STICKY:  Fuji Users Unite - Post your comments, questions and images here

AlanU wrote in post #18884742
If you own an 18-55 Fuji kit lens how do you go around it's limitations? Even an inexpensive 50 f/2 would have more impact for an outdoor portrait. What would close the gap is if you shoot smaller aperture with studio environment.

You seem to be operating out of a premise that f2 is objectively better, all things considered. Go outdoors, find a proper spot, frame it well, and the difference between f2 and f5.6 becomes irrelevant. That's how you work around limitations.

But that's beside the point. I was saying I think you focus clearly more on gear than photography. And your way of arguing against my point is to talk more about gear.

Nothing wrong with being a fan of gear. But it's very difficult for me to follow what you're trying to say because you're constantly contradicting yourself.

AlanU wrote in post #18884731
All of the video features you can scrub out as they are really meaningless to me. I only use camera's video function for School volunteer purposes and casual family documentation. Your a video guy so that may matter to you more.

I think your comparing the new X-t3 that I do not own. I suppose I could go to a camera shop after work an buy one Then I can be a rock star in your books

My X-t2 is by far lacking in power vs the single X-t3 you use. Where's your redundancy ? ohh I forgot you use Sony for your video rigs with your boss

The benefits I've listed on #10279 is bare essentials. I'm not a sports shooter or Birder. I would have just bought an A9 if that was the case. I am still deciding if I really need an A9 so I held back and bought another A73 as it fits the bill for my needs and saved around $3500. My only real negatives I have with the A73 is I'm lacking reliable non banding silent shutter and faster e shutter speeds.

Kim I hope your having fun in this thread.....the Fuji thread was getting rather boring lately :P

Fair enough for you if you don't shoot much video Alan, only some of the differences though plenty of others in the list where the Sony is sub par compared to the Fuji X-T3. I much prefer taking photos to shooting video but work is work and happy to have it - even if I have to shoot (or direct/produce) video.

I think perhaps you are making presumptions about which you know little, like the gear I own or the fact that I'm the boss of my company. But those are little things Alan, little things. Incidentally right now there are two X-T3's and, of course my fave, an X-PRO2 sitting on my desk. Still have the 18/2 attached to the X-E2, just in case

Mainly use Sony for video [Big and small cameras], Fuji don't make a big video camera & there is a difference in using a dedicated camera for video but that's another thing. I did however shoot an advert a few months ago with the X-T3 and was well happy with the result, you know the kind of ad with a decent budget, one where the music is licensed from a band that was in the charts. Looks great [everybody super happy with the results] and was nice to be using the Fuji for that, will do more of that when I can for sure. Mind you when you rig out the X-T3 you might as well have an ARRI on the tripod just about as big.

You are already a rock star in my mind Alan

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18884772
Fair enough for you if you don't shoot much video Alan, only some of the differences though plenty of others in the list where the Sony is sub par compared to the Fuji X-T3. I much prefer taking photos to shooting video but work is work and happy to have it - even if I have to shoot (or direct/produce) video.

I think perhaps you are making presumptions about which you know little, like the gear I own or the fact that I'm the boss of my company. But those are little things Alan, little things. Incidentally right now there are two X-T3's and, of course my fave, an X-PRO2 sitting on my desk. Still have the 18/2 attached to the X-E2, just in case

Mainly use Sony for video [Big and small cameras], Fuji don't make a big video camera & there is a difference in using a dedicated camera for video but that's another thing. I did however shoot an advert a few months ago with the X-T3 and was well happy with the result, you know the kind of ad with a decent budget, one where the music is licensed from a band that was in the charts. Looks great [everybody super happy with the results] and was nice to be using the Fuji for that, will do more of that when I can for sure. Mind you when you rig out the X-T3 you might as well have an ARRI on the tripod just about as big.

You are already a rock star in my mind Alan

I'm more of an irritant and thorn on your side

Life's too short. Getting older means documenting life, friends and family is more important than ever.

Gota doc the family for sure.

Oh and get in line

Browsing the World Wide Web and a pletora of forums and galleries it has occured to me
1. There are no relation between format used and the quality of the images
2 There is a relation between emphasis put by the photographer on technical quality and the impact of his/her images............... and its an inverse linear relationship

AlanU wrote in post #18884773
I'm more of an irritant and thorn on your side

SNIP<...

So a little warning for those in your proximity may be in place?

AlanU wrote in post #18884720
... My aging 85L f/1.2 mk2 ...

There you go again... It hasn't aged! If you mean it doesn't meet your expectation anymore, then you are not using that word in the proper context...

AlanU wrote in post #18884715
It's a combo of hardware and skills. In photography you cannot do one without the other. If you are lacking in one....it'll display some deficiencies.

That is just plain wrong... That's only true when you approach photography from a technical viewpoint... What deficiencies did Ansel Adams have? I think what you mean is technology can make it easier to capture a shot where it would have required better comprehension and therefor more skill... But the reverse doesn't hold true...

AlanU wrote in post #18884680
More into gear? Actually the opposite.

. I challenge you to go a week of posting here without once mentioning a piece of gear... Let's see some posts that talk about the craft and the emotion you had at the time you took the exposure...

OoDee wrote in post #18884699
The more skills you have the less you need to rely on gear.

This is so true... At the last motorsport event I was shooting, I was next to one of the official Nikon shooters for the event. An older guy who had been shooting for years. Told me stories about events he shot on FILM... He inspired me to shoot film at the next event I go to...

SuperSirLink wrote in post #18885053
This is so true... At the last motorsport event I was shooting, I was next to one of the official Nikon shooters for the event. An older guy who had been shooting for years. Told me stories about events he shot on FILM... He inspired me to shoot film at the next event I go to...

I admire film photogs. Every actuation counts as there is finite amount before swapping to the next role.

