Fujifilm X-mount Image Thread
/forum/topic/1097477/4

1       2       3       4      
5
       6              579       580       end

bigkidneys
Registered: Jun 26, 2010
Total Posts: 1012
Country: United States

I personally think the EVF on the 7 is much better but I hate the cup. The rounded cup on the Xpro1 seems better to me. There is some lag with the EVF on the fuji occasionally but as I mentioned, have always been able to to hit focus with no problem. Although I like what I get from the 7 files (not an expert or pro), I have to do less with the Fuji files compared to the 7. Of course this is most likely due to the fact I shoot jpg with the fuji and raw with the 7. Comparing jpg to jpg, the Fuji is hands down much better IMO. Yeah, the 35 is the real deal! Although slower, the 60 is very nice too. I have an older EBC Fuji 50/1.4 M42 lens I plan on shooting all week to see what I get. Having shot it occasionally over the past 2 weeks I really like it but I still prefer AF if I can get it. Never an issue with AF in EVF mode but using the OVF, focus is spotty AFA focusing on the wrong thing. With the EVF, you can reduce the AF box size much smaller than the OVF which I think may have a small part in it.



olelovold
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 157
Country: United Kingdom









All with the 18mm.



deadwolfbones
Registered: Feb 22, 2010
Total Posts: 2786
Country: United States

olelovold wrote:


All with the 18mm.


This is a great example of what the 18 does really well.



Brody LeBlanc
Registered: Oct 04, 2007
Total Posts: 1052
Country: Canada

deadwolfbones wrote:
olelovold wrote:

All with the 18mm.


This is a great example of what the 18 does really well.


I was thinking the exact same thing. I feel like Fuji really had an understanding of who was going to be buying this camera and what sort of conditions the camera would be shot in. The 18mm does a great job of capturing enviromental portraits.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6261
Country: United States

bigkidneys wrote:
I personally think the EVF on the 7 is much better but I hate the cup. The rounded cup on the Xpro1 seem better to me. There is some lag with the EVF on the fuji occasionally but as I mentioned, have always been able to to hit focus with no problem. Although I like what I get from the 7 files (not an expert or pro), I have to do less with the Fuji files compared to the 7. Of course this is most likely the fact I shoot jpg with the fuji and raw with the 7. Comparing jpg to jpg, the Fuji is hands down much better IMO. Yeah, the 35 is the real deal! Although slower, the 60 is very nice too. I have an older EBC Fuji 50/1.4 M42 lens I plan on shooting all week to see what I get. Having shot it occasionally over the past 2 weeks I really like it but I still prefer AF if I can get it. Never an issue with AF in EVF mode but using the OVF, focus is spotty in focusing on the wrong thing. With the EVF, you can reduce the AF box size much smaller than the OVF which I think may have one small part in it.


You might try removing the cup. Once I did that, the NEX-7 EVF worked SO much better for me.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6261
Country: United States

Brody LeBlanc wrote:
deadwolfbones wrote:
olelovold wrote:

All with the 18mm.


This is a great example of what the 18 does really well.


I was thinking the exact same thing. I feel like Fuji really had an understanding of who was going to be buying this camera and what sort of conditions the camera would be shot in. The 18mm does a great job of capturing enviromental portraits.


The same could be said about the Sony 16 for NEX, which is routinely panned, but I found it to be useable in some situations.



Steve Spencer
Registered: Nov 08, 2006
Total Posts: 9902
Country: United States

douglasf13 wrote:
Brody LeBlanc wrote:
deadwolfbones wrote:
olelovold wrote:

All with the 18mm.


This is a great example of what the 18 does really well.


I was thinking the exact same thing. I feel like Fuji really had an understanding of who was going to be buying this camera and what sort of conditions the camera would be shot in. The 18mm does a great job of capturing enviromental portraits.


The same could be said about the Sony 16 for NEX, which is routinely panned, but I found it to be useable in some situations.


Except the Sony is both wider and has a narrower aperture, both features that make it less suited for such environmental portraits, IMO.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 6261
Country: United States

Steve Spencer wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:
Brody LeBlanc wrote:
deadwolfbones wrote:
olelovold wrote:

All with the 18mm.


This is a great example of what the 18 does really well.


I was thinking the exact same thing. I feel like Fuji really had an understanding of who was going to be buying this camera and what sort of conditions the camera would be shot in. The 18mm does a great job of capturing enviromental portraits.


The same could be said about the Sony 16 for NEX, which is routinely panned, but I found it to be useable in some situations.


Except the Sony is both wider and has a narrower aperture, both features that make it less suited for such environmental portraits, IMO.


I'm just saying it's probably a stretch to say Fuji planned on this being primarily an environmental portrait lens, especially judging by their sample images for the lens on their website.



olelovold
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 157
Country: United Kingdom

I think the 18 was made for enviromental portraits too. It's not optimized for great corner sharpness, it's got f/2 aperture, it's small and inconspicuous.



miloz
Registered: Jun 23, 2010
Total Posts: 267
Country: United States

I don't know that it's that specialized, but Fuji definitely seems to have optimized the camera and lenses for reportage/documentary/street/etc., they must have assumed people photography would be a prime use of the 18mm.



jcolwell
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Total Posts: 28247
Country: Canada

miloz wrote:
I don't know that it's that specialized, but Fuji definitely seems to have optimized the camera and lenses for reportage/documentary/street/etc., they must have assumed people photography would be a prime use of the 18mm.


It will be for me.



rscheffler
Registered: Aug 23, 2005
Total Posts: 6580
Country: Canada

FWIW, DPR updated their studio test photo with RAW conversions from a beta version of Adobe Camera Raw that supports the XP1

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/6

In some parts of the scene the Fuji looks very smooth, but in other areas the NEX-7 shows more/better detail. Some of it might also be depth of field dependent.

I also added the 5N to the mix, along with the M9 for kicks. If you put the crop over the dime with the white text on red background, you'll notice the Fuji renders the text somewhat differently, and the detail in the etched face just to the left is different than the other cameras too...

Might be due to the beta RAW converter?

Hmm, perhaps, because if you flip back to the JPEG file, the Fuji looks a bit better with detail.



aleksanderpolo
Registered: Jan 18, 2010
Total Posts: 880
Country: United States

The lack of detail in RAW compared with NEX7 is unsettling, hopefully it's because it is just the beta.



Spyro P.
Registered: Mar 24, 2008
Total Posts: 3417
Country: Australia

to me it just looks like it could use some sharpening



mfoto
Registered: Sep 19, 2002
Total Posts: 2412
Country: Canada

35 1.4, ISO 200, f/5.6







snowboarder
Registered: Aug 27, 2004
Total Posts: 2862
Country: United States

Some pretty amazing pictures in this Russian review:


http://fujifilmpro.livejournal.com/1004.html



corposant
Registered: Jul 14, 2010
Total Posts: 2960
Country: United States

snowboarder wrote:
Some pretty amazing pictures in this Russian review:


http://fujifilmpro.livejournal.com/1004.html


It's tough to beat Fuji color.



deadwolfbones
Registered: Feb 22, 2010
Total Posts: 2786
Country: United States

Here's a quick/useless ISO test between the K-5 and X-Pro1.

Both OOC JPEGs, both with NR at the lowest settings. Matrix metering, DA 35/2.8 Macro vs. 35/1.4, both at f/4.

Obviously the K-5 underexposed a little, but the X-Pro1 still would have destroyed it if the exposures were even. Pretty damn impressive.



snowboarder
Registered: Aug 27, 2004
Total Posts: 2862
Country: United States

deadwolfbones wrote:
Here's a quick/useless ISO test between the K-5 and X-Pro1.




Thanks for that. Would it be possible to do the same, but ISO 200?
I'm really curious if XPro1 has a good detail after somehow strange dpreview tests.
Also one more question - is it true that the MF magnification mode changes aperture,
so the live view playback does not represent what really is gonna be taken?




vallejo
Registered: Jan 20, 2005
Total Posts: 484
Country: Brazil

So, anyone already shot this camera with M lenses? Any samples, specially RAW stuff?



1       2       3       4      
5
       6              579       580       end