PhotoMat
Well-known
Ah yes...that too, but I mean the X-Pro2.
I hear you loud and clear! The X-Pro 1 has been my favorite digi camera by far, and with a few tweaks and improvements, it has the potential to be even more of a "go to" camera in my daily work. To me, the only shortcoming in the Fuji X-series lineup is the lack of a professional flash system ala Canon/Nikon. Once something suitable eventually hits the market, I will most likely retire my DSLR.
Pablito
coco frío
No, not nearly to the degree it happens with the x100 family lenses, and I have used a lot of high end lenses from the top manufacturers over the years. . Hood does not really help nor does shooing w/ no filter. Was hoping the rumor about a newly designed 23mm lens would pan out.
itf
itchy trigger finger
It'd be nice if they'd weather seal these cameras, that's about all I would've hoped for. Hope the next Ricoh is.
willie_901
Veteran
The T appears to be mostly a CPU upgrade. With the additional speed all focusing modes can be improved. The Finder is improved as well. The 1/3 aperture ring steps are a nice upgrade as well.
Fujifilm seems to slowly but surely improving the computational hardware/firmware side of the cameras.
Fujifilm seems to slowly but surely improving the computational hardware/firmware side of the cameras.
I'm happy they redesigned the back of the camera...
smile
why so serious?
yep! but they haven't redesigned the top of the camera and exposure compensation dial is still at the same place as it was before which is definitely not the best place for it
GaryLH
Veteran
That is pretty bad.. I have not used my x100 for a while now.
Btw. In the first shot it is kind of an interesting affect though.
Gary
Btw. In the first shot it is kind of an interesting affect though.
Gary
willie_901
Veteran
My experience matches yours. These point-source artifacts are not a function of aperture, lens filters or front elements smudges... although these may make them worse, A perfect;y clean lens with the Fujifilm OEM hood and no filter will still exhibit strong ghosting. After a while I concluded the angle of the point-source light was the critical factor.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Happens in the day too. Not the best (worst)example of it but yes.... this is the achilles of this lens.
I still love the look it gives. Overall I have had great succces with the X100 and look froward to adding it again.
VW K25 pre-set by Adnan W, on Flickr
I still love the look it gives. Overall I have had great succces with the X100 and look froward to adding it again.
VW K25 pre-set by Adnan W, on Flickr
bonatto
looking out
regarding the flare, have you guys tried hoods?
f16sunshine
Moderator
willie_901
Veteran
OEM hood makes no difference whatsoever.
archeophoto
I love 1950's quality
I can't say that for the original X100. I have done hundreds of night shots with the X100 and I have never seen this behavior. From ISO3200 and upwards there is a bit of blooming around bright sources but nothing like this. Here are some night photo examples with the original X100
https://www.flickr.com/photos/archeophoto/sets/72157632402777977/
Even with the sun just out of the frame (2nd image), the flare is absolutely minimal. I never use a lens hood with the X100. I wonder if this has something to do with the Xtrans.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/archeophoto/sets/72157632402777977/
Even with the sun just out of the frame (2nd image), the flare is absolutely minimal. I never use a lens hood with the X100. I wonder if this has something to do with the Xtrans.
The lens of the X100S is the worst lens regarding haze through strong light sources I've ever used for night photography. Not even my cheapest old Canon EF lenses from the 1990s show this behavior.
Besides that it's a fine lens and I recently added the TCL to the WCL I already had. But for night photography this lens is a Diva.
archeophoto
I love 1950's quality
Every lens flares if you try hard enough. But the examples you provided are extreme. I wonder if there is something wrong with your sample.
It didn't rain, so why use a hood
archeophoto
I love 1950's quality
Well, I was just looking at your Exif info in your files. One is a 15 second exposure, the other 7 seconds. If I look at the images, I think your bright light sources are just out of the frame. With that long of an exposure, you would get a flare with pretty much ANY lens.
First rule for night photography for me is I don't place a bright light source just out of the frame for long exposures.
To be honest, I think your images are more a bad example of composition and camera placement and have less to do with the lens having a problem.
First rule for night photography for me is I don't place a bright light source just out of the frame for long exposures.
