New Xtrans2 model... Fuji XT10

Dante_Stella said:
Right, but Fuji is not selling a DSLR. It's selling 18x24mm APS-C cameras. XF lenses are pretty much all bigger than their 24x36mm rangefinder equivalents.

Dante
Click to expand...

Rangefinder lenses are a different story altogether. You still can't shoot a lot of RF optics on digital rangefinders like the m9/m240 without getting ****ty soft corners or cyan vignetting, and that's with a specialised sensor array and software correction. On a FF mirror less camera many of the wide angle m mount lenses are about as good as a lomo toy lens. The days of tiny lenses are gone with digital imagers needing tele centric lens designs - the rf lenses from the film erra aren't a valid comparison point, sorry.
 
the xt10 is getting pretty good reviews...nice small body, rugged & lightweight...why couldn't fuji put all this into a new xe3?
 
gavinlg said:
......The days of tiny lenses are gone with digital imagers needing tele centric lens designs - the rf lenses from the film erra aren't a valid comparison point, sorry.
Click to expand...

Perhaps CV will come out with some f3.5/4 wide lenses in different focal lengths for the rest of us. The new 15mm while bigger than the original is a great step in that direction. Sony and Fuji mounts please and thank you.

I'm not giving up hope.

B2 (;->
 
f16sunshine said:
Hi Joe.

They pretty much put it into the XE2 already :p
The XE3 I hope they bring has the VF from the xt1.
Click to expand...

I am not sure..but I would guess if we never see some of the new af features from xt1 4.0 in the xe2, I would venture to guess that it does not have the horsepower either in the CPU or the digital path.

I suspect if they continue the xe and xp series, we will not c another addition to the xe line (xe3) until the xp2 is announced IMHO.

Gary
 
Overall, given features and improved af performance, I would put the xt10 between the xe2 and xt1.

Gary
 
gavinlg said:
Rangefinder lenses are a different story altogether. You still can't shoot a lot of RF optics on digital rangefinders like the m9/m240 without getting ****ty soft corners or cyan vignetting, and that's with a specialised sensor array and software correction. On a FF mirror less camera many of the wide angle m mount lenses are about as good as a lomo toy lens. The days of tiny lenses are gone with digital imagers needing tele centric lens designs - the rf lenses from the film erra aren't a valid comparison point, sorry.
Click to expand...

I think that in arguing telecentricity (and please lay off the real or simulated obscenities), you're assuming that a simple sensor with telecentric lenses is the only way to go. Maybe it is if corner performance is all you want (I'm not sure that any 90-degree image has risen or fallen based on the last 5 mm of the diagonal - but let's assume it's a drop-dead issue). To get that corner performance, you are working with a 16Mp limit (thus far), a big size, and the quirks of Fuji prime design (such as super-compressed DOF scales that almost make you question why they're there). One consideration peculiar to Fuji is that as a proprietary system, there is zero choice when it comes to optical or handling characteristics of lenses. Or bodies - and to bring the discussion full circle, a closed ecosystem means that no matter how good the optic is, you have to consider the baggage.

And on IQ, have you actually run the comparisons? I have tested the 21/4.5 Zeiss ZM (which is reportedly the worst lens for a digital camera) against my 14/2.8 Fujinon (which is Fuji's widest prime lens, and probably the best 90 degree lens made for digital). There is not much in the way of noticeable corner degradation with the ZM on an M typ 240, and by the time you downsample to match the X-Trans sensor's resolution, it's gone. Color shifts are sometimes an issue with wides, sometimes not, but the software for correcting this (even on the ZM) is faster than Adobe's straight up conversion of X-Trans files (I have a 4Ghz Retina 5K with 32Gb of RAM, and it still takes up to 5 seconds to render X-Trans files). What you can't correct, even given unlimited time, is the fact that a X camera with the 14 and a body won't fit in a coat pocket.

On the other hand, on a Leica, I mostly use a 21-35mm M-Hexanon Dual. Though a big lens for a Leica (it's actually the size of a 50mm f/2 except for the filter mount), I'm pretty sure is still smaller than my XF 14 (I'll measure it tonight), covers 24x36, acquits itself well at 24Mp, has two focal lengths, no corner or color shift issues, and actually has a usable DOF scale (actually, two of them).

A lot of this will boil down to individual preferences, but if Matt is right and this is really a DSLR-competing system (and having looked at Fuji's X-Pro press releases, they only say "comparable to a DSLR" in image quality), then it is not surprising that the X system will approach DSLR lens sizes. Maybe we all toiled under the misapprehension that because it looks like an RF, the X-Pro1 should be compared to one.

Dante
 
Dante_Stella said:
I think that in arguing telecentricity (and please lay off the real or simulated obscenities), you're assuming that a simple sensor with telecentric lenses is the only way to go. Maybe it is if corner performance is all you want (I'm not sure that any 90-degree image has risen or fallen based on the last 5 mm of the diagonal - but let's assume it's a drop-dead issue). To get that corner performance, you are working with a 16Mp limit (thus far), a big size, and the quirks of Fuji prime design (such as super-compressed DOF scales that almost make you question why they're there). One consideration peculiar to Fuji is that as a proprietary system, there is zero choice when it comes to optical or handling characteristics of lenses. Or bodies - and to bring the discussion full circle, a closed ecosystem means that no matter how good the optic is, you have to consider the baggage.

And on IQ, have you actually run the comparisons? I have tested the 21/4.5 Zeiss ZM (which is reportedly the worst lens for a digital camera) against my 14/2.8 Fujinon (which is Fuji's widest prime lens, and probably the best 90 degree lens made for digital). There is not much in the way of noticeable corner degradation with the ZM on an M typ 240, and by the time you downsample to match the X-Trans sensor's resolution, it's gone. Color shifts are sometimes an issue with wides, sometimes not, but the software for correcting this (even on the ZM) is faster than Adobe's straight up conversion of X-Trans files (I have a 4Ghz Retina 5K with 32Gb of RAM, and it still takes up to 5 seconds to render X-Trans files). What you can't correct, even given unlimited time, is the fact that a X camera with the 14 and a body won't fit in a coat pocket.

On the other hand, on a Leica, I mostly use a 21-35mm M-Hexanon Dual. Though a big lens for a Leica (it's actually the size of a 50mm f/2 except for the filter mount), I'm pretty sure is still smaller than my XF 14 (I'll measure it tonight), covers 24x36, acquits itself well at 24Mp, has two focal lengths, no corner or color shift issues, and actually has a usable DOF scale (actually, two of them).


A lot of this will boil down to individual preferences, but if Matt is right and this is really a DSLR-competing system (and having looked at Fuji's X-Pro press releases, they only say "comparable to a DSLR" in image quality), then it is not surprising that the X system will approach DSLR lens sizes. Maybe we all toiled under the misapprehension that because it looks like an RF, the X-Pro1 should be compared to one.

Dante
Click to expand...


I think what it boils down to is that you perceive the lenses as being large, I perceive them as being small. As someone who used canon L primes for a few years, the fujinons are both smaller, nicer to use and hold, and optically more dependable. When you compare the canon 14mm f2.8L, the 35mm f1.4L, and the 85mm f1.2L to the Fuji equivalents, they are around half the size and weight.

Compared to RF lenses it's true they are larger, but you factor in AF and consistent performance and it equalizes. IMO.
 
Dante_Stella said:
A lot of this will boil down to individual preferences, but if Matt is right and this is really a DSLR-competing system (and having looked at Fuji's X-Pro press releases, they only say "comparable to a DSLR" in image quality), then it is not surprising that the X system will approach DSLR lens sizes. Maybe we all toiled under the misapprehension that because it looks like an RF, the X-Pro1 should be compared to one.

Dante
Click to expand...

I know I did (in ref to bold text). But not once the X-T1 showed up, followed by XF versions of common dSLR focal length/aperture lenses. Alt dSLR all the way. I'd much rather haul and shoot X-T1 bodies and lenses than Canikon equivalents from a size/weight POV.

Now, the XP1 with the smaller XF primes is RF-like but pretty much only if we stay with f/2 or f/2.8 primes. I think it's encouraging that fuji's bringing the 35/2, showing its support for those who prefer that side of X-series gear.
 
gavinlg said:
I think what it boils down to is that you perceive the lenses as being large, I perceive them as being small. As someone who used canon L primes for a few years, the fujinons are both smaller, nicer to use and hold, and optically more dependable. When you compare the canon 14mm f2.8L, the 35mm f1.4L, and the 85mm f1.2L to the Fuji equivalents, they are around half the size and weight.

Compared to RF lenses it's true they are larger, but you factor in AF and consistent performance and it equalizes. IMO.
Click to expand...

Fair enough on the size/weight point; I mainly used my D700 with a 50/1.4D Nikkor (pretty small). My 17-35/2.8 did not come out much, nor did my 70-300VRII. So I don't have the backaches that comes with the big pro lenses. And I've certainly tolerated the size and weight of some monster all-metal Fuji RF MF cameras. But my hangup, at the end of the day, is probably more that there should be a direct relationship between sensor size and system size. Leicas are artificially small in that regard, and that kind of skews things.

MCTuomey said:
I know I did (in ref to bold text). But not once the X-T1 showed up, followed by XF versions of common dSLR focal length/aperture lenses. Alt dSLR all the way. I'd much rather haul and shoot X-T1 bodies and lenses than Canikon equivalents from a size/weight POV. Now, the XP1 with the smaller XF primes is RF-like but pretty much only if we stay with f/2 or f/2.8 primes. I think it's encouraging that fuji's bringing the 35/2, showing its support for those who prefer that side of X-series gear.
Click to expand...

The X-Pro1 was probably an anomaly in this. Like every Japanese Leica-mount or Leica-style system (CLE, Contax G, Konica Hexar RF), it came out with the holy trinity of 28-50ish-90mm focal lengths. I'm guessing that it was a total sales bomb (which would explain why new X-Pro1s are still out there) - and that management accelerated the move to add things that behaved (if not sized) more like the DX DSLRs that dominated the advanced amateur market. My guess is that the 35/2 is going to be a kit lens for the X-Pro2 and that it's a bone being tossed to the more nostalgic types. It's hard to beat Fuji optical performance in its price tier, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets kind of meh when it comes to the direction the line has taken (or was always taking).

Dante
 
no youre not the only one. ive never understood the 'small camera, big lens' concept. works for some, doesnt work for me. similar is happening even with m4/3 and the newer line of 2.8 zooms. totally out of balance with many of the bodies to the point of silly, imo.

still, each system does have a small coterie of sanely sized lenses that present very good optics in a balanced package for those who want 'em. just not all of 'em, but thats what i look for. as a separate point, i find it befuddeling how some can be so occupied with 'corner sharpness' way out there, by definition, in left field, while at the same time wholly overlook those xtrans mushy greens right in the middle of their frame! pardon the pun, but somethings not right with that picture! in the end we each see what we wanna see, nes pas?
 
FrankS said:
Wait! I just bought an XE2, and now there's an XE3 on the horizon? WTF?

Never had this obsolescence problem with my M2!


(Just joking)
Click to expand...

The xe2 is going to get a fw update by the end of this year that is similar to the fw 4.0 update that the xt1.. Fuji has not said what the exact feature list is yet. Just said by they would do it.

From the rumors flying around it looks like the xp2 is delayed to q1 of 2016, so an xe3 problem won't happen until next year.

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom