mervyn_wilmington

<p>Earlier in this thread, I recorded that I was getting sharpness problems, especially when using my XE2. I asked whether anyone else was having this kind of problem. No one responded. Should I assume I am alone?</p> <p>Yet over recent weeks, there has been a remarkable number of very little used XT1s and XE2s coming onto the market. I wonder whether some owners are experiencing what I am?</p>

<p>I've been following these postings with interest.</p> <p>Three or four months ago, I decided that after 30 years I could no longer hump my big Nikons - age and health problems - and bought an XE2 with the 18-55. It produced - most of the time - truly good images. I was impressed. However, now and again, perhaps sometimes a bit more often, I got them badly out of focus. All the data said they should be perfect, and in exposure terms they were always fine.</p> <p>A problem with the XE2 was the viewfinder - I wear glasses. I bought an XT1 plus the 55-200 and 35mm lenses. Of course, we can all get a duff image, but I continued to get them more often than I cared for. With my Nikons that was rare event. <br> I had just about concluded that it was an intermittent problem with the XE2, and wrote to Fuji about it. I await a reply.</p> <p>On Wednesday of this week, my wife and I went to some very fine gardens. Lovely weather. I just used the XT1 with the 18-55. I took 200 images both raw and jpg fine. When I loaded them onto the computer, it was clear that they were super quality, some, indeed, superb. That was confirming my suspicion that it was the XE2 that was the culprit. Then, I came to one. Nothing whatever in focus. Yet in the centre of the image was a stone fountain, perhaps 10 yards away, so there should have been no issue in focussing terms, but as I say absolutely nothing sharp. The shot had not been snatched. The image replicated frames I have had in the past.</p> <p>On an earlier posting advice was given to switch off the ois when shutter speeds were high. I've tried that. No noticeable difference in the focus issue.</p> <p>Having checked back, it seems I can get this sort of problem occasionally with all three lenses when I shouldn't. Thus, most of the time I get quality that is certainly as good as my Nikon lenses could produce, yet, for no apparent reason, some duff ones. I'm now swinging to the conclusion that it is a body function question, not an lens one.</p> <p>Any similar experiences?</p>

<p>My last posting should have referred to spot metering and spot focus. Put it down to the drugs I'm taking!</p>

<p>Peter - thank you for your contribution.</p> <p>I am struggling with a really bad attack of bronchitis at the moment, and it is going to be a few days before I can take up the cameras again. However, I think I am going to have to learn to use them better. Let me expand.</p> <p>For thirty years I have been using 'big' Nikons: digital ones for about the last twelve. I tended to use the latter very much like film cameras. Aperture priority with spot metering and spot exposure. I almost always obtained first class images with a variety of lenses and circumstances. I'm not sure the Fuji X series altogether lends itself to that approach?</p> <p>Increasing age and health problems caused me to conclude that I could not hump big cameras and lenses any longer. They have almost all gone, although I have kept a near mint F4: it is too beautiful to let go!</p> <p>After a good deal of thought, etc, I chose the X series as a replacement. I need to learn and understand more about use, I think?</p>

<p>Curt - thanks for your further comments, but I think we are saying the same thing. I referred to the optics THEMSELVES. </p> <p>I have just found the set-up suggestions by John Caz. They look interesting</p>

<p>Many thanks for the advice and comments.</p> <p>Before I upload anything, I'm inclined to try a few 'experiments'. However, I bought my first 'proper' camera in 1958, and I've looked at many thousands of images - sharp and otherwise - since then.</p> <p>In relation to Curt's comments, what he says is, as I now recall, what I had read previously. I was out walking yesterday, and when returning I noticed a parked white van about 100 yards away. It had lettering down the side. I had the camera/lens set at aperture (I usually do) f8. The iso was 800. The lens was at 200mm. There was strong but slightly hazy sunshine falling on the van.</p> <p>I took one shot with ois, immediately followed by one without. I can see no difference in image quality. However, the data recorded the first at 1/4000, and the second at 1/3500th. Slightly odd?</p> <p>With regard to Eric's comments, I have been a long term Nikon user, and I agree about the quality of the 18-55. I think that the 55-200 is also remarkably good. It is what seems to be a lack of consistency that has concerned me, but optics themselves cannot be first rate one minute, and not the next?</p>

<p>I bought these recently, and have the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses. They are capable of producing images of very high quality. Yet, on occasions, they do not seem to deliver those results, ie noticeable softness, even when shutter speed, aperture and iso settings should be providing top quality images.</p> <p>I recall a reference - but can't now find it - that this 'problem' can be caused by the image stabilisation function. Before I start experimenting, eg shooting with the ois off, I'd be grateful to hear of other members' experiences.</p>

<p>Thanks for that Mac. I'll see if it leads anywhere. A year or two ago, I came across a chap in the UK who offered many light seal kits, but when I got in contact he didn't have them for the Hasselblad. Brighton or Bournemouth is in my mind, but then my mind plays tricks!</p>

<p>Hasselblad V!</p>

<p>Might any members be able to tell me of a source for magazine seals in the UK, please? There is one person from Italy selling on ebay, but I've seen no advice about the quality etc.</p>

<p>I bought my x series Fuji in the knowledge that it wasn't too good in video. But it is superb otherwise. It is horses for courses.</p>

