Ergonomics of X-t2 w/ EF-X500

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18325905
I didn't say I was quoting you, so no, I'm not twisting your words, go read it again and actually think about what I said.

If you ever try to go into a gym and pop flash at kids who are literally risking their lives flipping through the air you will rightfully be thrown out of the gym (they even tell everyone this at every meet). Please do not attempt to lecture me on shooting a subject that you very clearly have zero experience with.

Constructive criticism is great when it's constructive, when it's obtuse and refuses to consider the situation or counter argument then I have to roll my eyes.

I was not aware of the strict rules of flash photography in gymnastics. In this case ramping up the iso to increase shutter speed will eliminate motion blur. 1/1500 to 1/2000 would be my starting point of faster moving human beings So in this case if flash cannot be a part of the equation this would be either hardware limitations or user error that creates unacceptable motion blur while document sports events. You've never complained of the X-E2 auto focus so I'll take that as "not" one of the other variables in blurry images.

If a parent was documenting running kids this would be the case of "best camera is the one you have with you". For an "experienced" avid shooter with a great knowledge base in photographic theory soft/blurry images is a representation of their work. Again observant eyes do not have an explanation or excuses pasted on a photo. Regardless your photo with your name on it is a product of your work!!! "Lucas gave me these photos...what do you think?" My constructive criticism I've stressed to you is "every image is a representation of your photographic style, skill and knowledge. " You can hate me for being blunt but years down the road you'll still hate me but I assure you this "push" will be a positive effect in how you approach every situation in photography. Take it as being "a photographer with no excuses!!" I follow this attitude and it's made me work harder and harder every time I touch a camera. This way every single shot you take will be with full confidence that anyone including critical eyes will take the photo as pro's workmanship.

If you feel I'm off base and blurry/soft images is acceptable I'm mistaken and I take fault in assuming. I thought you're very serious in photography with your assertive nature as a photographer and the photos you produce. My non photographic wife cares less if her iphone7 images have motion blur. I for one have absolutely zero tolerance to motion blur unless I've done it with full 100% intention like dragging the shutter 1/30 for artistic effect.

If flash is not used it's other variables like User error or hardware limitations if images are soft or blurry. Running kids in low light even my 5dmk3 documents things effortlessly. I've yet to test my Fuji X-T2 fully in every situation. My heavier Canon gear is my goto for 100% assurance of doing exactly what I need it to do. I'm just still not there with fuji.

AlanU wrote in post #18326113
I was not aware of the strict rules of flash photography in gymnastics. In this case ramping up the iso to increase shutter speed will eliminate motion blur. 1/1500 to 1/2000 would be my starting point of faster moving human beings So in this case if flash cannot be a part of the equation this would be either hardware limitations or user error that creates unacceptable motion blur while document sports events. You've never complained of the X-E2 auto focus so I'll take that as "not" one of the other variables in blurry images.

Right, so speed up the shutter speed to the point where you're sacrificing possibly a bit of motion blur for all the downsides of pushed high ISO images (which I do sometimes)... like any other situation you have to assess the scene on a per-shot basis.

You're right about the X-E2's AF not being a variable for blurry images to me, but you also fail to realize that I've never complained about blurry images in the first place... also confused by why you're bringing up what you think the necessary shutter-speed for sharp shots of gymnasts in action is since I never posted any examples of this or even brought it up at all in this thread.

If a parent was documenting running kids this would be the case of "best camera is the one you have with you". For an "experienced" avid shooter with a great knowledge base in photographic theory soft/blurry images is a representation of their work. Again observant eyes do not have an explanation or excuses pasted on a photo. Regardless your photo with your name on it is a product of your work!!! "Lucas gave me these photos...what do you think?" My constructive criticism I've stressed to you is "every image is a representation of your photographic style, skill and knowledge. " You can hate me for being blunt but years down the road you'll still hate me but I assure you this "push" will be a positive effect in how you approach every situation in photography. Take it as being "a photographer with no excuses!!" I follow this attitude and it's made me work harder and harder every time I touch a camera. This way every single shot you take will be with full confidence that anyone including critical eyes will take the photo as pro's workmanship.

How's the view atop that horse

Do you truly believe that every image you post anywhere on the web is the highest caliber representation of your work? Because I have to tell you that if that's the case then you're essentially the pot calling the kettle black, since we're being "blunt". I saw some great shots in a couple of your galleries on your website, but some of the prominent shots on the main page are shots that I wouldn't recommend representing as your "best work".

I don't "hate" you at all by the way. I know internet conversations can be hard to convey emotions, but I just enjoy a debate if I deem the topic necessary and I frankly think you're a good bit off base on this.

