Jump to content

amycicconi

Verified
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by amycicconi

  1. On 21/06/2019 at 09:57, ACC said:

    Hi Alamy,

    I’d like to see my Stockimo account in the same view as my Alamy pseudonyms so that I can track all my views, zooms and sales in the one place.

     

    Agree.  I would also like to be able to manage (keywording, etc) my Stockimo images in Alamy image manager.

    I understand that most/many Stockimo contributors are not Alamy contributors, but for those of us who are, this would be of great benefit!

    • Like 1
  2. 6 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

    Thank you, Amy!

    You are reacting like I did when I got the X-T1, then the X-T2.  All of a sudden I was having fun again. It’s like I rediscovered photography. I will admit that I struggled at first, because the Fuji system was different. I took very underexposed images at first and thought I was rather stupid. I had used Nikons from D70 all the way through D800 and knew what I was doing. The FujiX forum nursed me through! Once I “got” it, (WYSIWYG What you see is what you get) I loved it.

    I have a lot of the lenses. 35, 56 1.2, 80 macro, 10-24, 18-55, 18-135, 50-140, 100-400. Three primes, five zooms. My least used is the 18-55 simply because the 18-135 replaced it.

    For people outdoors doing things like biking, paddle boarding, etc.,  I like the 50-140. Like I said, fairy dust. Portraits, 56, or outdoor portraits, 50-140 or 56. I got this many lenses slowly over time. My last purchase was the macro, only because I had to wait forever for them to release a 1:1 macro.

    Betty

     

    Awesome!  I have the 18-55, 55-230, 10-24, 16, and the rokinon 12 (although I haven't figured out how to get it working, seems like you have to set something special to enable manual focus).

    The one feature that I am really thrilled with is using bracketing with electronic shutter on.  The bracketing is literally instantaneous and now I can handhold even more bracketed shots and line them up perfectly.

    The 16 can focus super close so it's not true macro but really close focusing.

     

  3. 15 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

    Pardon...the 35 is a 1.4.  I’ve used it indoors for product and food, flowers, Christmas decor...many things. And yes the 18-135 isn’t fast. But I use it in good light for outdoor photography and it’s always been fast enough to shoot at ISO 200. If you dig deep enough in my port to where you see storefronts, they all are taken with this lens. Along with flora...trees and shrubs. Also barns, wheat fields, tractors, combines, etc.  

    I used this lens extensively in St Croix during my last trip there, (I believe that was my first Fuji, the X-T1) and also the Sony RX 100-3. My first trip to St. Croix I hadn’t got the Fuji yet, so shot Nikon D800 and RX100 original. I seemed to shoot the RX more because the Nikon was a brick. That’s why I went Fuji later.

    The first few pages of my port (children, Easter) are from the RX100-3 and scattered through. These are family shots where the little camera small enough for my handbag shines.

    The 18-135 has sometimes has chromatic issues against light skies, but easily fixed in LR. But then, those issues show up with most lenses, no matter the cost.

    Betty

     

    Thanks @Betty LaRue!  I have so many Fuji lenses I want to try.  It's fun, because the new X-T2 has gotten my photo juices flowing again.  So much for having my "need to keyword" stockpile cleared out.  I'm 200+ deep again!  BTW your St. Croix images are stunning.

  4. 41 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

    If you go another prime, try the 35mm f1.2. Wow. There is a newer, lighter 35 f2 out, but most Fuji shooters say the original renders best. I have it and love it. I will say this. My most used lens for stock is the 18-135. Unheralded, but great for travel. Stand in one spot and do wide, then zoom, 2 entirely different-looking pics. I often park in a lot and take shots of storefronts like this without having to zoom with my feet. I’d say 70% of my outdoor stock is with this lens. OK, I’m lazy. :D There is fairy dust with the 50-140. Not quite wide enough in some situations.

    Betty

     

     

    oooo, my list of wants is growing!  Yeah, 18-135 is a very appealing range.  I guess I am hesitating because it's not as fast (aperture), but, for travel photography it's probably sufficient for a good portion of what I'd be shooting.  Thanks Betty!

