Pablito
coco frío
Anyone experience severe lens flare with the x100s?
Seems to be very bad when the light source is off in the extreme left of the image. Not bad flare at all when the light source is towards the middle of the image, just a little loss in contrast. Using lens hood 100% of the time.
Seems to be very bad when the light source is off in the extreme left of the image. Not bad flare at all when the light source is towards the middle of the image, just a little loss in contrast. Using lens hood 100% of the time.
willie_901
Veteran
Sure the X100 always does this when bright, point-source lights are in the frame. The angle seems to be the primary factor. Aperture does not matter. It's not caused by overexposure. But if the lights are clipped the ghosting appears bigger just because the the object causing the ghosting is bright. The ghosting pattern remains asymmetrical. The lens shade has no effect.
A lens filter could make this worse. I never used a filter so I know filters are not a primary cause. I think a smudge on the lens might make things worse.
I think reducing shutter time or narrowing aperture is the only tactic to minimize the ghosting. With less exposure the ghosting becomes fainter and smaller.
This aspect of the 23/2 lens is partly why I sold my X100 after I used the 23/1.4 for a few weeks. But the main reason I sold the X100 was I like to use other focal lengths and I knew the X100 would just sit on the shelf 90% of the time. I am not bashing the X100. I have nothing but fond feelings for this camera. I started using it 1 week after the initial US release. Once I learned the camera I really enjoyed using it. I had work from the X100 accepted in juried shows. I shot candids at a family wedding reception and made some great memories. The newest firmware only made a very good camera great.
This ghosting never ruined a photograph for me. At worst it was a minor distraction. Most of the time it was very small. I never felt it was "very bad". But the point-source ghosting is a characteristic of the 23/2 lens. To me, the strong red-green color fringing in out of focus regions I saw with Nikkor G4 primes is much more frustrating.
A lens filter could make this worse. I never used a filter so I know filters are not a primary cause. I think a smudge on the lens might make things worse.
I think reducing shutter time or narrowing aperture is the only tactic to minimize the ghosting. With less exposure the ghosting becomes fainter and smaller.
This aspect of the 23/2 lens is partly why I sold my X100 after I used the 23/1.4 for a few weeks. But the main reason I sold the X100 was I like to use other focal lengths and I knew the X100 would just sit on the shelf 90% of the time. I am not bashing the X100. I have nothing but fond feelings for this camera. I started using it 1 week after the initial US release. Once I learned the camera I really enjoyed using it. I had work from the X100 accepted in juried shows. I shot candids at a family wedding reception and made some great memories. The newest firmware only made a very good camera great.
This ghosting never ruined a photograph for me. At worst it was a minor distraction. Most of the time it was very small. I never felt it was "very bad". But the point-source ghosting is a characteristic of the 23/2 lens. To me, the strong red-green color fringing in out of focus regions I saw with Nikkor G4 primes is much more frustrating.
Pablito
coco frío
Like you said, a lot depends on the angle.
In a few photos it's been really bad and has actually ruined the photos.
Very disappointing as this is a great camera for covering certain types of events, especially as it can be set to be totally silent and other than the lens flare does very well in low light. The 35mm equivalent focal length is just perfect for me. But the 24mm Zeiss 1.8 lens for Sony NEX is much better behaved. It's just that the NEX bodies have a loud shutter, and no optical viewfinder of course.
In a few photos it's been really bad and has actually ruined the photos.
Very disappointing as this is a great camera for covering certain types of events, especially as it can be set to be totally silent and other than the lens flare does very well in low light. The 35mm equivalent focal length is just perfect for me. But the 24mm Zeiss 1.8 lens for Sony NEX is much better behaved. It's just that the NEX bodies have a loud shutter, and no optical viewfinder of course.
I just shoot one handed while using my hand to block out the sun in these situations. There is always a solution (even if not ideal).
rbelyell
Well-known
willie_901
Veteran
The ghosting happens most often with night scenes where extremely bright point-source lights are at certain angles to the lens. For instance street lights and car headlights would be problematic. The larger the light source, the less likely you are to see this ghosting. A very bright shop window at night does not cause the problem. But a bright street light near the window will.
I could never find a solution except to decrease exposure. Decreasing exposure does not eliminate the ghosting artifact. Instead it only decreases the brightness and size of the ghosting artifact. The artifact is not caused by overloading the sensor sites. It is a lens either a lens artifact or an unusual reflection artifact caused by the extremely short lens to sensor distance or the inhomogenous color filter array micro lens angles used to minimize edge smearing, color shifts and vignetting that can arise with shorter focal length lenses.
Pablito
coco frío
Willie 901 describes the phenomenon quite accurately.
Can't decrease exposure without making the image underexposed!
I'll try to post some images but I'll have to block out the faces (for professional reasons...sorry)
Can't decrease exposure without making the image underexposed!
I'll try to post some images but I'll have to block out the faces (for professional reasons...sorry)
Pablito
coco frío
I am posting samples here.
Look in the upper left of each photo to see the issues.
There is always a light source coming from behind, but it does not even have to be visible.
In photo 1 it was a wall sconce behind the woman's head. In photos 2 and 3 it was a bright window.
Look in the upper left of each photo to see the issues.
There is always a light source coming from behind, but it does not even have to be visible.
In photo 1 it was a wall sconce behind the woman's head. In photos 2 and 3 it was a bright window.
Attachments
Pablito
coco frío
Wondering if other have had similar problems.
willie_901
Veteran
Here's some examples.
This is the closest to your results.
I think the flare you see is related to the the flare from the light just out of the frame in the upper left hand corner. But, notice the halo ghosting around the bright lights on the right about 1/3 of the way down from the top. This is the ghosting artifact I discussed earlier in this thread.
Thiese ghosting artifacts are very obvious in this photo,
Look at the second light pole from the left in the second photograph. Only one of these bright lights has halo ghosting. This demonstrates how sensitive the ghosting artifact is to the angle.
Here's another example without any ghosting. But these point source lights are not as bright.
However there is flare from the lights just out of the frame on the right. This flare is different than the ghosting and I think it is the sort of flare that affected your results.
This final example demonstrates how the light source size affects the ghosting.
Look at the second light pole from the right. The ghosting is huge compared to the light source. Even though the light to the right right is closer to the frame edge, the source is larger and the ghosting is reduced.
The last photo also has flare from the bright lights at the upper left hand edge of the frame. This flare is also different than the ghosting and I think it is the sort of flare that affected your results.
Here is one last example.
In all cases I used the OEM lens hood without a lens filter. The aperture was f 2 or f 2.8. However I have seen similar results at narrower apertures.
This is the closest to your results.
I think the flare you see is related to the the flare from the light just out of the frame in the upper left hand corner. But, notice the halo ghosting around the bright lights on the right about 1/3 of the way down from the top. This is the ghosting artifact I discussed earlier in this thread.
Thiese ghosting artifacts are very obvious in this photo,
Look at the second light pole from the left in the second photograph. Only one of these bright lights has halo ghosting. This demonstrates how sensitive the ghosting artifact is to the angle.
Here's another example without any ghosting. But these point source lights are not as bright.
However there is flare from the lights just out of the frame on the right. This flare is different than the ghosting and I think it is the sort of flare that affected your results.
This final example demonstrates how the light source size affects the ghosting.
Look at the second light pole from the right. The ghosting is huge compared to the light source. Even though the light to the right right is closer to the frame edge, the source is larger and the ghosting is reduced.
The last photo also has flare from the bright lights at the upper left hand edge of the frame. This flare is also different than the ghosting and I think it is the sort of flare that affected your results.
Here is one last example.
In all cases I used the OEM lens hood without a lens filter. The aperture was f 2 or f 2.8. However I have seen similar results at narrower apertures.
N.delaRua
Well-known
@Willie most of your examples, except for the first, look like coma. Stopping down should improve the "ghosting" of sharp light points, but it might take more than 1 or 2 f-stops. A lens hood cannot protect against coma as a lens's propensisty to flare is inherent to its physical design.
Here is a good example of coma:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12-coma.htm
Regardless, it does seem the Fuji X100 and s lens flares, and some people have been keen to use it creatively, but it does suck when you just want a nice representative picture. Moving to change the angle of the light or using your hand as an even bigger hood is probably the best bet in really flare prone situations.
The good news is you can review the image. My 50 DR summicron can flare pretty easy, but I don't find out till I get the negatives back!
Here is a good example of coma:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12-coma.htm
Regardless, it does seem the Fuji X100 and s lens flares, and some people have been keen to use it creatively, but it does suck when you just want a nice representative picture. Moving to change the angle of the light or using your hand as an even bigger hood is probably the best bet in really flare prone situations.
The good news is you can review the image. My 50 DR summicron can flare pretty easy, but I don't find out till I get the negatives back!
f16sunshine
Moderator
I have noticed some flare in the corners at times as well as a bit of ghosting but nothing as severe (if one can even say that) as the ghosting in the horse track shots above ^^.
I've picked up one of these shades for the Pentax 40mm limited. Just comparing with how much light hits the element surface from different angles , between the OEM shade and this one I the Pentax seems to protect much better.
Look at the image below. The light source was at 1:00. You can see how the shadow of the shade covers most of the front element. With the OEM hood it would leave much more exposed to direct light.
Pardon the iPhone image
Here the sun was right at the very left edge of the image. It's hard to complain about how the lens held up. A bit of hazy flare but no blow out. Look closely at the sunflower heads. They are still mostly intact with detail.
I use my left hand outstretched viewing via the evf to shade the lens in these cases.
I do the same with my RF, SLR's, and TLR's. Having the EVF just gives a real time view of effectiveness (as does an SLR).
I've picked up one of these shades for the Pentax 40mm limited. Just comparing with how much light hits the element surface from different angles , between the OEM shade and this one I the Pentax seems to protect much better.
Look at the image below. The light source was at 1:00. You can see how the shadow of the shade covers most of the front element. With the OEM hood it would leave much more exposed to direct light.
Pardon the iPhone image
Here the sun was right at the very left edge of the image. It's hard to complain about how the lens held up. A bit of hazy flare but no blow out. Look closely at the sunflower heads. They are still mostly intact with detail.
I use my left hand outstretched viewing via the evf to shade the lens in these cases.
I do the same with my RF, SLR's, and TLR's. Having the EVF just gives a real time view of effectiveness (as does an SLR).
FA Limited
missing in action
Sam N
Well-known
If you have the OEM hood or the JJC hood you can simply buy a 49mm->29mm step-down ring from ebay and attach it to the screw-in part of the original hood. It doesn't block your OVF nearly as much, makes the whole camera smaller, and is more effective as a hood. I've tested it and there is no vignetting caused.
Pablito
coco frío
Very interesting, folks, thanks. Using my left hand to shade the lens is not really an option in the sort of work I need this camera for, which is fast and spontaneous. The alternative hoods look like a possibility.
Pablito
coco frío
Ordered a generic version of the Pentax hood from amazon - a fraction of the price of the Pentax. We shall see.
Pablito
coco frío
So the generic version of the Pentax hood was not well made. The threads were crude and the thing only screwed in about one eighth of a turn. Sent it back without testing for flare- ordered the Pentax-made hood.
Edit: Pentax hood fits much better.
Edit: Pentax hood fits much better.
tomnrides
Established
"Edit: Pentax hood fits much better."
Does the hood work better in reducing the flair?
Does the hood work better in reducing the flair?