Posts for: xt2
Dec 26, 2022 13:24:05 #
junglejim1949 wrote:
I am learning my R7 and was in search of something to shoot. Very cold and foggy this morning but I did find some color. The photo was softer than I wanted and would appreciate any suggestions. I hope I wasn't shaking due to the cold. I will increase shutter speed next go around and see if that helps.
Thank you,
Jim
Thank you,
Jim
User error I am afraid to say...
Dec 26, 2022 13:23:36 #
luvmypets wrote:
I was on FB and scrolled across an ad for this product, sold at Adorama, to turn your smartphone into a real camera. It works with most iPhones and most of the more popular Android models. I will put a link in the next post.
Has any tried this? It's on sale for $19.99 in case anyone wants to give it a try and not spend the $90 when not on sale. If you do, let me know how it works.
Dodie
Has any tried this? It's on sale for $19.99 in case anyone wants to give it a try and not spend the $90 when not on sale. If you do, let me know how it works.
Dodie
already is a "real" camera!
Dec 23, 2022 12:14:56 #
OldSchool-WI wrote:
Dear UHH Gang: Why is ISO 100 or even slower still offered on Digital camera bodies for the highest quality images if we are told we can get top quality from ISO 6400 or even higher capabilities on the samed bodies? Or does my question answer itself. And that higher ISO comparisons are a myth and results of algorithmic "cleanup" and synthetic imagery?----------
TROLL ALERT!!!!
Dec 20, 2022 10:39:50 #
auto wrote:
Just bought a xt5 and so far not happy with it, with a 50-230 mm lens not very sharp at 230mm Also have a 18-35 and for the most part sharp unless cropping a long distance subject. My xt-100 is very sharp with same lens most of the time.. I am in touch with seller re: this issue.
Hmmmmm....the challenge of high resolution bodies always is directly tied to the quality of lens and the ability of the user. Perhaps using a better/faster/sharper lens, such as the 16-55 F2.8, 56 F1.2, 90 F2, 23 F2, etc. will be a much better match for the 40MP Fuji XT5? Methinks the red badged lenses will "sing" and cost a whole bunch more when mounted to the new camera body. All persuasive reasons for not "upgrading" from the XT4 to the 5. Merry Christmas!
Dec 20, 2022 10:37:39 #
photogead wrote:
So I’ve decided on purchasing a Fuji XT-5. My question is related to the kit lenses being packaged with the XT-5 the 16-80 & 18-55. The 16-80 just about covers the range I would like so I’m leading that direction. I would like to know from users who have this combination what they think ..,,, image quality, sharpness etc or if you had to purchase the Fuji XT-5 again would you pass on the kit lens and go with a different Fuji lens or lenses?
I just shot a low-light concert and two weddings with an XT4 and an 16-80, 23 and 56 Fuji lenses. The low light concert was a challenge for the 16-80 at a mandatory F4, while the other two were brilliant at F2 and F1.2. The 16-80 produced excellent indoor concert shots at an ISO of between 1000 and 3600. The other two lenses clearly out shone the zoom. however. The weddings were a different animal. The zoom lens worked beautifully with the better lighting. It has limitations, however, as do all lenses. Low light is its worst enemy however. The corners can get a bit muddy at times, however, that is so easily removed with a small crop or totally unnoticeable because people don't usually focus on the very far corner of most photographs. Remember, this is an all around travel type lens.
The obvious alternative might be the mighty 16-55 F2.8 zoom. It is a better lens with better control of light and sharper, however, it is expensive, heavy and long which weighs you down with such a small XT form-factor. My recommendation would be to get the 16-80 "kit" lens with the body as it is quite well priced when bought together. It is a great "all-arounder" that is light, smallish and perfect for travel at a good price. Once you get the hang of the XT4, explore other more specialized lenses perhaps? Merry Christmas!!!
Dec 13, 2022 11:20:57 #
KTJohnson wrote:
1934 Chevrolet Town Sedan
Interesting that the owner added such “modern” Chevy wheels to this otherwise “stock” looking classic…Merry Christmas!!!
Dec 13, 2022 11:19:24 #
bikinkawboy wrote:
I bet that car didn’t look that good when it was brand new! Good shots!
It is brand new!!! It’s a replica. Merry Christmas!!!
Dec 13, 2022 11:16:02 #
Dec 12, 2022 22:17:21 #
hdfilmnoir wrote:
Hi All,
This subject may have been posted before but I will give it a try. I'm looking for an all purpose printer that will scan print and copy that works easily with Mac book (Using Monterey). I would also like to be able to print from iPad and iPhone. ink is at a reasonable price. Open to any suggestions.
This subject may have been posted before but I will give it a try. I'm looking for an all purpose printer that will scan print and copy that works easily with Mac book (Using Monterey). I would also like to be able to print from iPad and iPhone. ink is at a reasonable price. Open to any suggestions.
In less than the time you spent writing this query I found many professional reviews of exactly what you are looking for…here is one: https://www.techradar.com/news/best-printer-for-mac. Merry Christmas!
Dec 12, 2022 22:14:59 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Luminar is offering individual extensions for $49,... (show quote)
Well, the value/cost analysis is all about you and your needs and bank account…you of course know this. Some of these add-ones are already available in the latest edition of AI, so you might look at that package as well. Merry Christmas jerry41!!!
Dec 8, 2022 11:48:52 #
Tom Shelburne wrote:
Recently volunteered to take couples pictures in f... (show quote)
Flash, flash, & more flash…
Dec 4, 2022 11:25:53 #
Dec 4, 2022 11:24:44 #
b top gun wrote:
What a freakin' pain in the arse using a nearly br... (show quote)
Your lack of Mac knowledge/experience is what is wrong here. I will not repeat Burk photo’s answer, but you should read it! Grab your user’s manual and thoroughly understand how to make your Mac sing!
Dec 4, 2022 11:20:22 #
b top gun wrote:
In my experience, I would NEVER get nor ever use an Apple product based on this experience alone. Yeah, the display is great but at what cost, having to keep two copies of everything, one for Windows and another for Apple.
Yeah, you are right on b gun…just get the Mac in the beginning and dump the old Windows beastie.
Nov 26, 2022 13:32:14 #
KillroyII wrote:
Nice cars, nice pictures.
I remember 1970 as the year the engines got choked down with smog control. Took some years for car companies to improve the smog control and regain some horsepower.
I remember 1970 as the year the engines got choked down with smog control. Took some years for car companies to improve the smog control and regain some horsepower.
Close…1970 was actually the final and best year for muscle cars. 1971 ushered in some minor smog control, but horsepower (HP) fell, mostly in the manufacturer’s advertising as gross HP rating was replaced with net ratings, which measured HP after all engine-robbing power accessories were added into the mix which made power ratings tumble. However, the “true” power virtually remained, notwithstanding the marketing, for the 1971 models. Thereafter, real reductions in power reared their ugly heads with lower compression ratios (11.5:1 reduced to 9.5:1 and smog pumps in all their power-robbing glory.
I recall thinking the muscle car era was kaput, however, I find myself driving contemporary cars and SUVs with much better handling, transmissions and 600+ HP net ratings. Heck, even my 1971 442 convertible has well over 600 HP. Contemporary boring & blasé EV sedans often enjoy close to 1000 HP.
ICE or EV, the choice (for the time being) is our’s & horsepower is back and alive and well…thank goodness!
Happy motoring!