New blood like myself are gifted in more freedom. I couldn’t imagine doing an event with film this day and age due to $$ client expects many files. For personal projects it’ll be fun I suppose.

AlanU, many of us are saying you're approaching photography (almost) purely from a technical standpoint. And as you keep trying to argue that this is not the case, you inadvertently keep proving yourself wrong. Because you keep talking about gear, and gear only. As if photography in all of its categories and in today's day and age wouldn't be possible without the latest gear.

Not once have I noticed you drilling into what actually goes into the skillset of a photographer, such as understanding and working with light. Or composing an image. You say you need the best gear to keep up your skills. But I'll tell you this once again: You don't "keep up with skills" by buying better gear. Upgrading gear doesn't make you improve your skills. It's the other way around.

None of us are saying that times wouldn't have changed. Or that you wouldn't need specific gear for certain specific situations. What we're saying is that it's harder to make good images with inferior gear. And that's where skills are put in a test.

Everything you say falls back on gear. Don't you see that? I don't mind that, not at all. I love gear, I can't help it. But if you're claiming that keeping up with gear makes you "keep up with your skills", that's flat out wrong.

Also, if I'm unsuccessful in conveying my point over to you, maybe Ted Forbes can do it: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=0Zy6RF6w3BI&​t=215s


p. s. For the record, I'll be shooting another wedding tomorrow. And the latest gear in my bag is 4 years old.

I’ve Zeiss lenses that I bought in the 80’s still sharp and very usable. Made of metal and smooth to operate lovely things.
Here’s a shot with the 35/2.4

AlanU wrote in post #18884720
My aging 85L f/1.2 mk2 on my 5dmk4 does a nice job but not that kinda render.

Your aging eyes are losing their ability to make fine distinctions between images and colors more than any old high quality lens ability to make fine quality images compared to a newer lens.

All this techno babble in photography reminds me of a similar phenomena in biking: the 200 lb. bike rider who will spend $1,000.00 for exotic parts to shed 9 ounces of weight from their bike to go "faster" rather than just lose 20 lbs.

I love that Alan thinks that good photojournalism is just about "getting lucky". Or that there are no stand out go-to modern names in photography... that pretty much nulls his point right there.

Go browse this thread, https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1419800

It's no coincidence that basically every shot from JackAHearts invokes an emotional connection to the image... he's not lucky, he knows how to see the things that matter and capture and compose the scene, he's been using the same camera for as long as I've followed that thread btw, and it doesn't have interchangeable lenses.

As for your claims that gear somehow gets worse with age... huh? Many of my favorite images are still ones that I took years ago with my 20D or T2i with a cheap Sigma 18-50/2.8-4.5. Many more still were taken with really old and not even in good condition manual focus lenses.

OoDee wrote in post #18885133
AlanU, many of us are saying you're approaching photography (almost) purely from a technical standpoint. And as you keep trying to argue that this is not the case, you inadvertently keep proving yourself wrong. Because you keep talking about gear, and gear only. As if photography in all of its categories and in today's day and age wouldn't be possible without the latest gear.

Not once have I noticed you drilling into what actually goes into the skillset of a photographer, such as understanding and working with light. Or composing an image. You say you need the best gear to keep up your skills. But I'll tell you this once again: You don't "keep up with skills" by buying better gear. Upgrading gear doesn't make you improve your skills. It's the other way around.

None of us are saying that times would've changed. Or that you wouldn't need specific gear for certain specific situations. What we're saying is that it's harder to make good images with inferior gear. And that's where skills are put in a test.

Everything you say falls back on gear. Don't you see that? I don't mind that, not at all. I love gear, I can't help it. But if you're claiming that keeping up with gear makes you "keep up with your skills", that's flat out wrong.

Also, if I'm unsuccessful in conveying my point over to you, maybe Ted Forbes can do it: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=0Zy6RF6w3BI&​t=215s

OODEE,

I didn't know you're the hardware photography police

Perhaps I am not clear. If gear is not the issue in IQ output, it's the photographer behind the camera. Not certain if you've misinterpreted my statement. I never intended to say gear will make your skills improve. Developing skills never stops! Technological advances never stops either. I do no see you using an X-E1 with 16-50 kit lens using advanced studio lights setup etc or remote flash events photography or discussion of softboxes or any light modifier......

I've yet to see many here in the Fuji threads describe light theory, composition, how to use a light meter or general theory of behind the scenes explanations. I've seen a lot of Cat photos, glorification of tactile control knob satisfaction, praise in small form factor and fierce loyalty to aps-c sensor. Most here do not want to ever own a Bulky GFX camera body even though it's light in weight and has superior IQ over the little brother aps-c Fuji bodies.

Each to their own here as I see many photos posted with no explanation of how it's been obtained.

Kim is one of the most technically sound Fuji guy here. Competent in skill set and we butt heads He's one of few here that contributes to technical discussions.

Not sure about you but I've inadvertently discover new techniques and create my own personal projects/challenges by reading upon someone's latest new tech gear acquisition. I have honed my skills in the studio and remote flash work due to reading other photogs experiences using gear. This is my point is that moving forward YOU MUST "almost" keep up with the joneses. If Godox never produced affordable speedlights and ad200, ad400 or ad600 lithium strobes everyone will be stuck using non TTL/HSS old school strobes. Creating outdoor images using HSS at 1/8000 flash sync is a revelation to many. Old timers would turn in their grave seeing what we have abundant in tangible photographic products.

I do not forgive my emphasis on discussing gear. If someone seeks knowledge..ask away. I've seldom seen anyone "ASK" on this forum. Most just post away on images they've created.

IF people ask questions I'm hopeful I can contribute positively and help others. I know Kim is open to share his knowledge.

I'm just not going to sit in my comfort zone.