I know it doesn't sound likely, but the E-P3 has a higher pixel density in the centre than the X-E1, so if the lens can be sharp on the E-P3, it should also be sharp on the Fuji. And you say that the Fuji kit lens is very sharp on the X-E1, so the camera itself has no problems with sharpness.

It seems that the problem *must* be focus, somehow. Have you tried focus bracketing?

Or it could be processing. Maybe the E-P3 processes stronger than the Fuji?

Is sharpness being tested w/ sensor size/resolution normalized? You know, the whole debate about comparing different sensor sizes/resolutions at 100%-- or not, depending on application.

That said, some lens-camera-sensor combinations don't necessarily shine. I've stopped using my Tammy SP 17mm on my XE because I didn't like the look, and it seemed mushy/watercolor heavy compared to everything else-- though this lens is great on my 5d2. And my FL 55 1.2 is like magic on the XE.

carstenw wrote:
I know it doesn't sound likely, but the E-P3 has a higher pixel density in the centre than the X-E1, so if the lens can be sharp on the E-P3, it should also be sharp on the Fuji. And you say that the Fuji kit lens is very sharp on the X-E1, so the camera itself has no problems with sharpness.

It seems that the problem *must* be focus, somehow. Have you tried focus bracketing?

Or it could be processing. Maybe the E-P3 processes stronger than the Fuji?


I don't honestly think it's about processing, cameras are both set at standard processing levels;
and I never tried focus bracketing (don't even know how to get it yet).
I'll try it later on.

justruss wrote:
Is sharpness being tested w/ sensor size/resolution normalized? You know, the whole debate about comparing different sensor sizes/resolutions at 100%-- or not, depending on application.

That said, some lens-camera-sensor combinations don't necessarily shine. I've stopped using my Tammy SP 17mm on my XE because I didn't like the look, and it seemed mushy/watercolor heavy compared to everything else-- though this lens is great on my 5d2. And my FL 55 1.2 is like magic on the XE.

What do you mean with "normalized".
I shot them both super fine jpegs (or how they call it).

here is a very quick and rudimentary test, placed camera on table, and focus zone varies too,
first one is a 100% crop shot with e-p3 iso 200:

first shot

second one is our fuji, same iso, same speed I guess, same aperture.

second

Please note that e-p3 was hand held, but it has some in body image stabilization.
Note also that I've had to get closer with fuji camera in order to get similar FOV as e-p3, of course,
and I don't know if this actually affects resolution and sharpness.

E-p3 shot seems pretty much sharper to me….

Well, the Fuji shot will have a stop less depth of field dut to the closer distance.

Jman13 wrote:
Well, the Fuji shot will have a stop less depth of field dut to the closer distance.

Yes, of course…
have you seen the shots?
Isn't the e-p3's pretty sharper?

I'm looking on my iPad right now, so it may be hard to definitively say, but they look similar, but with higher contrast on the EP3. What are the JPEG sharpening settings?

ddjohns1 wrote:
Brody LeBlanc wrote:
f.hayek wrote:
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...

I was specifically referring to the XE-1 being better for alt. glass over the X-Pro1 due to the higher resolution EVF.
With the 3x focus peaking, using manual focus glass is a breeze. At least for me it is.


With an additional click turn on the dial the EVF goes to 10x magnification, which is fantastic. (They should do a version that goes to 11 for Spinal Tap fans.)

10x magnification results in a rather shaky image, especially with longer lenses but off course it helps.

But being unable to lock your exposure while using manual lenses is an issue. The only way to lock exposure is by pressing the shutter button halfway but that enables the 3X/10X focus peaking !

Jman13 wrote:
I'm looking on my iPad right now, so it may be hard to definitively say, but they look similar, but with higher contrast on the EP3. What are the JPEG sharpening settings?

they are at zero, on both cameras…
the Olympus seems sharper to me, but even if they were exactly the same that would be weird as well.
I was expecting fuji to be better.

tardegardo wrote:
justruss wrote:
Is sharpness being tested w/ sensor size/resolution normalized? You know, the whole debate about comparing different sensor sizes/resolutions at 100%-- or not, depending on application.

That said, some lens-camera-sensor combinations don't necessarily shine. I've stopped using my Tammy SP 17mm on my XE because I didn't like the look, and it seemed mushy/watercolor heavy compared to everything else-- though this lens is great on my 5d2. And my FL 55 1.2 is like magic on the XE.

What do you mean with "normalized".
I shot them both super fine jpegs (or how they call it).

There are several factors which are different. First of all, you are testing the quality of JPG engines, and Olymus is known to have an excellent one. Secondly, you shot the Fuji closer, and many lenses do not perform as well that close. And then there is the depth of field.

I would shoot something outside, at a middle distance, with RAW, and stop down to f/5.6 to avoid depth of field being an issue so much. Shoot maybe a brick wall at an angle, so that you can choose the spot with sharpest focus afterwards.

carstenw wrote:
tardegardo wrote:
justruss wrote:
Is sharpness being tested w/ sensor size/resolution normalized? You know, the whole debate about comparing different sensor sizes/resolutions at 100%-- or not, depending on application.

That said, some lens-camera-sensor combinations don't necessarily shine. I've stopped using my Tammy SP 17mm on my XE because I didn't like the look, and it seemed mushy/watercolor heavy compared to everything else-- though this lens is great on my 5d2. And my FL 55 1.2 is like magic on the XE.

What do you mean with "normalized".
I shot them both super fine jpegs (or how they call it).

There are several factors which are different. First of all, you are testing the quality of JPG engines, and Olymus is known to have an excellent one. Secondly, you shot the Fuji closer, and many lenses do not perform as well that close. And then there is the depth of field.

I would shoot something outside, at a middle distance, with RAW, and stop down to f/5.6 to avoid depth of field being an issue so much. Shoot maybe a brick wall at an angle, so that you can choose the spot with sharpest focus afterwards.

Yes, thank you, but I am actually trying to determine which camera performs better with this lens (canon fd 50mm) at f1.4. As per the brick wall, is actually what I did somehow, using the tilted sheet paper with text, in order to be able to find the most focused part….

To me (on my computer now), there appears to be the same amount of resolution (or higher on the fuji), just that the Olympus default ('0') sharpening is actually a little more aggressive.

Jman13 wrote:
To me (on my computer now), there appears to be the same amount of resolution (or higher on the fuji), just that the Olympus default ('0') sharpening is actually a little more aggressive.

yeah i would shoot raw if you want to compare sharpness, jpeg engines will have very different levels of sharpening even if you set them both to zero.

Although, in RAW, the X-E1 requires higher sharpening than bayer sensors due to the way it demosaics...the resolution is there, but you need more aggressive sharpening to bring it out fully.

Jman13 wrote:
Although, in RAW, the X-E1 requires higher sharpening than bayer sensors due to the way it demosaics...the resolution is there, but you need more aggressive sharpening to bring it out fully.

but it doesn't have an AA filter, does it really need more sharpening? i haven't played with the raws since adobe and C1 updated their processing.

You'd think, but not the case. Frankly I see no resolution benefit to the Xtrans sensor. It controls chroma noise extremely well, and luminance noise is well controlled too. Beautiful skin tones and overall tonal separation and gradation, but resolution seems on par or slightly below my OMD.

Jman13 wrote:
You'd think, but not the case. Frankly I see no resolution benefit to the Xtrans sensor. It controls chroma noise extremely well, and luminance noise is well controlled too. Beautiful skin tones and overall tonal separation and gradation, but resolution seems on par or slightly below my OMD.

Yes, it seems so, but in my case it seems to be on par with e-p3 as well….
here is btw another 100% crop from a RAW file, as requested, imported with LR third

resolution is pretty much the same, not better than micro4/3's

Anyway, I am afraid I will resign myself to use that lens with a micro4/3 camera

Sand Beach (X-E1 with 18-55mm)

Hi All ... Looking to trade my 35mm for the 18-55 zoom if anyone is interested...

some from this weekend with the 35: