nohackle wrote:
I hate you folks ......I was this close to finally deciding on the EM-5 before strolling through some of these pics. Very nice

Umm, yeah. X2!!!!

olelovold wrote:
Some street shots from today.





SO the street photographer became the subject?

Love this one.

Picked up an X-E1 and 35/1.4 today. So far, I both love the camera and am somewhat infuriated by it. Thus far the love is winning...we'll see how it is long term. (Love the image quality up to ISO 3200 and the rendering of the lens....generally like the AF, except when it decides not to work.)

Two quick shots from today (didn't shoot much at all):

Man, the photos in this thread are great. I recently picked up a used xpro1 and the 18-55. So far it is a great lightweight combo. Here is a recent shot from the combo.

Jman13 wrote:
Picked up an X-E1 and 35/1.4 today. So far, I both love the camera and am somewhat infuriated by it. Thus far the love is winning...we'll see how it is long term.


Jman13, any chance on an OM-D & PL 25mm f1.4 vs. X-E1 & 35mm f1.4 comparison? I'm kind of curious to see how that lens compares to the Fuji's 35mm f1.4.

jonrock wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
Picked up an X-E1 and 35/1.4 today. So far, I both love the camera and am somewhat infuriated by it. Thus far the love is winning...we'll see how it is long term.


Jman13, any chance on an OM-D & PL 25mm f1.4 vs. X-E1 & 35mm f1.4 comparison? I'm kind of curious to see how that lens compares to the Fuji's 35mm f1.4.

I've done a quick comparison under semi-controlled conditions already, but I'll want to do structured tests before posting images of that sort. Lens for lens, the PL 25/1.4 is the better optic, at least close up. It's noticeably sharper wide open and even to about f/2.8, where they even out a bit. The Fuji doesn't do poorly here, just the PL is better. At further focus distances, they are much closer to one another, with the PL 25 only noticeably better at the frame edges at wide apertures. They both can fringe a bit on high contrast subjects wide open, with the PL opting for more of a purple fringe while the 35/1.4 just shows a fair amount of LoCA. The 35/1.4 can, of course, provide a bit shallower DOF, and the rendering is quite flattering wide open.

The PL 25/1.4 is internal focus, while the XF 35/1.4 is lens extension focus...the PL 25/1.4 is quiet and fast, while the 35/1.4 is a little noisy and a little slower, though still relatively quick in good light. The camera has a much harder time focusing in low light vs the latest m4/3 cameras. Still, there's something about this combo that is just really cool.

Camera wise, the OM-D is more responsive in the AF department by a good margin, while the X-E1 is easier to handle from a controls perspective. The X-E1 has noticeably better noise control at 200-1600, but I'm not so sure yet at the higher ISOs. Lightroom does OK with the X-E1 files at normal ISOs, but at 6400, it's pretty blotchy. C1P 7 does a much better job in handling noisy X-E1 RAW files. I am finding myself missing IBIS in some situations, though for indoor candids, I think the X-E1 will be better, provided it can focus. Haven't really given it a workout in that department, but I've already noted some struggles in lower light with the AF.

I have to say I was astonished at how clean ISO 800 files were a little after sunset today.

Jman13 wrote:

The PL 25/1.4 is internal focus, while the XF 35/1.4 is lens extension focus...the PL 25/1.4 is quiet and fast, while the 35/1.4 is a little noisy and a little slower, though still relatively quick in good light. The camera has a much harder time focusing in low light vs the latest m4/3 cameras. Still, there's something about this combo that is just really cool.



You can try to squeeze a little bit more AF speed in the X-E1 in low light by adjusting the AF box to the largest size (press down on the AF button on the back of the camera and spin the command dial to change AF box size). I think it works by increasing the area the camera uses to determine contrast focus but I'm not sure.

Jman: My love/hate with this camera is bipolar too.

I review some sets of my images, and I've never been so happy with results, rendering, atmosphere. I go through others, and I'm frustrated. I seem to have alternating sets of 5D2 and XE shots; just uploaded a batch of both to one of my editors last night...

So far, it seems, this camera really excels at: black and white conversions in post (I far prefer the look to what I can get from my 5D2), nighttime/low light color, near-to-medium subject distance.

But it can't touch my 5D2 for: daytime/full light, shooting at long subject distances, really wide + busy scenes (AKA certain types of landscapes under certain environmental conditions), compatibility with my Tammy MF lens (might be an adaptor thing; images seem to lack critical sharpness, which seems to really amplify the painterly look in a bad way).

Some of this may be that I'm shooting the 5D2 in RAW and XE in Jpg. And shooting in full/mid day light is never a good idea-- but sometimes a necessity for work.

I will say that I feel like in the last two months or so I've pushed my photography to newer levels because of this camera-- both what it allows and what it doesn't. I think it's even changed the way I shoot my workhorse 5D2 + 35L.

No doubt it can be a frustrating, disheartening little bugger from time to time.

Another big aspect is processing. My workflow is quite different with the XE files, though I still use Aperture. I've always preferred going from an underexposed image to bumping exposure and contrast a bit via sliders or curves. Expose to the right and then maximize DR in post, in my opinion, tends towards a sort of flat, soulless image... I'd rather have noise in my shadows and approach from the other direction. With the XE jpgs, this is amplified; at least in Aperture, they do not take kindly to backing off the Exposure slider. They work better using the brightness slider to pull them down, and exposure slider to increase exp, and they take pretty significant curves adjustments well-- sometimes better than 5D2 RAW files. Crushing the blacks-- I'm shooting DR200 mostly-- via curves or some other method seems to really help keep the XE tonality realistic, whereas in my 5D2 files it quickly has the opposite impact.

Great thread everyone! I love the Aurora shots from Trømso. Reminds me of an assignment I had in Finland (where it would have been great to have an XE already). What ISO is that?

And Magic, that's a great set of images all around. It tells a story, for sure, even if not an explicit/clear one. The shot of the woman in bonnet so striking, particularly given the grit of the full set. I find myself wanting to linger on that shot ever long, trying to figure it out.

justruss wrote:
Jman: My love/hate with this camera is bipolar too.



Great thread everyone! I love the Aurora shots from Trømso. Reminds me of an assignment I had in Finland (where it would have been great to have an XE already). What ISO is that?


ISO800, 30s F2.8.

WBR,

Quick portrait @ 35mm, f/1.4:

MagicNikon - great set, dig the last one.

Another quick shot. Like the way this combo draws, though it would be nice if I didn't have to enlarge the focus point to get it to lock.

XE1 Fujinon 35/1,4
"Let it snow"

^^ great shots!

Another quick snap...the stare down, X-E1/35/1.4

Opera at Oslo, Norway.

X-E1+35F1.4+Nik Silver Efex.

CoDaQue wrote:


Tromsoe, Norway.

X-E1+18-55 at 18 wide-open.

Thanks for looking!


This is a fantastic shot!

Father & Son - Fujifilm X-Pro1 w/ Fujinon 35mm f1.4 XF by brodyl.91, on Flickr

My daughter on the couch:

X-E1 with 35mm f/1.4