  5. On 26/07/2019 at 05:43, Alex Ramsay said:

     

    Let us know how you get on with the X-T2 and the 18-55 - I'm (mostly) pleased with mine, but it does have a tendency to produce unsharp images from time to time - I think the AF can be slow, particularly if I don't use the additional battery pack to save weight when I'm walking

     

    Alex

     

    I am really pleased with the X-T2.  The 18-55 is OK - sometimes sharp other times not so sharp.  It also seems slow to focus to me.

     

    I am really, really loving the 16mm 1.4.  I find myself using it quite a bit.

     

    Not sure I'm set on the 18-55 as my general purpose walk around lens due to the average quality.  Might consider the 16-55 2.8 instead.

  6. On 12/07/2019 at 09:11, MDM said:

     

    Yes what you want is the 20GB Photography plan. Lightroom Classic comes with that and does everything your existing version does and a lot more (the word Classic is the key here). Don't worry. It will be fine. 😀

     

     

     

    Thanks for all the advice.  I've successfully upgraded my IOS to High Sierra, and signed up for and installed Lightroom Classic via Adobe.  All seems well!

     

    I've also spent my first day carrying around the Fuji XT2 and lenses (18-55, 16, 55-230 and 10-24) and was truly pleased with how light the kit was to carry versus my old Nikon gear!

     

    Interestingly, I found myself using the 16mm 1.4 most of the time.  Still need time to get used to the lenses and settle in with them all!

  7. 23 hours ago, MDM said:

     

    That is incorrect Allan although it is certainly confusing with all the different options so it is understandable that you have misinterpreted the information. I run Lightroom Classic on my computer and I occasionally run Lightroom Mobile on my iPhone and iPad. Lightroom Mobile is a basic free app (get it from the App Store) which has add on features that you have to pay for unless you are a CC subscriber in which case you get the whole thing.

     

    It is useful if I am doing a portrait shoot and I want to show a client what I am getting on my iPad without carrying a laptop around. Lightroom Mobile is quite advanced now - it can read and adjust raw files, for example, as well as allow some metadata inputting. Not a bad app at all and it does integrate with the desktop version if you want it to do so. I don't as I do all my editing on my computer.

     

    For the sake of clarity, you do not have to be connected to the Creative Cloud to run either Lightroom Classic or Lightroom Mobile. 

     

    Lightroom (CC) is what they introduced back in late 2017 and that is the one that  runs from the cloud - aimed primarily at casual photography. You can edit on both desktop and mobile devices with it as far as I know but the desktop version has far fewer feature than Lightroom Classic. I have not installed it and don't intend to. It is not recommended (by Adobe) to try to run Lightroom Classic and Lightroom (CC) together. 

     

    Having trouble relating what you describe to this comparison chart on Adobe: https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/compare-plans.html?promoid=952G4WLC&mv=other

     

    Does the Photography plan (20GB) allow you to house your catalog locally rather than in the cloud?  

     

    *** Update, here is a good FAQ: https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/faq/CCPp.html

     

     

  8. 1 hour ago, MDM said:

     

    That is incorrect Allan although it is certainly confusing with all the different options so it is understandable that you have misinterpreted the information. I run Lightroom Classic on my computer and I occasionally run Lightroom Mobile on my iPhone and iPad. Lightroom Mobile is a basic free app (get it from the App Store) which has add on features that you have to pay for unless you are a CC subscriber in which case you get the whole thing.

     

    It is useful if I am doing a portrait shoot and I want to show a client what I am getting on my iPad without carrying a laptop around. Lightroom Mobile is quite advanced now - it can read and adjust raw files, for example, as well as allow some metadata inputting. Not a bad app at all and it does integrate with the desktop version if you want it to do so. I don't as I do all my editing on my computer.

     

    For the sake of clarity, you do not have to be connected to the Creative Cloud to run either Lightroom Classic or Lightroom Mobile. 

     

    Lightroom (CC) is what they introduced back in late 2017 and that is the one that  runs from the cloud - aimed primarily at casual photography. You can edit on both desktop and mobile devices with it as far as I know but the desktop version has far fewer feature than Lightroom Classic. I have not installed it and don't intend to. It is not recommended (by Adobe) to try to run Lightroom Classic and Lightroom (CC) together. 

