Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 … 39 40 41 … 90 91 end

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.40 #1 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

The last one is great, although I would give it is tiny bit more air at the top.

Jan 22, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Brody LeBlanc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.40 #2 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

Green Chair - Fujifilm X-Pro1 by brodyl.91, on Flickr

Jan 23, 2013 at 12:43 AM

KatieInTexas
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.40 #3 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

HAHAHA - what the heck is tuck tape? Sounds naughty; but I'm sure it's some kind of upholstery product.

Jan 23, 2013 at 01:23 AM

KatieInTexas
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.40 #4 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

Ok. Need help. I used my new-to-me M mount adapter and the CV 21mm lens today while out on a walk. I am noticing something disturbing ... if you'll look at the RIGHT corner of these images, they are really OOF and wonky looking. I don't know if that is called "smearing" or just shitty focus, but it's totally unacceptable to me. Just so you know, I had "barrel distortion" correction set to medium. Could that be it? Why would it only be on ONE side? Could I have had it mounted wrong/loose? The right side of the lens is the side that slides over the lever/locking mechanism, so maybe it didn't latch all the way?

UGH. Now I have to do some experimenting again.

Glad I did this test. I planned to use it on TWO different shoots tomorrow. Um, not now!

All these were shot RAW and processed in LR4. UNCROPPED.

2013 © KatieInTexas

X-Pro1 21 mm f/1.0 1/140 sec 200 ISO 0.0 EV

2013 © KatieInTexas

this is the one I noticed it in first
X-Pro1 21 mm f/1.0 1/150 sec 200 ISO 0.0 EV

2013 © KatieInTexas

X-Pro1 21 mm f/1.0 1/320 sec 200 ISO 0.0 EV

2013 © KatieInTexas

just to show it's not a backlighting thing - this is totally front lit by sunset
X-Pro1 21 mm f/1.0 1/70 sec 200 ISO 0.0 EV

2013 © KatieInTexas

X-Pro1 21 mm f/1.0 1/170 sec 400 ISO 0.0 EV

Jan 23, 2013 at 01:29 AM

KatieInTexas
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.40 #5 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

Gawd, they almost look like they got progressively worse with each shot! These are all in order as shot, by the way. The last two right corners look way worse than the first few...

I also regularly use this lens on a film body and sucessfully handhold it at VERY low shutter speeds. I'm gonna go back to my last film roll with this lens and check it out.

Jan 23, 2013 at 01:32 AM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.40 #6 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

KatieInTexas wrote:
Gawd, they almost look like they got progressively worse with each shot! These are all in order as shot, by the way. The last two right corners look way worse than the first few...

I also regularly use this lens on a film body and sucessfully handhold it at VERY low shutter speeds. I'm gonna go back to my last film roll with this lens and check it out.

that does look like smearing, though probably exacerbated by an off center or uneven adapter. that lens is supposed to be one of the worst offenders when it comes to corner shift and smearing on mirrorless cameras. it definitely shouldn't be that bad on a good adapter.

does the adapter feel loose at all? also, were some of these focused closer to infinity than others?

Jan 23, 2013 at 01:36 AM

KatieInTexas
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.40 #7 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

Hmmm, now that I think about those shots, I do think they were all at or quite near infinity (which is pretty easy to use on the 21mm lens). The adapter or lens wasn't wobbly, but this was the first time I mounted it. I took it off and remounted it to see if I could have done it wrong ... and I also turned the barrel distortion correction off.

I looked back at my last roll on the R4A with this lens, and all corners are sharp as hell. I am attaching an image where this right corner smear isn't so evident. It is also coincidentally not focused at or near infinity.

Do you think I might have gone past infinity or something? I wish I could remember which apertures I shot these at. If I recall I started at f/8, went to 5.6 and finished at 4 (as the light faded). Could shooting wide open at infinity cause this (but why only on one side?)?

THANK YOU SEBBOH!