<p>Back in the 1990s, one of our sons and I used to visit a camera shop where the owner always had a selection of 'optical paper weights' - lenses that were 'bad' for some reason. They were £5 or £10. One day, there was a Nikon medium zoom, 28-105 I think. It looked immaculate externally. However, the reason it was there was because the owner had dropped it in fine sand, and the lens was full of it. There had been an insurance claim, and it had been left with the dealer when that had been settled.</p> <p>Our son suggested we should buy it. He would have been in his very early teens at the time. I parted with my £5 or £10. We arrived back home and he went for the tiny precision screwdrivers. He worked on it for a while. This was pre-internet and there were no diagrams or advice available. He got it fully disassembled. He has a brain that works very logically, and seems to recognise things that I couldn't. A few years on he gained a master of physics degree at Oxford. Perhaps he was already showing lateral thinking and the like in those early days.</p> <p>He decided that the af could not be recovered because attempts to use the lens after sand had encroached had caused damage that could not be corrected without new parts. However, he thoroughly cleaned and reassembled it.</p> <p>It functioned perfectly in manual focus. There were no optical problems. My £5 or £10 proved well spent.</p>

<p>Many thanks Jim. I've actually spotted two 'genuine' Mamiya rings, but at £20 and £25 respectively, they are not cheap!</p>

<p>According to Mamiya, it is to be preferred that this ring is used when a 'c' lens is fitted to an RBSD body. However, it seems that many people do this without the ring: it is for light saving purposes, not mechanical.</p> <p>Moreover, the rings seem to be few and far between. I wondered about trying to make one, possibly out of foam rubber. An illustration suggests they are rebated. Is that right, and might a member have the specifications of the ring, ie the inner and outer diameters and the thickness?</p> <p>Help would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Many thanks for the advice.<br> I'm in a slightly unfortunate position. I bought my first enlarger in 1958, a Gnome Beta 2 with a doublet lens. The latter was dreadful. I saved up and bought a 4 element one. That was better, but not that good!<br> I now have three top quality enlargers and a selection of 6 element lenses. However, I have a health problem that is stopping me from using them. Now if I had something like them in 1958...</p>

<p>Might UK members have any recommendations about black and white processors in the UK, please: a good job at a reasonable price?</p>

<p>I've had this issue, but I also have a D700. The D300 is lovely and I've kept both. I've been naughty and bought a Fuji X-E2 with the 18-55. I'm still finding my way round it. The only obvious downside is the electronic viewfinder, especially since I wear glasses. But the image quality is extremely good. I've had the results described as stunning. The camera and lens feel very 'right'.</p> <p>The two Nikons certainly will still have their place, but for walking round the Fuji has much to be said for it. With advancing age and health problems, the weight of equipment is a material factor. I will shortly get the 55-200 for the Fuji. That, plus a flash gun, will still provide an outfit lighter than just the D300 and a heavy lens.</p> <p>By chance I happened to get out an F4, a most lovely camera, but what a weight. I looked at that, and looked at the Fuji, and reflected on what they would respectively do. But such is progress.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I have RB67, Hasselblad and Bronica 645 systems. I also have several tlrs.</p> <p>If you want to enlarge your arm muscles, go for the RB67. Although prices have fallen, if you still want to spend a good deal, go for Hasselblad. If you want real value for money with reliability, plenty on the market, go for Bronica ETRSi with PE lenses. The image quality is very good indeed.</p>

<p>Thank you for the further contributions.<br> Wayne - I will try what you suggest.<br> Hosteen - I am not sure that what you say is correct. According to the Lightroom Journal, 5.7 only applies to X30, X100T, and X-TI. There are many contributions pleading with Adobe to update further for the X series. Some people are clearly much aggrieved by this omission.</p>

<p>Thanks for that Wouter. I have printed the article and glanced through it. I will read it more thoroughly.</p> <p>Our elder son, who has top spec Canon equipment, uses profiles, but I have not had problems before. A little tweaking in LR has been all that was necessary. I took my first shots on the X-E2 in standard, but have now turned to the Velvia setting. I tend to have my cameras set to something on the vivid side. I am getting some very good images, but they need more work to produce them than I have been used to.</p>

<p>I am trying-out my new X-E2 with the 18-55. I shoot in RAW. <em> </em> I use Light Room 5. I seem to be having to do much more post processing - sharpness, saturation, contrast, etc - than I have in the past with my 'big' Nikons, Panasonic compacts, and anything else I have worked on.</p> <p>I have seen some references to post processing issues with the Fuji system, but I thought LR 5 had overcome these.</p> <p>Advice would be appreciated.</p>

<p>I'm sure it is Robert, but I don't do studio work. Moreover, the house is full of photographic stuff accumulated over 40 years or more. To make things worse, I've just been naughty and bought a Fuji X-E2 with the 18-55mm lens. I now wish to sell a few things to buy a couple more good lenses for it! I've sort of vowed that I won't buy more without moving some existing stuff out.</p>

<p>Thank you: very useful. The detailed list downloaded in a couple of seconds on my computer.</p>

<p>Thank you for the help and advice.</p> <p>I am not a 'strobist'. I mainly use a D700 and D300. I have an SB800. I am aware this will work with film cameras.</p> <p>I 'keep' an F4 and F90x. I doubt whether they will be used again, but you never know!</p> <p>My temptation now is to keep the 26.</p>

<p>The time has come when I must dispose of some 'old' Nikon equipment. I have these three guns. I think that two should go. Which should I retain?</p> <p>I have some vague recollection that either the 25 or 26 is more useable in some respects than the 28, perhaps as a slave?</p> <p>Advice would be much appreciated.</p>