     

    Thanks, very helpful info.  I think I want Classic then.

  9. 8 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

     

    If you want LR via monthly subscription and want to use something which more or less imitates your version of LR (perpetual licence) you need LR CLASSIC not LRCC on your computer.

     

    However if you want to process images across mac OS and IOS you need LRCC I believe. At least thats how I read the information on Adobes website.

     

    Allan

     

     

    Right, thanks.  I'm more so worried about the risk of the install process and its affect on my current catalog.  I think I've sent this thread off topic though :(

  10. 3 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

    Just wondering if what you're seeing is just decreased depth of field from the Fuji at any given aperture due to to the larger sensor?

     

    Honestly, Harry, I think you are right.  I wasn't really thinking about that fact and the differences between these cameras.  Now that I have spent more time with the XT2 yesterday I feel good about it.  I will, of course, always be carrying my little Sony as well :)  Thank you for your insight. 

  11. 2 minutes ago, MDM said:

    That iMac should be fine I expect. The large amount of RAM will really help Lightroom run fast. The graphics card can also have an influence on speed in the Develop module I think but adequate RAM is probably the most important thing.

     

    Does going to the CC version impact or otherwise touch my current locally installed Lightroom 5.7.1 and its most precious LR catalog?  😳

  12. 1 minute ago, Mr Standfast said:

     

    As an alternative to upgrading is to convert your fuji .raf (raw) files to .dng then your  LR 5.7.1 will be able to read them. I did this for a year before bitting the bullet and buying LR6. The dng converter is free from Adobe.

     

    Yes.  Considering that.  However, I have to update from El Capitan to High Sierra to support that.  Which I guess is probably a relatively smooth upgrade process.  Thanks

  13. OK shot RAW/JPG at lunch today and the photos are a lot crisper. Still not *quite* RX100 crisp, but, maybe it's not fair to try and compare the 'pretty good' 18-55 Fuji kit lens to the RX100 II output.

     

    Now realizing that I'm going to finally have to upgrade my OS from El Capitan and/or go to Lightroom CC, as I am running 5.7.1 and it doesn't recognize the XT2 Raws.

     

    Does upgrading to Lightroom CC overlay or risk messing up my current 5.7.1 desktop lightroom and catalog?  the thought of upgrading scares me!

  14. 1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

     I think many will agree that RAWs are inherently sharper, just because they're uncompressed. Jpeg conversion guesses out some of the detail. It's probably not significant as low ISOs but you can still see it at 100%.

    I had a spot of bother a few years ago and took a bit (OK, a lot) of convincing by the forum that RAWS were just better. But I was convinced.

    Once you get used to a RAW workflow it doesn't even take much longer. Certainly if it does I've long forgotten about it.

     

    I normally shoot Raw on my Nikons and Sony RX100.  I was just in a hurry to try it and didn't bother to change to RAW.  We'll see if it makes a difference.  

  15. OK, so I ordered a Fuji XT-2 with the 18-55 kit lens and received it today.  Walked around this evening and took about 40 shots around the neighborhood.

     

    Earlier in the day I walked around the city at lunchtime with my RX100 II.

     

    Am I nuts.....? but... I'm a bit underwhelmed with the sharpness of the XT-2.    The pics I took earlier in the day with RX100 II are PINPOINT crisp and detailed.  These shots out of the Fuji lack detail and crispness in comparison.  

     

    I don't know.  Things are just so effortless with the RX100 and the output is just stellar.

     

    Now I'm really confused.  ughhhhhhhhh.   Maybe I'd be happier and more carefree with an RX100 V and an RX100 VI paired for low light and zoom.

  16. 3 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

     

     

    As a Fujifilm lens user (and buyer) I'll warn you now. It's a bit like Pokemon go, you gotta catch them all...

     

    You  don't mention the 18-135. Yes its heavy and bulky but twinned with an X-T2 its a weather resistant combination. I have one and it's the only superzoom I have

    kept. It would be the simplest combination possible, almost a travel zoom bridge camera thingy.

     

    The x-T2 is a sound choice, previous generation Fuji's are bargains.

