M Lenses on the X-Pro 1, a few results

Benjamin Marks said:
Well those snaps are pretty freaking awesome. Sorry, let me mop up my drool. . . .My initial determination to wait a year and to maintain a stoic skepticism is crumbling. Think I'll go out with a 6x17 back attached to a Linhoff Tech IV and use it to pound tent pegs for a while . . . OK, all better. TMX100 stand development in Rodinal anyone?

Seriously though I really like the look of the snaps from this Fuji chip. It has the "clean" look I associate with my D3 and 105 DC lens.
Click to expand...

I concur...

Looks nice :)

Dave
 
f16sunshine said:
Is the camera in North America yet? Anyone know heard or know anything?
Click to expand...

B&H has an "expected" date of March 28th.

I would say it's not going to be "widely available" till end of April. That's not an official statement or anything because, heck, I'm not an official anything... this is just a guess on my part :D

Cheers,
Dave
 
N.delaRua said:
Here is the beginning of what appears to be a serious body of work with an X1 Pro in the studio and in the field with more to come....

http://zackarias.com/blog/

There is a couple of reasons why I want this camera and none of them are very technical. From what I have seen high iso and IQ is stellar, and the lenses are great no real need to sweat the technical mumbo jumbo. So no need to worry then, but what I really love is the user interface. Great JPEGs with a Quick menu, and OMG a shutter dial and aperture ring!!
Click to expand...

Now we are talking! A "real" situation in which the camera is being used as it should. This is the kind of "test" I think we all could appreciate!

I for one appreciate reviews from people who take the camera for a run and use it just like they would something else. Yes, I know, sometimes a coffee mug or brick can say a lot about a lot of things, but there is no substitution for jumping right in with both feet and getting them wet.
 
ferider said:
It's a Kipon, not a Fuji adapter. Just saying.
Click to expand...

______________________

Certainly, the Fuji M to X adapters (when Fuji gets around to releasing them) will be of a better quality than Kipon.

But, I'm still annoyed with Fuji for the goofy and proprietary +/- 39.5mm filter thread they saddled us with on the X10. :mad:

So, if Fuji unwisely creates their own unfilled market niche to be served by clone manufacturers, I'm fine with it.

Robt.
 
katrak said:
I've thrown 6 m-mount lenses (and the fuji 35mm 1.4) onto this camera.

Results are at http://picabroad.com/
Click to expand...

I hate to sound like a negative nancy, but I wouldn't be happy with those results. Not saying the pictures are bad, but the lenses are soft in the corners - like significantly softer than (for instance) a canon 5d with the oldest/cheapest/nastiest canon EF primes you can get, which again affirms my position that legacy lenses suck on mirrorless crop cameras.

The native XF fujinons wipe the floor with the legacy M mount lenses.
 
I agree...after this test (and assuming other adapters fare no better) I would not specifically get the X-Pro 1 for m glass.
However, this is not unexpected - I'm sure the X-pro lenses and sensors were primarily designed to work with each other and not legacy glass.
The ability to put m lenses on this camera is a pure bonus and the Fuji 35mm 1.4 clearly beats all the others in this test - in real life the sensor on this camera and the Fuji 35mm 1.4 are both spectacular (I haven't tried the others 18mm or 60mm yet) - on a par with a Leica set up in terms of final output quality.
 
katrak said:
I agree...after this test (and assuming other adapters fare no better) I would not specifically get the X-Pro 1 for m glass.
However, this is not unexpected - I'm sure the X-pro lenses and sensors were primarily designed to work with each other and not legacy glass.
The ability to put m lenses on this camera is a pure bonus and the Fuji 35mm 1.4 clearly beats all the others in this test - in real life the sensor on this camera and the Fuji 35mm 1.4 are both spectacular (I haven't tried the others 18mm or 60mm yet) - on a par with a Leica set up in terms of final output quality.
Click to expand...

katrak, thank you for responding to my inquiry at dpreview, I replied to your thread there so let me comment the same here too :):



"Some important aspects are to observe here:
•
Fujifilm simply did not want to encounter with the provision of offset microlenses (due to any reason unknown to us so far) and chose to compensate for it through some very unconventional lens designs. Only some specifically designed wide angle lenses (shorter than 35mm) or -very certainly- retrofocals can function on this sensor with least issues.

•
The 35/1.4 lens is indeed a phenomenal design. The same can also be said for the existing 23/2 (on the X100) lens. Both exhibiting totally unconventional geometry employing oversize rear elements positioned very close to the sensor surface. Fuji equipped with extensive design experience from large and medium format lenses to studio TV-camera zooms down to miniature P&S zooms covering 30X (!)ratios deviced such unusual -and very challenging-approach to combat with the problems of oblique rays falling on the sensor.

•
IMHO, the shortcomings of this "approach" (no offset compensation) began to show its head with the 18/2; despite the similarly oversize rear element corner smearing and excessive CA around the outer field are disappointing. Pancake (or conventional) wide angle RF designs are rather for sensors already having provisions for oblique falling rays (offset microlenses, for instance.) It's for the same reason the NEX-7 failed while the 5N became highly popular; or for the same reason Zeiss had to introduce the 24/1.8 as being not a pancake (conventional RF) but as retrofocal (like SLR lens).


On your site I checked the Summicron 28, Summilux 35 and also the Summilux 50mm wide open as well as f8 edge & corner performances against those of the Fujifilm 35. No, the reference class lenses of the industry can not be that "bad", or the Fujifilm 35 can not be that much better than the best rangefinder lenses.. no way.. The Biogon 21 @f2.8 looked like as if made of cola bottle glass.

I am afraid that the owners of the X-Pro1 would rather have to stick to the lens offerings of Fujifilm rather than trying their chances with the existing M-mount wide angles. The retrofocals or some special designs (WATE comes to mind but irritatingly expensive) can be used with least or no issues on this camera...

So what to expect? The 35/1.4, 23/2 and 60/2.4 are already first-class lenses, on this sensor I doubt if one can find any better ones. The corner performance of the 35/1.4 is to die for.. Bokeh of these lenses is pleasing.. As for future I bet my hat that the 14/2.8 will come out as retrofocal design and I still believe that to introduce anything shorter than 23mm as "pancake" was a sort of mistake for a company like Fujifilm.. (Hah! the same mistake by Sony too, the 16/2.8 pancake that only few loves to eat..)"

Regards,

Bob
 
We have a cat if anyone wishes to come by and photograph her w/ their Fuji. She's loathe to sign a release though. Something about it "being a people and dog sort of thing". I'm no help w/ the brick wall though.

I think the potential problem with doing non-test-shots w/ a new camera or lens is that if you have a good subject and nail the metering, it's way too easy to overlook the test aspect of it all. I usually think "great shot" and forget all about sharpness/contrast/bokeh.
 
gavinlg said:
legacy lenses suck on mirrorless crop cameras.
Click to expand...

If you are speaking of RF lenses, this is partially correct. Some of them do, some are fantastic, depends on their design and focal length. SLR lenses may be better options for adapting.
 
gavinlg said:
legacy lenses suck on mirrorless crop cameras.
Click to expand...

Well... not all. There are plenty of terrific rangefinder lenses that draw very well on the Leica M8 and Ricoh GXR, which proves it can be done and Ricoh proves it can be done at modest cost. Are there any bad lenses on the GXR?

The Fujifilm X-Pro 1 to my eye looks to treat RF lenses worse than the NEX-7 does in the least able pairing of that camera and lens. That makes one wonder why Fujifilm decided to announce a M adapter in the first place.
 
i'm just surprised that the edges are that smeared when it's a crop sensor (thus not even the full imaging circle that the lens was designed to put out is being used).

not that that's pathetic, but i do find it rather surprising. good for fuji though for designing something so well that their own products are excellent and even well-known excellent products produce mediocre results. crafty devils, haha :).

i'd love to screw around with one for a week or so, but i've been shooting more and more film, and besides, it's tough to beat an M for tactile pleasure (though it can be done).
 
Not surprising at all. This is nothing new: it's been known for several years that RF lenses on mirrorless cameras (with crop sensors) can create light rays that hit the sensor at oblique angles.
 
i do not have an extensive collection of RF lenses: cv 25/4, cron- 40/2, summarit 50/1.4, cv 75/2.5, elmar 90/4, hektar and sonnar 135/4, but i am extremely impressed by how all of them work on my m4/3 ep2. frankly, having had a 5d used with zeiss contax lenses, and at iso up to 400, i am not in the least disappointed by what i get from my RF collection and 2x crop m4/3 sensor. the 'cron 40 and cv 75 are in fact absolutely stunning, whilst, within iso limitations, the rest as good as any other combination ive used on film or FF. i'm not sure why this should be the case on one 'crop' sensor vs another crop sensor...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom