Frank Petronio
Well-known
If you haven't looked at the Photoshop lens blur filter lately you might be in for a shock at how sophisticated it's become... you can specify the number of aperture blades, etc. it's really quite amazing and shows the developers knew what they were doing based on real photographic experience.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it, at least if the end results matter. It takes real skill and experience to use these digital tools successfully and maintaining believable texture is not mere as simple as clicking on a few automated presets. Having done both, I can confirm that it takes more skill and judgement than making a straight photo with wide open portrait lens.
What's more disturbing... that some edits their photos carefully on a pixel by pixel level or that some people buy their blur by purchasing outrageous expensive or uber-trendy speciality lenses? To me that self-prompting blowhard who does the giant wet plates of tree bark is a poseur on a far grander scale than the kid with a Digital Rebel who digs in and develops some real editing chops.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it, at least if the end results matter. It takes real skill and experience to use these digital tools successfully and maintaining believable texture is not mere as simple as clicking on a few automated presets. Having done both, I can confirm that it takes more skill and judgement than making a straight photo with wide open portrait lens.
What's more disturbing... that some edits their photos carefully on a pixel by pixel level or that some people buy their blur by purchasing outrageous expensive or uber-trendy speciality lenses? To me that self-prompting blowhard who does the giant wet plates of tree bark is a poseur on a far grander scale than the kid with a Digital Rebel who digs in and develops some real editing chops.
goamules
Well-known
I guess for me, composition is what matters. Is it a picture of something? Or a plea to "look at how I can get an Old Timey look with my funky, Retro cameras!" Or "look at how I can fake your retro look with my wiz-bang software!" Both groups should be producing photos that either they themselves like and don't care what others think (my catagory), or that stand on their own, without anyone knowing what the process and tools are.
Anyway, I like your photos Frank, which have great subject matter, and you don't make a big point of what equipment you use.
Anyway, I like your photos Frank, which have great subject matter, and you don't make a big point of what equipment you use.
burancap
Veteran
To the point ... I would like to see a 50 on an XF standard adapter and then the same shot with one of these "speedbooster" adapters.
*Googling* now.
burancap
Veteran
http://www.fujirumors.com/faster-wider-sharper-speed-booster-for-your-x-series/
OOPS, I see Gary's post #2 link has samples!
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Yeah back to the OP, I don't understand why "full frame" matters once you depart from DSLRs with optical finders? There are some native fast portrait lenses right around the corner for most of the mirrorless systems, at least other than Sony. Why jump through hoops with expensive adapters when for less money you'll be able to use a slick Fuji solution?
Margu
Established
its hard to change people's mindset especially when people are unaware of software capability. you know, there are guys who spend thousands on gear but still use Gimp or Picasa for god's sake! what you gonna do, the more you tell them, the more they'll hate you.
willie_901
Veteran
Many people enjoy playing around with adapted lenses. During my brief, ill-fated flirtation with m4/3 I played bought an a CV F-mount adapter. I quickly grew bored with the adapted lens game. Others find it an enjoyable way to re-purpose their lens collection.
Vive la différence.
I am entirely satisfied with my native Fujinon primes. Using lenses with angles of view intended for the cameras sensor area and micro-lens characteristics makes life simple. When the 56/1.4 XF lens is released I expect it will serve as my tool of choice when out-of-focus rendering is a priority. I sold all my Nikkor and M/LTM lenses (except for an ancient pre-AI Nikkor 50 1/4 S lens that has a unique look wide open).
Vive la différence.
I am entirely satisfied with my native Fujinon primes. Using lenses with angles of view intended for the cameras sensor area and micro-lens characteristics makes life simple. When the 56/1.4 XF lens is released I expect it will serve as my tool of choice when out-of-focus rendering is a priority. I sold all my Nikkor and M/LTM lenses (except for an ancient pre-AI Nikkor 50 1/4 S lens that has a unique look wide open).
Margu
Established
check youtube for lens blur tutorials.
that is a fair point, why care what people think, but at the same time, isn't it irrational to spend money on an "effect" that can be had for free with a lot more flexibility?
burancap
Veteran
I don't know that it so much about FF (or the extra ~stop?), but as mentioned the ability to double the amount of focal lengths available from existing lens stock. That said, I am of a similar mindset to what Willie described and actually prefer natives. The problem is that the Leica R 50/2 is so insanely spectacular and small, that it would be a real treat on an XF.
Addy101
Well-known
If you can't see it, it isn't for you. That is true for the "FF look" and the "Photoshop OoF Blur" - I do see the difference between an APS-C camera and a FF camera and I don't have the patience for Photoshop stuff, so I bought a full frame camera.
