I am not given to impatience or gratuitous offence, but I wasn't going to ignore that posting. I leave it to anyone who is fair minded to view the relevant thread and come to his own conclusion.</p> <p>I was minded to respond to EJ's last post. However, I need not. Wouter Willemse has said it all.</p>

<p>E.J. Your triteness is terrific. We are of the same age. Whatever your health problems, they clearly do not cause major problems, unless you are some sort of martyr. Do not assume that other people are in the same fortunate position. Your suggestion that I might stick with smart phones is more than trite, it is plain silly. For what it is worth, I don't have a smart phone, but I would also have to admit that I've seen some remarkably good images taken with them. I do have a view camera.</p> <p>If a lighter, more manageable camera, will produce first class images, I'm not quite sure of the point of your argument that some of us should suffer with a much heavier one. Whilst age and infirmity might cause 'shake' issues, it is not something that I have experienced with my 'light' cameras. Perhaps I am fortunate in that sense. I bought my first 35mm camera in 1958. It was very light, and on a good day, leaning against a support, I stood a good chance of a decent image at 1/5th of a second. I have to confess that I couldn't do that now, but with fast lenses and very good high iso performance, I needn't.</p> <p>.</p>

<p>Can I suggest that E.J's view that, if we can't manage heavy equipment, we should go to the gym, is more than a little trite. Some of us, because of age and infirmity, find lugging heavy equipment more than difficult. Others with greater fitness may still conclude that carrying great and cumbersome weight is not what they want. It is a perfectly proper attitude.</p> <p>The ultimate question is whether equipment will deliver what the user wants. After many, many years of Nikon use, I have sold most of my 'user' equipment, but have a collection of a few 'older' bodies, including a recently acquired near mint D1x. It produces lovely images - but within parameters. To pretend that it has the scope of my D700 or even D300 had, would be nonsense.</p> <p>As it is, I now use Fuji X. I took many pictures of our grandchildren over Christmas with the 'light' XT1 and prime lenses. I look at many of the results in wonderment at the sheer image quality. I wasn't using stabilisation. My Nikon primes never did better. I am about to buy the 90mm f2 Fuji. If it is really possible, the image quality seems that it will be even better. </p> <p>The short point is that we can always buy something new/different. Whether we really need, as opposed to want it, is another question. Manufacturers will seek to persuade us that it is the former. Whether we succumb to that is in our own hands. It is also in our own hands, literally, whether what we already have can deliver what we want. If we take photographs on a commercial basis, it is a matter of whether our customers are satisfied. It is many years since I took photographs to make money, including all the processing. There were times when I might not be 100% happy with the results, but I never had an unhappy customer, even though I was using some rather basic equipment..</p>

<p>I agree Shun. This thread has gone on so long I must have lost the plot. If a D90 is available, I'm not quite sure, in these circumstances, why there needs to be a debate. Such a camera will provide a newcomer with all they need for a year or so to decide whether they need something better or different.</p> <p>I've changed over to Fuji X, and sold all my Nikon equipment, save a D300. It is in my small collection of classic Nikons. It still provides super images, and it looks and feels 'right'.</p>

<p>D90? Why not a D300? A bit heavier, but a real camera.</p>

<p>After 30 years a Nikon user, I sold almost all my Nikon equipment and changed to Fuji X system. No regrets at all. I can now get two bodies, four lenses etc into a fairly small bag. And with advancing age and worsening health, I can actually carry the bag without one shoulder drooping below the other.</p> <p>The performance, especially image quality, is superb, and prices for top quality equipment are reasonable.</p> <p>My advice would be to think broadly before deciding your direction.</p>

<p>Obviously you must take your own decision. However, having used both, in practice and performance, the XE2 is an old boot compared with the XT1. As have said earlier, I keep my XE2 for back-up.</p> <p>Is the prism simply fake with no meaningful purpose?</p> <p>I have the graphite version of the XT1. That does not make it take better pictures, but it does get admiring looks! The XE2 could be anything from anywhere.</p>