mod2001
Old school modernist
In the german DSlr-forum are many photos shown wit a lot of flares, examples here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/jefftanys/X100#5585439559388971426
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redxjs/5495146028/sizes/l/in/pool-1224925@N21/
There are nuch more at all ISO-settings, maybe Fuji made a copy of the pre-asph 35 Summilux
Yogi
https://picasaweb.google.com/jefftanys/X100#5585439559388971426
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redxjs/5495146028/sizes/l/in/pool-1224925@N21/
There are nuch more at all ISO-settings, maybe Fuji made a copy of the pre-asph 35 Summilux
Yogi
sol33
Established
maybe Fuji made a copy of the pre-asph 35 Summilux
Mystical Fuji-Glow!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
The longer the exposure, the more evident "flare" will be from a strong point source of light. Not to mention other factors like a "good" vs. a "bad" lens filter, whether there is oil on the glass surface, etc.
OR...or...it's the beginning of the end of Fuji. Oh, these contextless intertoobes postages.
OR...or...it's the beginning of the end of Fuji. Oh, these contextless intertoobes postages.
Oh well... flare's not the end of the world.
Paul T.
Veteran
A discussion here, with examples from other cameras. Most likely cause is internal reflections from the sensor:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103057
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103057
willie_901
Veteran
The X100 clearly exhibits artifacts when point light sources are extremely over exposed. I use the word extremely with purpose because there are many samples where over-exposed point-light sources do not exhibit these sort of artifacts. I think the artifacts come multiple problems with the optics and sensor electronics.
Some people complain this is a dynamic range short coming. I think it is more likely an exposure error problem created by inadequate X100 "multi" meter firmware.
Until my camera arrives, my hypothesis is the X100 is more prone to over exposure artifacts than most APS-C cameras. I shoot interiors for a living. When I'm not careful it is easy to severely over expose point-light sources. I know my D300 with both the 12-24/4 Nikkor and the 11-16/2.8 Tokina can display artifacts that look similar to the X100 examples. The D700 with the Nikkor 17-25/2.8 behaves much better in these situations.
My plan for dealing with this issue is to underexpose compared to the X100 "multi" recommendation, or use the spot meter near (but not on) the point light source. The goal is to keep the over exposure within the limits of the camera. I'm counting on pulling up the shadows and midtones in RAW file. This works well on the D300/700 and only time will tell if the X100 RAW files behave the same way. If the shadows can not be pulled up, then those who blame the X100's dynamic range for the artifacts, and for a tendency to over expose in general, will be correct.
Some people complain this is a dynamic range short coming. I think it is more likely an exposure error problem created by inadequate X100 "multi" meter firmware.
Until my camera arrives, my hypothesis is the X100 is more prone to over exposure artifacts than most APS-C cameras. I shoot interiors for a living. When I'm not careful it is easy to severely over expose point-light sources. I know my D300 with both the 12-24/4 Nikkor and the 11-16/2.8 Tokina can display artifacts that look similar to the X100 examples. The D700 with the Nikkor 17-25/2.8 behaves much better in these situations.
My plan for dealing with this issue is to underexpose compared to the X100 "multi" recommendation, or use the spot meter near (but not on) the point light source. The goal is to keep the over exposure within the limits of the camera. I'm counting on pulling up the shadows and midtones in RAW file. This works well on the D300/700 and only time will tell if the X100 RAW files behave the same way. If the shadows can not be pulled up, then those who blame the X100's dynamic range for the artifacts, and for a tendency to over expose in general, will be correct.