To be honest, I think your images are more a bad example of composition and camera placement and have less to do with the lens having a problem.
It didn't rain, so why use a hood
archeophoto
I love 1950's quality
It was not supposed to be a rude comment. But sometimes the truth hurts, I'm sorry. When I did my apprenticeship as a photographer 25 years ago (in Germany btw) my mentor told me the first rule of night photography: Do not make long time exposures right next to bright light sources. Because if you do, you get flares. So in my opinion your photos are user errors. That's why I said the images are badly composed. Camera placement is part of the composition. I have seen flares from bright light sources at night from Leica, Nikon, Canon or any other glass known to man. The X100 lens is not better or worse, than anything out there. In fact, I think the X100 lens is one of the most "tame" out there if it comes to flare.
You can't compare lenses in photographic situations by saying "Yeah, I went there before and I never seen a flare..." because every photographic situation is different. Unless you had your other lens(es) right next to this one in the same spot, at the same time, any comparison is useless. If you always place your long time exposures next to bright light sources just outside the frame and don't get flare, yes, I think it's pure luck.
Anyways, I didn't really start an argument. I think your images are extreme examples and are certainly not typical. The thousands of night time images from countless X100 photographers including myself prove it.
You can't compare lenses in photographic situations by saying "Yeah, I went there before and I never seen a flare..." because every photographic situation is different. Unless you had your other lens(es) right next to this one in the same spot, at the same time, any comparison is useless. If you always place your long time exposures next to bright light sources just outside the frame and don't get flare, yes, I think it's pure luck.
Anyways, I didn't really start an argument. I think your images are extreme examples and are certainly not typical. The thousands of night time images from countless X100 photographers including myself prove it.
YYV_146
Well-known
Coming into this argument as a previous X100 and X100S user, the X100 lens flare is indeed the worst I've seen on any 35mm lens, and much, much more worse then your average modern prime.
It really is horribly bad. Any sort of light source, even in broad daylight that is at a specific distance from the edge of the frame will cause horrible streaks across the entire photo, just as the images above show. This is one of the reasons I never kept both of the cameras, I like to shoot into the light and had too much trouble with flare.
Anyways, none of my Sony/Canon/Minolta/Pentax/Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander lenses are nearly as bad as the X100 lens when it comes to flare, and the problem did not improve from the X100 to the X100S.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I've used the X100 and X100T for some time now. I never noticed flare that seemed unusual. By that I mean nothing I wouldn't expect when using just about any lens. I started out in photography in the 70's with pentax and nikkor lenses and I soon learned where I shouldn't point the camera if I didn't want flare and ghosts. I guess that education causes me to subconsciously avoid pointing the lens too close to light sources. Anyway, here a photo I made with the x100s. Flare and ghosting doesn't seem to be anything more than normal.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Seriously. Take it easy. Noone is trying to be rude.
A hand put above the lens in the right position can do wonders against such flare.
On the first pic i cans ee top left corner has a circular "shadow" before the flare kicks in. It looks as the light source was just hitting the lens surface. A hood definitely helps in this situation.
Or a hand.
Also, if your lens surface is not pristine brand new spotless clean, in such a high contrast situation you always get flare.
Same for using a filter - asking for flare-trouble (and ghosting).
A hand put above the lens in the right position can do wonders against such flare.
On the first pic i cans ee top left corner has a circular "shadow" before the flare kicks in. It looks as the light source was just hitting the lens surface. A hood definitely helps in this situation.
Or a hand.
Also, if your lens surface is not pristine brand new spotless clean, in such a high contrast situation you always get flare.
Same for using a filter - asking for flare-trouble (and ghosting).
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
by the way, lots of folks seem to mix up haze, flare and ghosting...while they are completely different effects coming usually from different causes.
So far here all pics are showing flare (not haze, not ghosting).
My x100 does give me ghosting once in a while with the "right" scene, but i never had serious flare problems. But then again, i don't often shoot long night exposures in a high contrast scene.
So far here all pics are showing flare (not haze, not ghosting).
My x100 does give me ghosting once in a while with the "right" scene, but i never had serious flare problems. But then again, i don't often shoot long night exposures in a high contrast scene.