If you feel I'm off base and blurry/soft images is acceptable I'm mistaken and I take fault in assuming. I thought you're very serious in photography with your assertive nature as a photographer and the photos you produce. My non photographic wife cares less if her iphone7 images have motion blur. I for one have absolutely zero tolerance to motion blur unless I've done it with full 100% intention like dragging the shutter 1/30 for artistic effect.

How do you not see this as condescending? Harkens back to my last paragraph about emotions being hard to convey, but seriously, just re-read what you wrote...

If flash is not used it's other variables like User error or hardware limitations if images are soft or blurry. Running kids in low light even my 5dmk3 documents things effortlessly. I've yet to test my Fuji X-T2 fully in every situation. My heavier Canon gear is my goto for 100% assurance of doing exactly what I need it to do. I'm just still not there with fuji.

Then that's your loss frankly... there are endless examples on this forum and on the web that all of the latest Fuji gear is perfectly up to this task. As you stated before, knowing your gear is hugely important.

Responses in bold.

If mods read this I'd like to emphasize that at least in my eyes this is still a totally civil debate, but if you'd like me to clean up anything I've posted I'd be happy to

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18326680
Responses in bold.

If mods read this I'd like to emphasize that at least in my eyes this is still a totally civil debate, but if you'd like me to clean up anything I've posted I'd be happy to

I'm just hoping you know that online photos are a representation of your work. Photo's do not have a section where there is an explanation of why its underexposed? over exposed? front/back focus, Motion blur when it clearly is user error and not intentional etc.
This is where a viewer can make an assumption that this is your consistent output. High profile photographers are critical in what they allow the world to see. Same goes for any local professionals displaying their consistent work being critical it what they allow on the internet.

Portfolio's should show the type of work you produce. The zinger is that it should be repeatable Galleries of actual events show a bulk of real photos that give you a feel of "style" of work that happens as a story.

If you choose or not to use flash this is your work and style and your images represents "YOU". Your "Money shots" will be great but publicly displayed blurry shots (wrong settings, hardware limitation etc) will put red flags up when people want professionally executed shots with consistency.

Personally if I was a person seldom ever adding flash to my paid work I would definitely be shooting a 5d4 or D810 for max IQ for available light shooting. I'll bite my tongue in using a boat anchor heavier camera but in the end it assure me high quality low light images with zero hardware excuses. This is where I'm not concerned with "MY" operation of the camera or composition.....it's the tool of choice that is the other part of the equation. This is where the photographer "controls" his/her" ART and Tools.

The 5dmk4 produces higher res images and superior auto focus. It is definitely better than my Fuji X-T2 in low light. I just wont buy a $5000 CDN camera as it does not work with my budget and I compromise in performance and buy another 5dmk3. So far my current 5dmk3 can do exactly what I want in a camera as far as performance is concerned. I just know as a fact the 5dmk4 is substantially better "hardware".

The X-T2 is as good as my 5dmk2 as image quality is concerned and better in overall performance especially higher iso colours. This is why I love the Fuji system. It's my fun camera and sits as a secondary system for now. The EF-X500 just stepped the fuji up a notch for more versatility.

A snap shooter is not concerned of what people think but enjoys "likes" on social media. A professional/semi professional photog or even hardcore hobbyists should be a little more concerned of what is displayed online. If there was rolling eyes and question marks and someone said "check out his photos, what do you think??" Soft questionable photos online can hurt reputation. If the hardware is not up to snuff.......grab hardware that will meet your needs/application. Hence.......flash is a nice tool to have and use...... However I know I can still make my Fuji "deliver". They still need to build an F/2.8 UWA zoom!!!

Lucas the gymnastic shots I remembered viewing them a while back. When I view motion blur it is synonymous to a commonly seen photos taken with smartphones. I no longer use M43 due to a lack of high iso performance and I needed to go with the X-t2 for the "best" AF performance Fuji has to offer. This is why you'll seldom see professionals posting motion blur. Yes I'm being critical but this is where I seldom ever see a wedding photog have a blurry image while a bride throws a bouquet. It's not uncommon to see family members like uncle bob having blurry shots. This is the difference you will see between a happy snap shooter throwing blurry images careless of critique but a Semi or Pro photog would take great efforts in not revealing unintentional blur publicly.

AlanU wrote in post #18321668
Finally stopped procrastinating about not having a Fuji Flash. After testing the flash I'll have to say the "Made in China" flash actually seems to be decent. I think I'll also be buying a Metz M400 as another backup HSS flash. With my connection I got the flash substantially cheaper than US prices!!

Seems majority of the people on this forum seldom use flash. I still cannot believe how this is even possible as this does not maximize the use of the "fuji" tool. Recently I was out to dinner pushing the limits with my 16mm prime. Bumped into a friend in the restaurant and he asked if I could take a group shot photo. I'll have to admit ISO 6400 in low light was absolutely an EPIC fail. I've never been so ill equipped in my life as I usually have a flash in a thinktank pouch when I go out. Honestly my wife's iphone 7 with flash looked better than a $3000+ Fuji combo with no flash!!! Hence the imperative purchase of a fuji flash with bouncing capabilities.

I will say I actually dislike the feel of having this flash on my X-T2. The imbalance of a non gripped X-t2 does not feel good at all. I'll deal with this uneven weight distribution as the tiny X-T2 grip is barely adequate....no choice in this camera grip design.

The dial on the flash is an absolute dream to adjust FEC!!! The flash is also silly easy to use. A big negative I found was the Fuji's LED focus assist. This has got to be one of the biggest jokes I've ever experienced as it emits a harsh bright light in the subjects eyes before shutter actuation. Canon's red focus assist light truly assist focus incredibly well even in complete darkness. So far with my brief testing my 10-24mm lens with LED assist denied my AF (red indicator stating no AF) on occasion when aiming at low contrast dark objects. This is now an indication that I will not ever use my Fuji gear for critical events in low light. I love using the versatility of UWA lens on a dance floor with flash.

With flash photography I'll have to say the colour rendition is beautiful!! I'll add more to this thread as I put more time on this flash. I also need to incorporate my Cactus triggers with RF60 flash units.

I'm currently having a roller coaster of happiness and sadness in fuji's flagship EF-X500 flash unit. I think it'll suite my needs majority of the time.

So you are not satisfied with the flash but you are buying another? Did i read that correctly?

AlanU wrote in post #18327292
I'm just hoping you know that online photos are a representation of your work. Photo's do not have a section where there is an explanation of why its underexposed? over exposed? front/back focus, Motion blur when it clearly is user error and not intentional etc.
This is where a viewer can make an assumption that this is your consistent output. High profile photographers are critical in what they allow the world to see. Same goes for any local professionals displaying their consistent work being critical it what they allow on the internet.

I'm hoping you know this as well, because as I pointed out before, your work is very findable upon a quick google search of your name (even if you for whatever reason don't like to share your work here on the forums)

Portfolio's should show the type of work you produce. The zinger is that it should be repeatable Galleries of actual events show a bulk of real photos that give you a feel of "style" of work that happens as a story.

Yeah, I agree... why did this even come up, are you trying to suggest something? Again, speak plainly

If you choose or not to use flash this is your work and style and your images represents "YOU". Your "Money shots" will be great but publicly displayed blurry shots (wrong settings, hardware limitation etc) will put red flags up when people want professionally executed shots with consistency.

Mmmhmm, has yet to come up with any clients, and even if it did I'd say "OK, sorry you're choosing not to go with me, if you change your mind, let me know!". Not everyone will love your work, even if it's technically perfect, sharp and noise free, so what's your point? Heck, one of my best friend's fiance' shoots photos for a living (and has been for a couple of years now) using a 60D, 16-70mm and 50/1.8 and she refers to those lenses as "the zoom one" and "the one that doesn't zoom".

Personally if I was a person seldom ever adding flash to my paid work I would definitely be shooting a 5d4 or D810 for max IQ for available light shooting. I'll bite my tongue in using a boat anchor heavier camera but in the end it assure me high quality low light images with zero hardware excuses. This is where I'm not concerned with "MY" operation of the camera or composition.....it's the tool of choice that is the other part of the equation. This is where the photographer "controls" his/her" ART and Tools.

I had full frame cameras for years, the IQ difference between them and my Fuji gear is basically splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned. The only real noticeable difference is at ridiculously high ISO's with my a7S (ISO25k+). I actually prefer the look of my Fuji shots at the more reasonable and often used ISO range of 200-6400 where the Fuji shots exhibit very little color noise, are sharp and have great color reproduction.


The 5dmk4 produces higher res images and superior auto focus. It is definitely better than my Fuji X-T2 in low light. I just wont buy a $5000 CDN camera as it does not work with my budget and I compromise in performance and buy another 5dmk3. So far my current 5dmk3 can do exactly what I want in a camera as far as performance is concerned. I just know as a fact the 5dmk4 is substantially better "hardware".

Funny, that underlined part is exactly how I feel about my X-Pro2... imagine that.

