Jman13 wrote:
I'd be interested in your thoughts between the 14/2.8 and the 21 Distagon. I don't expect the fuji to match that legendary glass, but I'd be interested in knowing how close it comes.

I am interested in the RX1 vs X-E1 comparison myself

I'm usually not really into making 'technical' A/B pixelpeeping comparisons, but who knows I might do some when my new website is finished.

Some quick thoughts (I'm sorry if it looks a bit chaotic ):

The biggest optical differences between the xf14 and 21 distagon (on a 5DII) are the almost lack of distortion of the Fuji vs the better fine detail of the Zeiss (the x-trans sensor also can't handle fine detail as well as bayer). Colors and general look are also different. The Zeiss always gives me a stronge sense of 'being there', Fuji is more about a nice tonality to me. Both are sharp corner to corner stopped down. Both seem to handle flare well.
The fuji sensor has better dynamic range, which is nice. The xf14 is a fantastic lens for this system, without a doubt. I'm going to use it instead of the Zeiss when traveling.

The X-E1 doesn't have that nice Zeiss sonnar lens of the RX1. It also doesn't feel as solid. The sensor in the RX1 is incredible. Huge dynamic range and files that just feel very robust. I'm always very pleased with the results.
The Fuji feels more like a camera though. The layout is better, the ergonomics are better (I use the grip on my X-E1), built-in EVF, better menus, ability to use an electronic shutter release, you can make the AF box really small, standard hotshoe which isn't occupied by an EVF,...
I have the EVF for my RX1 and yes it's faster, but it has more eye strain. You have to look around to see the whole frame. Looking through the X-E1 EVF feels more relaxed and sharp. I also like the location of it better (built-in on the left vs external on top).
Right now I'm really happy with both cameras.

Shrug, not that I'm in any way an expert, but, I'm not understanding why some find the Fuji X-Trans sensor isn't that great for sharpness.
I guess that is why there are different choices for different people, we all like differing things, to some degree.
Anywho, I have no complaints.
Guess I don't like crunchy sharpness, I rarely sharpen any of my 5DMkII files.
Nor do I understand all the AF complaints, I take it for what it is, and you have to learn the idiosyncrasies of the system, of ANY system.
I like my X-E1, a lot.
I don't have another small system to compare it to, only a DSLR.
I hope to run some of my own tests soon and compare it against my Canon 5DMkII, AND, use the same lens on both.

Some quick night shots with the 35/1.4. The first one is one of my favorite shots I've taken in the past few weeks.

Footsteps:

Jman13 wrote:
I'd be interested in your thoughts between the 14/2.8 and the 21 Distagon. I don't expect the fuji to match that legendary glass, but I'd be interested in knowing how close it comes.

Jordan, I have both the ZF 21 and the Fuji 14 and so far I'm quite confident to keep the D700 at home when doing landscape shots. A few reason behind this:

1. The XE-1 combo is lighter and produces better colors than the D700 + ZF 21. This might change when I decided to upgrade to the D600 or the M 240.

2. The 14 mm doesnt vignette with the Cokin Z or Lee 100 holder while the ZF 21 does so and required cropping so it essetianly becomes a 23 mm.

3. Sharpness of the 14 mm is excellent, photozone says it aint that sharp in the corners but I havent detect it in real world samples to be worried. Perhaps this is what separates the 14 to the 21 though

However, I will still buy the Zeiss 12 as I prefer 18 mm equiv. to 21.

Jochenb wrote:
I'm usually not really into making 'technical' A/B pixelpeeping comparisons, but who knows I might do some when my new website is finished.

Some quick thoughts (I'm sorry if it looks a bit chaotic ):

The biggest optical differences between the xf14 and 21 distagon (on a 5DII) are the almost lack of distortion of the Fuji vs the better fine detail of the Zeiss (the x-trans sensor also can't handle fine detail as well as bayer). Colors and general look are also different. The Zeiss always gives me a stronge sense of 'being there', Fuji is more about a nice tonality to me. Both are sharp corner to corner stopped down. Both seem to handle flare well.
The fuji sensor has better dynamic range, which is nice. The xf14 is a fantastic lens for this system, without a doubt. I'm going to use it instead of the Zeiss when traveling.

The X-E1 doesn't have that nice Zeiss sonnar lens of the RX1. It also doesn't feel as solid. The sensor in the RX1 is incredible. Huge dynamic range and files that just feel very robust. I'm always very pleased with the results.
The Fuji feels more like a camera though. The layout is better, the ergonomics are better (I use the grip on my X-E1), built-in EVF, better menus, ability to use an electronic shutter release, you can make the AF box really small, standard hotshoe which isn't occupied by an EVF,...
I have the EVF for my RX1 and yes it's faster, but it has more eye strain. You have to look around to see the whole frame. Looking through the X-E1 EVF feels more relaxed and sharp. I also like the location of it better (built-in on the left vs external on top).
Right now I'm really happy with both cameras.

Agree on the Zeiss 21 in having a strongger presence than the Fuji 14, I think that goes for Zeiss vs Fuji in general.

Re XE-1 vs RX-1, per pixel basis which one is sharper? from steve huff's M 240 review I come up to the conclusion that the X-trans is sharper than the RX-1. I could be wrong though.

buggz2k wrote:
Shrug, not that I'm in any way an expert, but, I'm not understanding why some find the Fuji X-Trans sensor isn't that great for sharpness.
I guess that is why there are different choices for different people, we all like differing things, to some degree.
Anywho, I have no complaints.
Guess I don't like crunchy sharpness, I rarely sharpen any of my 5DMkII files.
Nor do I understand all the AF complaints, I take it for what it is, and you have to learn the idiosyncrasies of the system, of ANY system.
I like my X-E1, a lot.
I don't have another small system to compare it to, only a DSLR.
I hope to run some of my own tests soon and compare it against my Canon 5DMkII, AND, use the same lens on both.


No not really.. the XE-1 is sharper than my NEX 5N and D700

frezeiss wrote:

However, I will still buy the Zeiss 12 as I prefer 18 mm equiv. to 21.


It will be interesting to see if Zeiss is able to capture any of their larger-format mysticism in lenses that don't require you to look through them via a mirror.

Frezeiss, I agree. I'm even thinking about maybe selling the Zeiss 21. It might be my favorite lens ever, but what's the use if it stays at home all the time.
Personally I feel the RX1 is sharper than my X-E1 with a good lens. Here you also get better fine detail / microcontrast from the sonnar + great sony bayer sensor IMHO.
The sensor in my 5DII really feels dated now.

Jochenb wrote:
Frezeiss, I agree. I'm even thinking about maybe selling the Zeiss 21. It might be my favorite lens ever, but what's the use if it stays at home all the time.
Personally I feel the RX1 is sharper than my X-E1 with a good lens. Here you also get better fine detail / microcontrast from the sonnar + great sony bayer sensor IMHO.
The sensor in my 5DII really feels dated now.

I don't know... if I was forced to choose between the 5D2 and X-E1-- based on sensor ALONE-- I'd pick the 5D2 every single time.*

The X Trans is pretty interesting, and produces great output. But it's just not as versatile yet. I'm reminded each time I review shots from the two cameras side by side that each has qualities I really love. But the 5D2 sensor still wins more times than it loses.

*Actually, when other factors are added in, my choice of the 5D2 only gets stronger. Now, if the X Trans was full frame, that might shift my thinking-- but I'd probably still choose the 5D2 purely for the RAW support, lack of funkiness in certain situations/photographic regions of an image. In a generation or two though...

Jochenb wrote:
frezeiss wrote:
Jochenb, thanks you! Haven't seen a photo from you for a while..


I haven't been shooting much lately. Also bought a Sony RX1 which I've been using instead of my X-E1.
I'm sure that'll change now I have the Fuji 14mm lens. It's lovely. Maybe not on the same level as my 21 distagon, but great nonetheless. It's much smaller and lighter.
BTW, apart from the IQ (the FF sony sensor is amazing) I think I like my X-E1 better than the RX1.


I agree, the XE-1 is surely a bliss to shoot and you do get sentimental about it. Add in a no distortion small 21 mm equiv that actually autofocus, whats not to like?

Re the RX-1 I'm sure its a very nice camera but the fixed lens (although stellar) and high admission makes me think twice. Actually I'm a bit on the cross roads for my main camera, I wanted to buy the M 240 but unsure of the RF mechanism, and the rumors of a fullframe NEX9 made me hold a bit.

Anyways, sometimes I wonder whether I should sell anything else and only have the Fuji X system.I'm so liking it, I end buying all the things they throw at me (35 mm, 18-55, 14 mm), next the 23 1.4 and 10-24.

Jman13 wrote:
frezeiss wrote:
Nice set Jordan!

Anyone here owning and XE-1 but resisting badly the GAS of getting the X100s?

Thanks! I had the X100s on pre-order, but canceled it when I decided to get the X-E1 and 35/1.4 instead (for the same price). I think I made the right decision. Even though I only have the 35/1.4 and 18-55 at the moment, I, of course, now have access to tons of my lenses via adapter as well, so it made more sense. I only sometimes enjoy the 35mm FOV anyway, and I realized that my OM-D and 14mm f/2.5 makes for a package just as small, but with awesome IBIS for times I want to go really small, and with the GX1, it's even smaller. If I wanted a fast 35mm equivalent, the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 is less than half the price of an X100s, so it didnt' make a lot of sense for me to go that route...but getting a higher image quality system for the same cost? Made a little more sense.

lucky you have the OMD system as well! I sold my Nex so this is my only lightweight system and I really dig a 35 mm equiv. I just thought that the small pancake lens 23 f/2 and the hybrid focus would cover the XE-1 weakness in shooting fast & discrete on the street.

From the likes of it, the 23 1.4 isn't small and the XE-2 is no where to be seen so I had to have the X100s..but then I have no reasons to buy the 23 1.4 afterwards

WavecrestPhoto wrote:
Anybody using the Xpro or X-E1 care to comment on using it with manual adapted glass? Is it easy to achieve focus? Possible to shoot somewhat quickly on the fly?

NEX 5N or 5R is better for this kind of stuff. The flip + touch screen makes it a breeze. It's doable on the XE-1 but far more easy with the NEX. If you're shooting M mount lenses, the 5N doesn't smear corners of wide angle lenses.

If you're pretty serious about it; remove the AA filter of your NEX and get that speedbooster thing.

Jochenb wrote:
Frezeiss, I agree. I'm even thinking about maybe selling the Zeiss 21. It might be my favorite lens ever, but what's the use if it stays at home all the time.
Personally I feel the RX1 is sharper than my X-E1 with a good lens. Here you also get better fine detail / microcontrast from the sonnar + great sony bayer sensor IMHO.
The sensor in my 5DII really feels dated now.

I'm quite suprised, I didn't expect it to be so good! last time I recall the X-trans beat the 1.5x 16 MP sony sensor in my NEX 5N. Sure, the RX-1 is 24 MP, FF and all that. No I believe Steve Huff is telling the truth

I'm beginning to think getting a d600 is not such a bad idea after all, and having its AA filter removed afterwards.

corposant wrote:
frezeiss wrote:

However, I will still buy the Zeiss 12 as I prefer 18 mm equiv. to 21.


It will be interesting to see if Zeiss is able to capture any of their larger-format mysticism in lenses that don't require you to look through them via a mirror.


+1

Although I hope the new 12 mm sucks so I dont have to sell my beloved 14 mm.

Playing around with the XE-1. The camera is great for using alt. glass on it.


Broken Tree - XE-1 w/ Leica-R 35/2 by brodyl.91, on Flickr


Climbing - XE-1 w/ Olympus F 42/1.2 by brodyl.91, on Flickr


Deep Sea - XE-1 w/ Leica-R 35/2 by brodyl.91, on Flickr


Star Tree - XE-1 w/ Leica-R 35/2 by brodyl.91, on Flickr


Wishbone - XE-1 w/ Leica-R 35/2 by brodyl.91, on Flickr

Long lost summer....

Ah you guys are killing me. I really want a XE-1 + 42/1.2 now after viewing this. It seems like such a cool little combo!

Brody LeBlanc wrote:
Playing around with the XE-1. The camera is great for using alt. glass on it.



Funny, I tried the XE-1 yesterday for the first time and it didn't seem that the EVF without focus peaking or other focus assist would lend itself to accurate MF. Do elaborate, please, if you don't mind...

In my limited use of alt glass on my X-E1 looked very promising, using the EVF also.
You can magnify the focal area by 10 or 3 times, I like it.
And of course, using a tripod one can use the rear LCD.
What's all the problems?

As a note, the only focus peaking I've played with is from Magic Lantern on my 5DMkII.
I didn't like it, and to be honest, I didn't play with it long enough to see all fuss that with this magical feature enables me to focus better.

f.hayek wrote:
Brody LeBlanc wrote:
Playing around with the XE-1. The camera is great for using alt. glass on it.



Funny, I tried the XE-1 yesterday for the first time and it didn't seem that the EVF without focus peaking or other focus assist would lend itself to accurate MF. Do elaborate, please, if you don't mind...