     

    The 18-55 is very useable, if I could ony have one lens, it would have to be this one.

     

    The 50-230 is better than it should be, but since the 18-135 arrived it stays at home a lot.

     

    As for finding a standard(ish) prime, this could get addictive.

     

    Walking around with my X-T10 and the 23mm f2.0 is a treat, a tiny little retro kit that is discrete and very capable. I often wander around with this combination and the 50mm f2.0 in a pocket. Hoever the  little pancake lens is nice and that usually sits on my X-M1 as a pocket camera. If a very fast lens is a must, then the 35mm f1.4 will separate foregrounds from background a bit more tha the fast 23mm. The lens cap falls of the 35mm a bit too easily, very frustating until I picked up someone elses...

     

    As for a  bag, a small rucksack style bag where the weight is evenly distributed will be thanked by your back in later years; and finally; don't forget to budget for "some" batteries.

     

    Have fun!

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Thanks for engaging in this conversation, Mr. Standfast.

     

    The reason I didn't mention the 18-135 is because I have a crappy but long Nikon 70-300 now which I worry I would miss a longer range.  But would I *really*?  That's why I was suggesting the 50-230, and also because it's super super light.  I suppose if I carried only the 18-135 instead of the 50-230/18-55 combo that's overall saving weight..

     

    Yeah, I'm thinking I do want a pancake lens as well. Maybe the 23/2.0 makes sense.  Or the 18/2.0?

     

    As far as Pokemon style gotta get em all, yes, my tendency will be to keep buying more lenses over time I am sure of it.

     

    Maybe what I should do is start out with the optimum kit for my fall travel, which is to Las Vegas and Zion National Park.  So, lots of need for wide/ultra wide, both in Vegas and especially for Zion, probably something like the 18-55 for Vegas walking around, probably less need for a superzoom like the 50-230 (which is cheapish, I can easily add it later).

     

    My photo habits, as I said, are mainly focused on travel.  So, I shoot wide (landscapes, buildings) a lot, street photos, and sometimes low light inside museums or interiors.

     

    Oh, and I'm also torn between the 23/1.4 or the 16/1.4 for the low light fall back, but am leaning towards the 16 due to its close focus abilities.

     

    Such a tough decision making process!!

  17. 39 minutes ago, amycicconi said:

    After a lot of research, I was really leaning towards the Fuji X-T30 to replace my Nikon D7100.  My impetus to switch is just to go much lighter weight for the bulk of my photography, which is travel.

     

    However, I think I'm actually leaning more towards the Fuji X-T2, even though it's a bit bigger, as it's more of a pro level, weather sealed, higher quality build, and its price right now has dropped a lot since it's -1 gen.  And most people who review it seem in love with it in terms of both aesthetics and quality.  I'm going to build a kit as follows, I think

     

    • Fuji 10-24/4
    • Fuji 18-55/2.8-4
    • Fuji 50-230/4.5-6.7 (not the fastest of lenses, but, its super lightweight (plastic) and I shoot much less telephoto than wide, so it should do)
    • Rokinon 12mm/2.0 (not sure this is necessary, but it's cheap and I shoot a lot of wide)

    Overall the kit would weigh around 4 lbs, versus what I typically carry which is around 6.75 pounds.  Is saving 2.75 going to feel a lot different to make it worth it?  I figure also just in bulk size I'll have a smaller overall footprint due to smaller camera and lens size.

     

    I feel a little nervous as to whether these lenses are fast enough, but.... but all 3 Fuji lenses have OIS and plus I figure the Fuji should perform fairly well in low light.

     

    Of course I'll still have my Sony RX100 II for low light.  Oops, hadn't added that to my kit weight..

     

    What do you think of my logic?  :)  I figure when walking around when traveling, I'll have the camera/w lens, and then hopefully a pretty small bag for the additional lenses, or even just a waist pack.  Or, I guess I could keep using my Shootsac, it's pretty lightweight.

     

    It's unfortunate that I have nowhere local to try one of these hands on.  I suppose I could always return to B&H if I don't like it.  I hate to sink the money into renting one + lenses.

     

     

    Actually, I think I'll remove the Rokinon and add the Fuji 23mm/F1.4

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.