The X-T2 is as good as my 5dmk2 as image quality is concerned and better in overall performance especially higher iso colours. This is why I love the Fuji system. It's my fun camera and sits as a secondary system for now. The EF-X500 just stepped the fuji up a notch for more versatility.

A snap shooter is not concerned of what people think but enjoys "likes" on social media. A professional/semi professional photog or even hardcore hobbyists should be a little more concerned of what is displayed online. If there was rolling eyes and question marks and someone said "check out his photos, what do you think??" Soft questionable photos online can hurt reputation. If the hardware is not up to snuff.......grab hardware that will meet your needs/application. Hence.......flash is a nice tool to have and use...... However I know I can still make my Fuji "deliver". They still need to build an F/2.8 UWA zoom!!!

Frankly, if you're not concerned with social media then you're way behind the times... it has nothing to do with being a "snap shooter" (nice humble diss by the way).

And I'll ask you again... do you feel that EVERY image you have posted online is a representation of your best work?

Lucas the gymnastic shots I remembered viewing them a while back. When I view motion blur it is synonymous to a commonly seen photos taken with smartphones. I no longer use M43 due to a lack of high iso performance and I needed to go with the X-t2 for the "best" AF performance Fuji has to offer. This is why you'll seldom see professionals posting motion blur. Yes I'm being critical but this is where I seldom ever see a wedding photog have a blurry image while a bride throws a bouquet. It's not uncommon to see family members like uncle bob having blurry shots. This is the difference you will see between a happy snap shooter throwing blurry images careless of critique but a Semi or Pro photog would take great efforts in not revealing unintentional blur publicly.

So why were you bringing up old photos you saw once that didn't have anything to do with the original direction of this thread or the original point I made in the first place (which was quite simply that the main reason I suspect you don't see many Fuji users using flash often is because it doesn't fit their style or workflow with a MILC system)? Beyond that, I already clarified that flash is strictly prohibited when shooting gymnastics... so again, why do you stay stuck on this?

My responses in bold, though honestly I'm starting to wonder why I even bother.

Osa713 wrote in post #18327464
So you are not satisfied with the flash but you are buying another? Did i read that correctly?

I think i may get the Metz aswell.

There is currently a pinout issue with the cactus trigger and hotshoe of the EF-X500. When the lever is locked on the flash it moves it forward losing contact with the TTL information. Latest cactus trigger does not pass on HSS info either. I've stopped trying to make it work and will try again when I get more patience.

Buying the Metz is also a risky think as I've hear little of people trying to make it work with cactus RF60 flash units.

I can use my Canon gear effortlessly getting TTL/HSS info to my Cactus RF 60's using my Cactus V6mk2.

So far I've had to play with FEC more when I shoot HSS outdoors with with my X-T2/EF-X500 combo. I will work but I must work harder to play with the FEC.

Navigating the EF-X500 is fantastic. The spin wheel is great. Excellent layout !! Holding the flash unit feels substantial and high quality.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18327476
My responses in bold, though honestly I'm starting to wonder why I even bother.

Lucas, dont bother....

Here's my constructive criticism to be mindful of: As long as you remember in the back of your mind potential clients or even friends will say "Hey these are Lucas' photos, what do you think????" the image itself (or photo stream) is a representation of you as either newbie, snap shooter, enthusiastic hobbyist, semi Pro/Pro photographer etc. Even casual viewers on a public forum looking at your latest post is showing your current style and skill as a photographer. Fun as it may be people/photographers rate your images mentally. By nature I think most photographers backwards engineer a photo or analyze lighting, body language, etc.

Not sure how Google extracts images from the net. This is where having "open" galleries is a bad thing as even regular events documentation photography shows up in "google's images" Wish I knew that years ago!!! Now I just direct people to my website for current work. Directing potential clients to Flickr, Photobucket etc isn't professional.

Just be aware Uncle Bob can capture special moments on the camera be it soft/blurry or average image quality. I hope any semi pro/pro will meet every aspect of photography in technical, composition, emotion and present professional image quality in their work.

This is where in some cases gear is extremely important (flash photography skills/gear) but the art of photography is "always" imperative.

Your work...your name....be it a photo in a portfolio or casual posts.

That is all.....

AlanU wrote in post #18327968
Lucas, dont bother....

Here's my constructive criticism to be mindful of: As long as you remember in the back of your mind potential clients or even friends will say "Hey these are Lucas' photos, what do you think????" the image itself (or photo stream) is a representation of you as either newbie, snap shooter, enthusiastic hobbyist, semi Pro/Pro photographer etc. Even casual viewers on a public forum looking at your latest post is showing your current style and skill as a photographer. Fun as it may be people/photographers rate your images mentally. By nature I think most photographers backwards engineer a photo or analyze lighting, body language, etc.

