One BIG disappointment

So this is how it goes. The framelines do change, somewhat.

From 18mm to 28mm, the magnifier is at the wide view. 18mm is the full frame, and the framelines change by changing the focal length number.

If you select the focal length 35mm, the magnifier will change and there will be framelines at 35mm. Beyond 35mm there are no framelines. It allows you to use the optical viewfinder up to about 60mm. By 70mm, it insists that you use the EVF.
 
jsrockit said:
I thought the adapter was due in April?
Click to expand...

If that's the case I'll be happy, I was under the understanding that it wasn't going to be due until about 6 months after the release of the camera.

That said, I've been wrong with previous information (look how wrong I was at my belief that the camera itself would take a bit longer - like mid April - to be in stock in North America) so I can certainly imagine me being incorrect with respect to Fuji's release date on their adapter.

Cheers,
Dave
 
noimmunity said:
Fuji showed an M-XF adapter already nearly two months ago.

I think it was first reported on a French site:
http://www.focus-numerique.com/cp-2012-monter-optiques-leica-pro1-est-possible-news-3086.html

We're all looking forward to its release!

There is also the eventual adapter coming from Hawk Peng, that will allow close focusing. I'm pretty excited about using that one!
Click to expand...


My guess is there'll be another "One BIG disappointment" thread started when photographers start using M lenses in larger numbers on this camera.

All save those who shoot very fast lenses wide open up close 100% of the time.
 
Adanac said:
My guess is there'll be another "One BIG disappointment" thread started when photographers start using M lenses in larger numbers on this camera.

All save those who shoot very fast lenses wide open up close 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, if people expect sharp performance corner-to-corner, they could be very disappointed.
 
noimmunity said:
Yes, if people expect sharp performance corner-to-corner, they could be very disappointed.
Click to expand...

I always wondered about that - why "corners" seem to be so critical to some folks - maybe to landscape folks? - My subject matter is rarely in the corners of the image...

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
I always wondered about that - why "corners" seem to be so critical to some folks - maybe to landscape folks? - My subject matter is rarely in the corners of the image...

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

I know what you mean.

With a lens like the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar in LTM, that thing is designed to have lovely soft corners relative to the exceptional sharpness on center.

Sean Reid makes a compelling case that sotfness at the edges can be used to great effect, effectively drawing the gaze towards the central theme.
 
I was asked to show some photos of the fujinon 18 for the purpose of assessing corner to corner sharpness particularly at infinity (or close).

So I tried to think of a subject to shoot, which would be corner-to-corner in the same plane of focus (ie in the same distance from me) it would have comparable detail in center and corner, it would be far away from me and still big enough to fill the 18mm frame.

Couldnt think of anything that didnt involve 2 hours of driving and gave up. Thats how relevant corner sharpness is to my shooting 😛
 
dcsang said:
I always wondered about that - why "corners" seem to be so critical to some folks - maybe to landscape folks? - My subject matter is rarely in the corners of the image...
Click to expand...

For me, my lenses are capable of achieving good sharpness edge to edge even on full frame cameras; maybe the capability isn't used all the time, but that capability does indeed get used and certainly not just for distant landscapes at infinity.

The issue isn't just slightly soft corners on the X Pro 1 nor is the problem limited to infinity focus. Some RF lens/camera combos look truly awful. In the case of the X-Pro 1, I've seen examples where detail smearing started with some M lenses quite far into the frame and was noticeable even at web resolutions and size, not just when pixel peeping or if images were to be printed large. If the effect causes a relatively small web image to not look right, chances are it will affect more folks than just that subset which does a lot of landscape or architectural photography.

The native XF35 looks great; probably I'd even like the 60. They aren't expensive so using native lenses is an option.

But not all the native lenses turn my crank. I don't like the Fujifilm XF18 and I can't put my known to be excellent M mount 18 on it without detail being put askew like a bad prescription for astigmatism, leaving me with no compact alternative (this is a compact system after all, it does matter) but maybe a bigger and heavier SLR 18mm would be immune to the problem but along that route the camera is looking less and less practical. Likewise a 24 or 25mm solution isn't available today and I can't use my terrific ZM25 on it.

In short, the camera feels like a step backwards, for me, if I want to use it with my rangefinder lenses. With native lenses only? Attractive but just not enough for me to overcome the objection of not being able to repurpose my RF glass on it too.
 
Adanac said:
For me, my lenses are capable of achieving good sharpness edge to edge even on full frame cameras; maybe the capability isn't used all the time, but that capability does indeed get used and certainly not just for distant landscapes at infinity.
Click to expand...

Leaving the X-Pro1 aside I'm curious about this.

