| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4186 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Eric, So some of the IR images from your holiday are not at all badly effected by the hotspot.
What are your thoughts on the use of the IR converted XE1 ?
Is it as good or better than the D200?
I think that you need to test with a Fuji 14mm .
The XE is a very good performer and a definite lightweight alternative to the D200. It really all boils down to the lens.
If the 14mm has no hotspot (on a converted camera) then it at least gives me a wide landscape option. BUT...with the 18-55 performing so poorly it leaves a big gap in the focal length range.
With the D200 I use the 17-35 ( 25-53mm equiv) almost exclusively.
I've never felt the lack of a wider or longer lens!
I am loathed to ADD more lenses to the Fuji range, as the whole point of this change is reducing weight and complexity when travelling.
I need to go back through my IR images and establish the percentage shot at each focal length. It may give me a steer towards where to go.
But there is no doubt I need to take the XE over to WEX and try all Fuji X lenses for hot spots before committing more cash. Wouldn't it be great if the humble 16-50 (24-75) didn't have a hotspot?
Maybe next week when I have my new vehicle.
Last edited on Tue Jun 17th, 2014 03:30 by Eric
____________________
Eric