2013 © KatieInTexas

please note the slow shutter speed, but I don't think the right side is like the others
X-Pro1 21 mm f/1.0 1/20 sec 200 ISO 0.0 EV

2013 © KatieInTexas

excuse the comp (but note the right side is not bad) we walked down to the RV park down by the river and he refused to walk anymore (little brat).
X-Pro1 21 mm f/1.0 1/70 sec 200 ISO 0.0 EV

Jan 23, 2013 at 02:04 AM

jjf88
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.40 #8 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

Well this camera is quite the beast. Just picked it up. Getting used to it. Here is a ISO 6400 with the 18mm at f2 . A loaner car from the dealer. Cool car. This really is quite impressive at 6400. Hope they release the 70 200 soon. Always wanted a rangefinder, this might just be the answer

2013 © jjf88

X-Pro1 18 mm f/2.0 1/50 sec 6400 ISO 0.0 EV

Jan 23, 2013 at 05:41 AM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.40 #9 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

KatieInTexas wrote:
Hmmm, now that I think about those shots, I do think they were all at or quite near infinity (which is pretty easy to use on the 21mm lens). The adapter or lens wasn't wobbly, but this was the first time I mounted it. I took it off and remounted it to see if I could have done it wrong ... and I also turned the barrel distortion correction off.

I looked back at my last roll on the R4A with this lens, and all corners are sharp as hell. I am attaching an image where this right corner smear isn't so evident. It is also coincidentally not focused at or near infinity.

Do you think I might have gone past infinity or something? I wish I could remember which apertures I shot these at. If I recall I started at f/8, went to 5.6 and finished at 4 (as the light faded). Could shooting wide open at infinity cause this (but why only on one side?)?

THANK YOU SEBBOH!

cover glass on the sensor seems to dramatically increase astigmatism in the voigtlander skopars on the fuji cameras. it still shouldn't be that bad though and it shouldn't be that asymmetrical. i'd take a few shots at various focus distances and see how repeatable it is.

Jan 23, 2013 at 05:58 AM

Emacs
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.40 #10 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

jjf88 wrote:This really is quite impressive at 6400.
But this is about the ISO3200 of most other cameras, so don't flatter yourself

Jan 23, 2013 at 06:05 AM

ceder
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.40 #11 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

chris78cpr - thanks!

KatieInTexas - your photos with the 35 were OK, so has to be the adapter or lens. Some smearing wide open would be expected, but not this much!

Jan 23, 2013 at 11:25 AM

KatieInTexas
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.40 #12 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

Ok ... humor me here. I did some testing and came to some conclusions - and also have some questions.

First, I switched to shooting jpeg. Images are way sharper. Bummer. I'll be shooting jpeg until something better happens with LR4. (no, I'm not interesting in trying out anything else for now)

Second, I tested some other lenses with the M adapter. Since I bought it pre-owned (from the forum) I thought it might have been the adapter. Nope, don't think so. I slapped the CV Ultron 28 1.9 on there and wide open, it had some smearing; but by 5.6 it was virtually gone. Good to know. When it did occur though, it was heavily favored on the right hand side. Weird. Next, I put my old industar 61LD (basically a 50mm) on there and it didn't smear AT ALL. Weirder. So - it seems that wide open shooting with side angles will get me smeared - but shooting in jpeg will help some, as the image is overall sharper. BUT, haven't tested this back out with the 21mm lens yet. Will do that this afternoon. (21mm - jpeg - min app 5.6)

Now, the questions.

JPEG - do you have any favorite custom settings for this? I read somewhere that some people do -2 on noise correction and +2 on sharpen ... anything with DR or highlight stuff or anything?

Adapted lenses (MOSTLY AIMED AT BRODY) I am interested in the CV 15mm, and am wondering if you have had the smearing issue with this lens. I would like it to use on both the XP1 and my film body. Also, it's way cheaper than the upcoming 14mm (although testing on that lens looks pretty spectacular).

Thanks for humoring me on this! I will be using the XP1 and 35mm on a few shoots, so hopefully I'll have something decent to post soon!

Jan 23, 2013 at 05:26 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.40 #13 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

KatieInTexas wrote:
Second, I tested some other lenses with the M adapter. Since I bought it pre-owned (from the forum) I thought it might have been the adapter. Nope, don't think so. I slapped the CV Ultron 28 1.9 on there and wide open, it had some smearing; but by 5.6 it was virtually gone. Good to know. When it did occur though, it was heavily favored on the right hand side. Weird. Next, I put my old industar 61LD (basically a 50mm) on there and it didn't smear AT ALL. Weirder. So - it seems that wide open shooting with side angles will get me smeared - but shooting in jpeg will help some, as the image is overall sharper. BUT, haven't tested this back out with the 21mm lens yet. Will do that this afternoon. (21mm - jpeg - min app 5.6)

those results make sense. wide angle rangefinders tend to produce corner smearing because they tend to be much less telecentric. both those lenses would be expected to produce some smearing with the 21 being worse. the industar shouldn't produce any smearing or at least not a very noticeable amount as it is a much more telecentric lens. the fact that both the lenses seem to have worse smearing on the right side indicates that the adapter is probably a little off center. wide angles are much more sensitive to an out of spec adapter than telephotos.

Jan 23, 2013 at 05:41 PM

Thom
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.40 #14 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

First night out with the X-E1 and 18mm in my jacket pocket. It's a joy to carry something less than a FF DSLR finally.

2013 © Thom

X-E1 18 mm f/2.0 1/30 sec 4000 ISO 0.0 EV

2013 © Thom

X-E1 18 mm f/2.0 1/30 sec 3200 ISO 0.0 EV

2013 © Thom

X-E1 18 mm f/2.0 1/25 sec 6400 ISO 0.0 EV

Jan 23, 2013 at 07:02 PM

ceder
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.40 #15 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

Norwegian wood

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Edited on Jan 23, 2013 at 07:26 PM · View previous versions

Jan 23, 2013 at 07:19 PM

Kit Laughlin
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.40 #16 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

@ Katie in Texas: that RHS issue you are having with the CV lens has to be the adapter, no? It can only go on the camera one way, I am assuming. Do you have a micrometer that you can measure the thickness one side vs. the other?

If that lens is sharp on another camera edge to edge, I would be thinking adapter, not anything in the new camera (assuming that other lenses on the same body are sharp edge to edge).

If it's the camera, all lenses will exhibit this behaviour; if it's the lens, then the same behaviour would be expected on different cameras, I feel.

I have zero problems with the CV 12/5.6 on the Fuji M-X adapter, BTW.

Jan 23, 2013 at 07:20 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.40 #17 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

Kit Laughlin wrote:
@ Katie in Texas: that RHS issue you are having with the CV lens has to be the adapter, no? It can only go on the camera one way, I am assuming. Do you have a micrometer that you can measure the thickness one side vs. the other?

If that lens is sharp on another camera edge to edge, I would be thinking adapter, not anything in the new camera (assuming that other lenses on the same body are sharp edge to edge).

If it's the camera, all lenses will exhibit this behaviour; if it's the lens, then the same behaviour would be expected on different cameras, I feel.

I have zero problems with the CV 12/5.6 on the Fuji M-X adapter, BTW.

a number of rangefinder wides are known to have corner smearing issues on fuji due to astigmatism caused by sensor cover glass. how much depends on how telecentric the lenses is. the lack of symmetry does indicate an adapter problem though. fyi – the cv 12/5.6 is much more telecentric than the cv 21/4 and also has much less corner issue on the µ4/3 and NEX than the cv 21/4.

Jan 23, 2013 at 07:27 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.40 #18 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

beautiful shot ceder!

Jan 23, 2013 at 07:28 PM

ceder
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.40 #19 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

@ Katie in Texas: I neither have any problem with my Fuji M-X adapter, but maybe you should go to the store and test your lens on another adapter and another camera to verify.

Regarding Lightroom, it is crappy at Fuji X files. Use Silkypix or Capture One, see http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1182632/0#11275307

Jan 23, 2013 at 07:30 PM

Kit Laughlin
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.40 #20 · Fujifilm X-Pro1 & XE-1 Image Thread

@ sebboh: thanks; I am familiar with the effect you mention, but that does not explain the asymmetry, as you say. If astigmatism is the cause, it will affect both left and right sides equally.

When you wrote how much depends on how telecentric the lenses is, did you mean that the more telecentric the lens design is the less this will be a problem?

And can you point me to any reference re. telecentricity of the 12/5.6 design; that's interesting. I can say that this lens performed perfectly on the Ricoh GXR and performs perfectly on the X-E1. And how does the CV 15/4.5 stack up in this sense?

Jan 23, 2013 at 08:07 PM

1 2 3 … 39 40 41 … 90 91 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 39 40 41 … 90 91 end