I'm not satisfied with my camera /p/ :( I'v bought

File: DSCF0026.jpg (209KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1000x666px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E2
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-E2 Ver3.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:14 23:42:25
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
F-Number	f/3.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/3.6
Brightness	-2.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4896
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Macro Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Manual Exposure
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	Blur Warning
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

File: DSCF0175.jpg (264KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1000x666px

keeping with bad photos

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E2
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-E2 Ver3.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	67 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:12 16:13:13
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/21.9
Brightness	8.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Shade
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	44.40 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4896
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Cloudy
Chroma Saturation	Unknown
Flash Mode	Off
Macro Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Manual
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Manual Exposure
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

File: DSCF0177.jpg (214KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1000x666px

please tell me its the X-e2 with the 18-55 kit lens that the problem

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E2
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-E2 Ver3.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	43 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:12 18:08:10
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Brightness	0.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Shade
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	28.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4896
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Cloudy
Chroma Saturation	Unknown
Flash Mode	Off
Macro Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Manual
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Manual Exposure
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	Blur Warning
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>2745002
>I don't know what exactly the problem is
The problem is that the camera is amazing, and you are pointing it at boring stuff, in bland light.

Photogaphy is not about having a camera that makes your photos good, it's about bringing a camera along while finding awesome things to share with your viewer.

Unless what you're shooting is moving quickly, and only available briefly, the X-E2 with kit lens is a nearly perfect camera, capable of incredible photos, in amazing quality.

>>2745002
This one, for instance, would be a lot stronger if you had stepped back a few inches, and moved a bit to the right, so that the big pole in the background was hidden. It would simplify the image a lot, and stepping back would give the subject a bit of breathing room and let it live in its environment, which would help.

>>2745003
This is a boring photo, of a guy we don't know, doing nothing, in bad light, in a boring location. It's composed poorly, it's cluttered and busy as fuck, and doesn't have anything to motivate us to look at it or remember it.

>>2745005
>>2745006
Boring subject, shot in a distracting way.

File: 49646_original.jpg (29KB, 441x437px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 441x437px

>>2745002
The problem isn't your camera it's you.
Get Gud Fgt

>I learnt the basic of exposure and composition but it didn't really helped me.
It will. you just need to practice. Your first several thousand shots might be shit, but if you keep at it you'll eventually figure out what makes an interesting photo and what doesn't.
Even when you do figure it out, most of your shots will be garbage, but you'll have a few keepers.

>>2745061
>>2745023
>>2745020
Thank a lot guys!
you really got me motivated!

>>2745002

The image quality (to me at least) looks pretty nice. It's just that those shots suck.

1st one could have been ok, if you had stepped back a little. The others are just kinda boring. Nothing wrong with taking pictures like that, but I'm guessing they're just things that happened to stick out to you during a trip or something?

>>2745123
Your right, they are.

>>2745127

I've got a shit load of those too. Those end up being desktop wallpapers to keep me motivated at work while I wait for my next cycle touring trip.

Anything I actually printed out (I have a decent 36" plotter) for my rotating poster display at home I spent a bit of time thinking about when I shot them.

>>2745002
>>2745003
>>2745005
>>2745006
I do not like the technical image quality of these shots. They feel quite ugly, could be far better. I however don't know if it's just your glass or settings, or also the body - haven't shot with this Fuji yet.

But they're also pretty boring shots, and that was probably all you - or at least maybe that you didn't have the right lens at hand to get a better shot.

>>2745168
>They feel quite ugly, could be far better
Please be a LOT more specific. Be sure to imply that you understand concepts like post processing when you reply.

>>2745002

Here, the head and the shadow are cropped, and the tower(?) in the background is placed weird. I probably would've moved around the object more even if the face wasn't looking directly at. the camera.

Also, photography is really about editing. Everyone takes bad pics. What's key is to edit down what is good. I take whole rolls where I don't use any pic from it. With a digital camera you can take a photo even if you don't feel thrilled about it, and delete when you get home if it sucks.

>>2745170
> Please be a LOT more specific.
Colors, detail sharpness - everything seems off the mark by quite a bit on every shot.

The real world has more color hues, and figures even with compression and downscaling, there should be more details.

Can't bring any fancy lingo to describe the detailed issues, though.

But I know the effect on the tower in >>2745005. That unsharp ugliness is what you usually get with poor lenses.

> Be sure to imply that you understand concepts like post processing when you reply.
I guess it could also be poor post-processing in theory, but I don't have any idea how the RAWs were in the first place.

Then again, who would intricately fudge with the colour curves and downscaling & compression and stuff to make the image more ugly in great detail? Maybe if it were some fancy effect filter package, but ... I doubt it. I think it's the camera and lens, really.

>>2745194
>I think it's the camera and lens, really.
You're welcome to think whatever you want, but you're wrong. Which is fine. At 1000 pixels on the internet, you have absolutely no idea what is and isn't in the file. At those sizes, down-sampling algorithm has just as much to do with fine detail in the image as a lens does.

>>2745199
As I said, I can't be certain, but it'd be really odd for someone to have used an exotic down-sizing algorithm and odd implementation of JPEG compression or such.

So the odds are just higher -though not to the point that I can be certain- that it was the camera already.

I'll let OP decide if he tinkered a lot and lost a lot of colours and resolution, or not - he has the originals.

>>2745211
You're like the kid that writes 1500 word essays to hide the fact that you don't know the topic.

>Buy a really nice oven
>Guys my pies keep coming out really shitty is it my oven, my recipe, or me? Surely it's not me please tell me it's the oven.

How about instead of taking photos of nothing and then complaining that the photos are boring and shit you take photos of something that interests you or maybe some cool landscapes or some hot sluts or something. Your photos can only be as shit and as boring as you are.

>>2745002
> learnt the basic of exposure and composition
Now learn how to edit.

>>2745223
I didn't realize I was talking to some butthurt manchild who needs personal attacks when someone describes some deficiencies that are very likely attributable to the camera plus lens.

If it against all odds isn't the camera + lens, OP can adjust his odd post work instead. Big fucking deal.

>>2745247
Maybe if you say the same thing a fifth time, it'll be correct... you should try it.

The camera, and the lens, are excellent. Working with Fuji files, however, is well known to be difficult. You keep implying that you don't really know what you're talking about, but aren't listening to people who do. It's the processing. Adobe fucks it up. Any number of sliders can fuck it up. Down-sampling can fuck it up. Lack of knowledge of sharpening techniques can fuck it up. etc.

>>2745002

Not to beat a dead horse, but

>DSCF0131

You've shot like 131 frames then? Give it like 6 months, and see where you've gone then. Like anything it takes practise.

Your camera sensor is excellent and your lens is excellent. Changing your gear does nothing, and is actually likely to make it worse.

The Fuji X-E line has really good image quality and the 18-55mm is like Canon L tier image quality so it's not the cameras fault.

The X-E2 is also getting a new firmware update that will put the autofocus on the XT-1, XT-10 level

http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n160115_07.html

>>2745002
With this shot it would be nice if you would zoom out or step back a bit and include the surrounding desert background, I can't see all of the statue and zooming out or stepping back a bit would give context to the image

>>2745005
I'd maybe move right a little so the tower isn't obstructed by the leaves on the left. I'd probably also wait for better light, shoot with that velvia profile for better colours or maybe choose a better subject in general

>>2745006
Kind of a weird angle, makes me feel uneasy

In terms of the camera's quality... those pictures look fine to me. Much better than my digital camera.

What do you not like about the pictures? The quality or the picture as a composition? Have you ever used a different camera? If you took the exact same picture with that camera, how would you feel? What if you took a picture with a "better" camera? What are you comparing these pictures to?

>>2745211
OP here.
I haven't touched the images. I just resize them in MS paint.

>>2745002
Unsure how you think it's the camera's fault that you're a shit photographer to be quite honest family

>>2745003
>ISO 500
>f3.6
>1/4s
This is a good example of a photo exposed "wrong"
It's a shot of someone not well lit in night. You have to either open up the aperture to allow yourself to use a faster shutter speed or you need to raise your ISO past 500. When I shoot at night, even in a well lit area I'm rarely below 1600 or 800.

Remember to try and keep your shutter speed above your focal length. So for this 24/25mm shot, you really want to be at around 1/20 or 1/30. Don't be scared to push that ISO up on the X-E2.

>>2745409
Why would you not process your photos before posting them? "I don't edit my photos" is not something to be proud of, it's amateur laziness to not make the photo look how you want it to look and it's pretty much mandatory to at least do a bit of basic processing on digital photos.

And why would you resize in MS Paint too holy shit that program uses garbage resizing algorithms and garbage compression. Get lightroom or photoshop or something. Or both, they're $10/month or incredibly easy to pirate.

Learn how to take photos and how to process them before you start claiming the camera is what's holding you back, digital cameras have gotten to the point where any camera whether it's good or shit is still more than good enough to be capable of taking a good photo in skilled hands.

x-trans RAWs need to be processed first in something other than LR, like photoninja, then taken into LR.

Lightroom makes a mess of x-trans raws for some reason.

>>2745536
you really helped me.
Thanks you!