Addy101
Well-known
Maybe it is the way you talk to people..... :angel:
NicoM
Well-known
You wont be able fully achieve the full frame look because a big part of the "look" usually has to do with the relationship of the field of view (how much is in frame) with the angle of view (narrowness created by the focal length), and not really the amount of DoF (although it does play a little part). It is the same reason why you can't get the medium format look with full frame cameras.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Amen.
Soon Photoshop will be able to shift plane of focus in a normal JPG and even change apparent camera position. There's already software around that turns 2d JPGs into 3D models by estimating spatial depth through bokeh.
Gear fetishism has never been a more pointless waste and having great gear has never mattered as little as it does now in regards to making pictures. And having good, original ideas has never mattered more.
Margu
Established
there is no such a thing as full frame look, or aps-c look or p&s look. these illusions are created by gear-addicts who will believe any voodoo in order not to feel bad about their spending habits.
don't take my word for it, get a SD card go to a decent camera store and do your own tests.
photography is a science, if one cannot prove an idea empirically then that idea is false... the photoshop lens blur is not an idea but an actuality and its not meant to be used like a heavy dose of blur, its all about nuance and not destroying the image reality and of course its 'real'. ff look and aps-c look and p&s look is an 'idea'.
regularchickens
Well-known
That's it. I'm selling all my gear. I'll use a Canon PowerShot from 2004 and a copy of Photoshop CC for the rest of my photographic life, and nobody will be the wiser.
GaryLH
Veteran
I also prefer the Fuji native lenses to the legacy lenses.. But on the other hand, I am one of those which has a hard time letting go some of my old lenses that I have grown to love.. So I tend to use them when I can. Where Fuji has not provided the focal length I desire, until then a legacy will have to be it. An example, though Fuji has a 16-55 xc grade zoom, I really like the looks of the shots from my Nikon 24-85f2.8-4 much better.. Though a lot heavier then the Fuji, until they come out w/ a xf grade zoom, this is what I will use. In terms of fixed focal length tele work, they have no 135 or 200 fov, this is where my Leica 90f2.8 and 135f4 come into the picture.
When I was younger, I really shot a lot of super wides, but recently my widest normal lens is really 28. I am tending to use long tele more these days.
For me, the only reason I would ever go to ff is to get higher iso then what the Fuji sensor can provide. Getting that extra stop by using the speedbooster, is enough for me not to really care about ff..
One day I may still buy a ff camera, but like Frank, I plan to wait until things settle down and I am buying used an older generation for hopefully half the price.
The biggest issue between ff and smaller is really about the lens compromises that are intoduced for the equivelent lens fov as u get smaller. With today's hw/fw digital processing and sophisticated photo sw, much of this is corrected. I don't think it is really a big issue any longer.
I have never tried using photo sw to do razor thin dof look, but on the other hand not really my thing.. But I may just have a go of it just for the heck to c one day.
So long as u are not a die hard dof type and u keep iso at what is best for that sensor family, I personally think that today's sensor matched to the right lens is going to give u a picture that is hard to tell which is which.
I use everything from one inch to apsc sensor, IMHO, the apsc is the sweet spot for
- compact enough csc body
- lenses that are not too big
- price
- high enough iso
- weight
Gary
Wiyum
Established
To be fair, those lenses become a 35/1.0, a 24.5/1.4, and 16.8-59.5/2.0-2.8.
Your point stands that you get, for example, 50mm field of view with 1.0 light transmission. But there's a lot of confusion when you convert one number (aperture) but not the other (focal length).
To the greater points, I'm on the side of there being no full frame look. There's something to 36mp in many applications, of course. But beyond that, there's very little inherent to the format size that constitutes a "look." If Fuji or Zeiss made a 33mm/1.0 lens, it would almost certainly be smaller than a Nikon or Canon 50mm 1.4, and would produce very similar images. True, these ultra fast lenses aren't widely available, but that's not a format thing.
I'm anxious to see comparisons of the 23mm/1.4 Fuji with the Sony/Zeiss 35mm/2.8. Or the x100s and the 35mm/2.8. Or the 23mm/1.4 with the RX1. Any of these should give us some data points to consider...
GaryLH
Veteran
But when u factor back in the apsc size sensor that 35f1.0 for example is essentially a 50f1.0 (slight longer but not by much).
The speedbooster white paper explains all this pretty well I believe. The link to the white paper is in one of the replies to the thread I posted. Or u can just go to the metabones website..
Gary
rivercityrocker
Well-known
Depends on by what you mean by "free". My 50mm Summilux was definitely not free.
Wiyum
Established
For transmission, yes. But not for depth of field. You could just as easily say the 50/1.4 with the speed booster but adjusted for sensor size remains just a 50/1.4. But then you're ignoring the speed gains. This is why you have to adjust both numbers. Otherwise you're ignoring something.