Not sure how Google extracts images from the net. This is where having "open" galleries is a bad thing as even regular events documentation photography shows up in "google's images" Wish I knew that years ago!!! Now I just direct people to my website for current work. Directing potential clients to Flickr, Photobucket etc isn't professional.

Just be aware Uncle Bob can capture special moments on the camera be it soft/blurry or average image quality. I hope any semi pro/pro will meet every aspect of photography in technical, composition, emotion and present professional image quality in their work.

This is where in some cases gear is extremely important (flash photography skills/gear) but the art of photography is "always" imperative.

Your work...your name....be it a photo in a portfolio or casual posts.

That is all.....

Yeah, they certainly could find my images anywhere they want if they felt the need or desire, but they would certainly start with my website and Facebook page given those are the links on my business cards.

So I'll ask you again, do you truly believe that all the shots posted on your website are examples of your best work? Because frankly, harsh shadows on faces, strange expressions and generally unflattering lighting are far bigger detractors than a bit of noise and there are more than a few examples of this shown on your own website.

I'm not trying to insult you and thus didn't want to direct link those examples, but I'm genuinely curious if you believe these are examples of your best work.

What's interesting is that these examples I've found from you were ones that you want people to find, I didn't need to do any complex searching around to find them, they're right there displayed on your own portfolio. So I guess I'm just at a loss with what your beef is about people casually sharing their casual work...

Your line of logic just makes no sense to me... you're basically saying that you should never display images that are below your highest standard of work... then say you display all of your images (good and bad) because you don't want to hide anything... so which is it, it can't be both.

Just a quick example of what I'm talking about... this is the very first image that appears when I visit your website;

http://www.alanuyenoph​otography.com …69769/h73adb368​#h73adb368

To me this is an image I wouldn't want to represent my work. The lighting is harsh, the white balance is off, the man's skin looks pink, I would think this is an image you wouldn't want someone to see as the very first impression of your professional work, to me these detractors are far worse than noise or an image being a little soft.

You have plenty of great images on your website as well, like this one for example

http://www.alanuyenoph​otography.com …69769/h73adb368​#h45a3ea62

So I don't understand why you would want your lesser examples thrown in with your "money shot" examples prominent on your website, especially in what appears to be the "visitor" section.

If you could tone down your condescending tones, that'd be great by the way. You're either missing my point on purpose or you're being very dense. I have no issue with leaving up all of your event shots, I've shot events where I gave 300-800 shots to the client, I certainly didn't' spend a lot of time on those shots, but I did trash the ones that I thought just flat out weren't worth keeping, this is no different than tossing images with botched exposures or missed focus. What you've just suggested is that you simply pull the cards off your camera and toss them up on your website immediately... if that's what you're doing I would strongly suggest that you rethink your approach... how you're claiming that you have the knowledge to "explain to me how things work" while displaying this type of stuff is beyond me.

My casual work lives up to my casual standards. It's really that simple. Yes, potential clients could find it pretty easily if they tried, but as I said before they would already know from my website/portfolio what my professional work looks like and that the images found elsewhere are casual shots, most of which I think they would find very pleasing anyway... so again, not sure what point you're trying to prove.

I have zero desire to shoot full time, my dad did that and it killed his passion for photography. If I can make a few grand a year doing photos, great, it pays for my hobbies... I've had zero issues doing that for the past few years, in fact I gain more and more clients each year. I'd like to point out though that making money doing photography vs not making money doing photography is not an indicator of quality or skill... I know plenty of photographers who charge for their shots who I would never even consider hiring and plenty of photographers who have never charged for a photo that I would happily hire to shoot my wedding.

This is not a matter of me being offended, nothing you've said has offended me (and I hope that I haven't offended you, though it seems I have), it's a matter of me being utterly bewildered by your conflicting stances and insistence that unless an image is 100% sharp and clean it should never be posted online... that's pure nonsense in my opinion.

i gave up reading ya'll two posts....

summary

hisss hiss meow meow flash roar big growl ergonomics suck.

the end.

Talley wrote in post #18328982
i gave up reading ya'll two posts....

summary

hisss hiss meow meow flash roar big growl ergonomics suck.

the end.

Yes ....LOL!!!

The End!

AlanU wrote in post #18329064
Yes ....LOL!!!

The End!

Ignoring the points I've made doesn't make them disappear

I'm sorry the Socratic Method irritates you so much...