Kosmo: I have an X Pro 1 on order, but if it cannot these superb UWAs like the GXR, I will cancel the order, No downside!
At the same time, I know Fuji, and it's definitely possible that the camera-in-the-metal may have tricks up its sleeve that no one knows about. Or am I being too hopeful?
And, as you say, in the meantime, the little GXRs will be churning out great images.
It might be awhile before we learn how RF glass is going to work on the Fujifilm XPro 1, given no adapter solution exists from the company or third parties as yet. That if nothing else is what holds my enthusiasm in check because we just don't know how some of our glass will perform, yet.
Fujifilm appears to have engineered the exit pupil of their lenses with wide flattening elements to reduce the angle of incidence in the light path to the sensor. That might suggest that some RF lenses -- notably the symmetrical wide angle types with relatively narrow exit pupils -- that don't have these wide flattening elements at the exit may not perform as well as the Fujifilm lenses.
What the camera will deliver to manual focus RF lens users only time will tell.
For moire I basically do what Henrik outlined. If you're working on an area that is not a neutral shade, click the color selector box in the brush adjustments section (I'm assuming you're using Lightroom) and move the eyedropper around the colours until you get a good match for the original subject colour. This works well for areas of uniform or similar colour. If there is a lot of colour variation, then you will need to be more precise. Or you can download the LR4 beta, which has a moire option for the adjustment brushes. Or, Phase One's Capture One converter supposedly deals very well with moire. I believe they offer an xx day trial.
Michael, I was under the impression that the XPro1 had its own M-mount (along with the three lenses).
Ron, I use Aperture, but also have C1Pro6; I have not been using C1 with the Ricoh because I found its Ricoh colour profile almost cartoonish—but that was the specific GXR profile. I will look at the problem images with it though and report back
Kit, if you're on a Mac you should really try RPP whose GXR-M profile is outstanding, not to speak of improved resolution. I also use Aperture and the improvement is using RPP to developed is unbelievable. You do the development in RPP and then do further processing, if you wish, in Aperture. The relations of colors to each other come out much better, as explained in my thread on RPP in the Rangefinder Forum. Also, in my view, RPP gives the most film-like results of any raw developer I've tried: for example if you use the K64 preset. Just with Aperture (or Lightroom), I just cannot get the colors I get with RPP.
Kit Laughlin wrote:
Michael, I was under the impression that the XPro1 had its own M-mount (along with the three lenses).
Fujifilm has announced that they are producing their own M -> X mount adapter but it won't ship when the XPro 1 ships. Not much is known about the adapter so far.
Kit, the GXR intelligentia can provide the basic settings for RPP.
RPP will recognize the M mount and after the basic settings are saved as "camera default" there is actually very little to be done before saving as a .TIFF for further post processing. Interface is not the smoothest, but it works and since there is little action to take once set up I find it works well, and provides accurate colors and repeatable results.
Out of the "film emulation" I use three of them mostly, they all have their use and are well thought out I think. Astia 100 is great for contrasty shots that need some leverage in post, Portra 160NC provides very natural colors and contrast, as do KC64 (Kodachrome) but with slightly higher contrast. Velvia is there, but I was never a Velvia fan to start out with.
I don't know about "love" for the GXR, but you have al least created sufficient "Lust" for one that I have a GXR and M module on order. If it outperfomce Nex 5 N it will stay, in not it will probably go back.
Some of the images in this thread have convined me to run the experiment.
Grrrrrrrrrrr. Just what I need another eqiupment shoot out
Bill, you're gonna love us after you get the GXR-M. Sean Reid, on his pay site, last week posted an update to his comparison of the NEX-5N and the GXR-M for use with M-lenses. He states that the GXR-M is more "transparent" to the look inhererent to the lens and has better overall resolution and performance than the NEX-5N. This transparency to the lens is what I saw with in the first trial picture I took with the DR-Summicron when I tried out the GXR-M, in which originally I was not at all interested because I had the A12/50 and the A12/28 camera units. As I wrote in an earlier posting, I sold the two latter camera units a week after I bought the GXR-M, although I would have kept the A12/50 had I been interested in macro shooting.
I would agree with Sean Reid on that, note for note. I think the NEX5n is a very capable camera in itself (I ran them side by side for a while) but in the end I stuck with the GXR.
Apparently the GXR will be upgraded (body) with articulated LCD, perhaps more news on that in February. I sure wish they would adress the external viewfinder too, but the existent one works well.
I still have the A12/28 and A12/50 modules. The macro module is worth keeping I think. I can't recommend the A12/28 if you want the best possible (equiv) 28mm but I still find use for mine. When it is time to upgrade the body I will use the old GXR body for my AF modules only.
I am still very happy with the GXR-M mount. I am glad to have added the CV15/4.5 to the stable as well as the Summarit 75/2.5. It might be the new flavor but I find I use the CV15 more often than the ZM18 though the latter is a better lens in every technical aspect, except size. I think Mitch has / had both as well.
Though I am no particular fan of 35mm lenses I find the idea of hunting down one of the better 21mm's entertaining. The Leica 21/3.4 or the ZM 21/2.8, the latter probably the better choice for speed and cost. I find the look of 21mm lenses on crop sensor appealing.
I have seen some very nice samples with the Leica M Summilux 50/1.4 on the GXR M and had some initial thoughts of replacing both the 50/2 Planar and the Summarit 75 with it. But, I would have to find me a used one. The 50/2 is a great lens and looks downright cheap in comparison.
My initial impression is that I prefer the ZM50 Planar on the GXR and the 50 Lux on the M9. A significant factor in the character of the Lux is how it vignettes wide open, much of which is lost on APS-C. This combines with a gentler rendering at f/1.4. I guess it's due to a degree of SA that clears up around f/2 and beyond. On the M9, this combination of vignetting and dual qualities of sharpness and softness produces a nice overall feeling, IMO. On APS-C, 50 Lux files feel a bit flat to me, but I suppose some of that can be compensated in post.
The 50 Planar also seems to roll off towards the edges of the APS-C frame more gently than the 50 Lux. I think there is a lot of information to be gleaned from the MTF curves of all these lenses about how they will perform on an APS-C camera vs. full frame. Many of the Luxes, and actually many of Leica's lenses, have a dip in higher frequency resolution at about the 15mm point, then recover a bit. On full frame this dip in sharpness falls outside the center of the image and before the edges, and from what I can see in my images, generally is not a significant factor unless a critical picture element is placed in that zone. On APS-C, it falls right at the edges, which leads to the impression that the lens has poor corner performance. I see this with the 50 Lux and 21 Lux on the GXR when photographing flat subject matter that fills the frame. It seems to be less of an issue with other types of compositions, such as portraits or where the subject does not extend into the corners and is somewhat of a distance from a discernible background...
In other words, my feeling is that a lens that performs well on full frame isn't a guaranteed success on APS-C, and will also depend a lot on the type of photography being done.
Thanks for the input Ron, you might have saved me a bundle of money. A thick, mattress like bundle of greens. A veritable stockpile of monetary paper funds.
As far as I have seen the ZM21 seems a capable and well rendering performer on the GXR M mount.
Well, maybe it's still worth a try if you know someone with a 50 Lux to let you borrow
Which ZM21? The f/2.8 I assume. I would say my ZM21 f/2.8 is a bit better towards the edges on the GXR than the 21 Lux, but for flat frame filling subjects still needs to be stopped down to at least f/5.6 due to its field curvature. The f/4.5 version should be better. On the M9 however, the 21 Lux bests the ZM21 f/2.8 for edge performance, looking much better by at least 1-2 stops, probably because it has less or unnoticeable field curvature. I'm kind of curious about the CV21 f/4.... It's only $420 and I've heard some favorable comments about it on the 5N. But it's f/4, though it is tiny...
And I have a ZM 25/2.8 on the way, so we will have a full complement of the best lenses here, it seems. The CV 12 turned up this morning, and will be deployed on some interiors later this evening.
I did some product shots yesterday with a single soft box (with the CV 25/1.4, at ƒ8); the results SOOC were simply breath-taking. More later!
I shot an interior with the CV 12/5.6 tonight; am processing the images now.
Images on a 30" calibrated monitor? Wow.
The GXR-M is a keeper, for me. I'm a bit pressed for time right now, but will try to post a sample or two later. I didn't use the focus assists either, after checking the first few.
