JRG
Well-known
That wasn't my point. A. Adams might very well have used zooms, had they been available. The point is that he did pretty well without them --- meaning, good landscape photography need not be put on hold until Fuji delivers those promised zoom lenses. And not every landscape phtographer is going to want those zooms once they are available.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I was joking -- making fun of the idea that if today's superb zooms had existed when Adams had been working, he would have eschewed them. I'm certain that he would have used them; he was a technophile through and through.
MaxElmar
Well-known
I would be a lot more impressed if the corners on the 18 and 35 didn't suck wind until f4+.... (according to Photozone.de) I thought it might be the software correction for the crazy barrel distortion on the 18 (4.8%!), but the 35 does it too. Can't beat 'em in the center, though....
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Max, with the possible exceptions of the Summicron ASPH 50 and the Summilux ASPH 50, nearly all 50 mm equivalent lenses are soft in the corners at full aperture. Especially at f/1.4 and larger. Note further that the MTFs published for the Leica lenses are NOT on-camera MTFs which will always be worse in the corners than MTFs acquired on an optical bench or through computation from the lens design.
These comparisons are thoroughly apples-and-oranges -- the things being measured are not remotely comparable.
Until you've done a side-by-side comparison of the actual lenses mounted on actual cameras, photographing exactly the same actual subjects at a variety of distances and contrast ratios, you simply can't say anything meaningful about the comparative resolution offered by these systems.
Note further that in low light, spatial resolution is generally sacrificed. Thus, photographing across a range of ISOs is also needed to fully grasp the field-usable resolution of an imaging chain.
With respect to the 18, it's an extremely lightweight pancake lens with an f/2 maximum aperture. Given those constraints, its performance is stellar especially in the near field (2-3m). It's obviously designed to be a reportage lens, not a landscape lens.
These comparisons are thoroughly apples-and-oranges -- the things being measured are not remotely comparable.
Until you've done a side-by-side comparison of the actual lenses mounted on actual cameras, photographing exactly the same actual subjects at a variety of distances and contrast ratios, you simply can't say anything meaningful about the comparative resolution offered by these systems.
Note further that in low light, spatial resolution is generally sacrificed. Thus, photographing across a range of ISOs is also needed to fully grasp the field-usable resolution of an imaging chain.
With respect to the 18, it's an extremely lightweight pancake lens with an f/2 maximum aperture. Given those constraints, its performance is stellar especially in the near field (2-3m). It's obviously designed to be a reportage lens, not a landscape lens.
N.delaRua
Well-known
Not only does their lens roadmap indicate their level of "getting it," but so does their dedications to including dials of importance i.e. shutter dial, aperture dial, and depth of field (on the 21 mm). That is staggering inovation in the epoch of the command wheel which can do everything well but nothing great.
I'll never forget when Nikon came out with the G series for professionals that lacked aperture rings and depth of field scales... So it seems like those things must no longer be important.
Digital cameras make photography appear a dark art only made possible by computers. A Pentak K1000 makes 18 newbies look like professional photographers.
I'll never forget when Nikon came out with the G series for professionals that lacked aperture rings and depth of field scales... So it seems like those things must no longer be important.
Digital cameras make photography appear a dark art only made possible by computers. A Pentak K1000 makes 18 newbies look like professional photographers.
willie_901
Veteran
I personally accept Fuji's publicly stated design decision for the X100 and XF lenses to optimize performance starting at f 4. My photographic goals can be met without excellent edge sharpness at wider apertures. I feel this is just part of a price-weight-performance compromise. I knew it before I ordered the system.
Of course others may find this compromise unacceptable.
The center sharpness is important to me as is a light, reasonably small, affordable lens.
Of course others may find this compromise unacceptable.
The center sharpness is important to me as is a light, reasonably small, affordable lens.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Fuji's got a good plan for lenses ... too many, really.
I wish I could get on with their cameras better. I just don't like the sensors or the camera bodies on the X10, X100 and Xpro1.
I wish I could get on with their cameras better. I just don't like the sensors or the camera bodies on the X10, X100 and Xpro1.
texchappy
Well-known
Godfrey, I'm curious why you say they might have too many lenses planned?
Herjulfr
Established
Also Godfrey, what is wrong with the sensor?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
One more thing about that 18. I was skeptical when I saw the initial reports. Now that I've shot more than a thousand frames with one, my skepticism is gone. It does what I need it to and then some. It's fast, it's sharp, its flare suppression is outstanding even when shooting into the sun, and it focuses quickly.
Is it a lens for ultimate sharpness in landscapes? No. Would I use it as part of a light, portable landscape kit? Without hesitation.
Is it a lens for ultimate sharpness in landscapes? No. Would I use it as part of a light, portable landscape kit? Without hesitation.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
That's an awful lot of lenses to develop and put in production in just two years. They could be rushing it.
Also, I don't see the point of so many lenses of such similar focal lengths, pushed to the market all at once.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The Fuji EXR sensor, with it's unusual mosaic pattern, is quite difficult to write a good demoniac/chroma conversion algorithm for. And, to me anyway, the jury is still out as to whether it can be done to any great advantage over a more standard sensor which is easier to write good conversion software for.
This developer's blog site articulates and demonstrates some of the challenges:
http://chromasoft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/demosaicing-fuji-x-pro1-and-its-x-trans.html
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2012/05/demosaicing-fuji-x-pro1-part-2.html
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2012/05/demosaicing-fuji-x-pro1-part-3.html
His raw processor is quite good, and his other software (CornerFix, etc) is also quite good. He seems to know what he's talking about.
Basically, I'm quite leery of 'exotic' solutions to imaging problems. Experience has shown me that often the simple solution is the most robust.
Huh? Explain further please...
gavinlg
Veteran
To be honest the 'issues' people talk about are kinda ridiculous to me - like color runs on text viewed at 100% - that will never ever be an issue in any kind of real world photography unless you're doing copy work. Which I don't.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
That's not 'ridiculous', it's just not significant to your needs. I understand that. And if I found Fuji's ergonomics and feel to my liking, I'd probably not be too worried about the sensor issues either, as long as I could get the results out of it.
But I just don't like their cameras much to begin with. I've tried a couple and they just don't make me all that enthused.
david.elliott
Well-known
Fuji really does get a lot right with this series. I've used my kit sparingly but have really enjoyed. Still, I find myself considering selling the camera, lenses, and accessories because I just prefer film (except for macro work).