When does the capability to get "good sharpness edge to edge" get used and what for?

Thanks,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
Leaving the X-Pro1 aside I'm curious about this.

When does the capability to get "good sharpness edge to edge" get used and what for?
Click to expand...

Well I use it a lot for architecture and landscapes currently, on a 5D that is. That was part of the reason for using a 24/f3.5 TSE, which for my needs is the best wideangle there is. Bulky but then this is more of a replacement for a medium format system, with added movements. Together with the tilt-shift the "good sharpness edge to edge" thing really makes sense, even though I wish it would focus past infinity.

I wouldn't bother with it for portraiture or street or cat shots.
 
That's what I would figure - for landscapes (and I neglected architecture since there are, to the best of my knowledge, no tilt/shift lenses in m-mount).

For someone who's main subject(s) is/are people I don't know how important an edge-to-edge sharpness would really be. I would concur that, now bringing the X-Pro1 back to the conversation, if there is really really bad smearing going on, so much so that it impedes the viewing of the centre of the image, that it's probably not a good idea to be using that legacy lens on the camera. But for myself, if it's just the corners, I won't be "as concerned" as I would be if it were the centre of the image.

Cheers,
Dave
 
For some portraits, one doesn't even want sharp centers. I include myself in that group. 🙂

The question for me isn't really about sharp/unsharp. It's more related to how large of an image is going to be created, and viewing distance. Yes, if one pixel peeps it's easy to find flaws but unless one is creating wall sized images and looking at them from two feet away, the lack of sharpness is not necessarily evident. And thirdly, is the viewer going to be looking at the merits of the photograph itself, or the technical qualities of the image?
 
Have a look at this test of the 18, unsharpened crops at f8 and f11
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1100128

plenty sharp in my book, softens a bit at f16 because of diffraction

However, to be honest, for landscape shots where you'll be carrying a tripod anyway, I dont know why anyone would bother with a lens whose main advantages are f2, AF and 100gr of weight.
Why not get a massive retrofocus SLR lens like a Zeiss ZE or a Nikon.
In fact, I dont think many of those shooters will bother with a lightweight system like the FujiX anyway, most will stick with their full frame SLRs and MF/LF film cameras.
 
Spyro said:
Have a look at this test of the 18, unsharpened crops at f8 and f11
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1100128

plenty sharp in my book, softens a bit at f16 because of diffraction

However, to be honest, for landscape shots where you'll be carrying a tripod anyway, I dont know why anyone would bother with a lens whose main advantages are f2, AF and 100gr of weight.
Why not get a massive retrofocus SLR lens like a Zeiss ZE or a Nikon.
In fact, I dont think many of those shooters will bother with a lightweight system like the FujiX anyway, most will stick with their full frame SLRs and MF/LF film cameras.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I'd want this to complement my SLR-and-tripod setup for landscapes, architecture and slow portraiture, to have something light with a the equivalent of a 21 and a 50. If I can sometimes put the oddball LTM lens in front of it I won't mind either. For that it looks alright, and Fuji seems to have a surprisingly good track record of ironing out early quirks (judging by the X100).
 
jsrockit said:
Some of us compose with the whole frame and don't just center everything.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about "centring" everything.

If you are not shooting landscapes or architecture, why are the corners "important" - it's more a curiosity than anything else really.

Many of my portraits shot in landscape mode have the subject off centre but, obviously, not up in one corner or the other, so to me, corners don't seem to be that important yet I continue to see people complain or bemoan the fact that "corners are soft" and immediately dismiss a lens (or in this case a camera) because of it.

I don't see, as of yet, for those that do not shoot landscapes or architecture a compelling argument why corner sharpness must be critical.

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
I never said anything about "centring" everything.

If you are not shooting landscapes or architecture, why are the corners "important" - it's more a curiosity than anything else really.

Many of my portraits shot in landscape mode have the subject off centre but, obviously, not up in one corner or the other, so to me, corners don't seem to be that important yet I continue to see people complain or bemoan the fact that "corners are soft" and immediately dismiss a lens (or in this case a camera) because of it.

I don't see, as of yet, for those that do not shoot landscapes or architecture a compelling argument why corner sharpness must be critical.

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

I make photos of a lot of store fronts and windows... where there is a lot of info edge to edge... a lot of text mostly on the same plane. Most lenses are fine for this for my needs (especially Zeiss C-Biogon and Planar), however, a few haven't been (Perar). Some lenses the soft corners go way out into the frame (Elmar).

Not everyone photographs the same way and people's needs vary. Just because one person thinks that soft corners are no big deal, other's may disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom