Yesterday Fuji's website had an image of the X mount stating that lens data including angle of light incidence, MTF, and chromatic aberration are reported to the camera body. This implies that there is some in camera lens correction going on, as has been seen in Leica and MFT cameras. Of particular interest is the fact that correction for light incidence is at odds with Fujifilm's claim that their lenses are designed to project light at a right angle to the sensor plane ( http://fujifilm-x.com/x-pro1/en/story/chapter2/index.html ). The image now seems to have disappeared from the website, however.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Again I really like the projected lens line up. Already a pretty complete system by the end of 2013. If I had to quibble I think the 28mm pancake should be f/2 not f/2.8 but others might like the smaller size the f/2.8 will allow. Also if they rounded out these offerings with a 16 f/2, a 55mm f/1.4, 16-50 f/2.8 IS, and 50-135 f/2.8 IS lenses it would be a very complete system.
I agree. I find it odd that there isn't a high speed portrait prime in the line up. The macro seems nice, but I would imagine an f/1.4 option would be desirable, well, at least for me.
Dan1 wrote:
Yesterday Fuji's website had an image of the X mount stating that lens data including angle of light incidence, MTF, and chromatic aberration are reported to the camera body. This implies that there is some in camera lens correction going on, as has been seen in Leica and MFT cameras. Of particular interest is the fact that correction for light incidence is at odds with Fujifilm's claim that their lenses are designed to project light at a right angle to the sensor plane ( http://fujifilm-x.com/x-pro1/en/story/chapter2/index.html ). The image now seems to have disappeared from the website, however.
But isn't this 'normal' now? Sony does it for the NEX system, and as you mentioned, it's part of the m4/3 systems... Canon allows for some in-camera corrections... and probably others as well.
I think one has to read between the lines of Fuji's marketing to realize that while the lenses are optimized, there is no way all light rays will project at a right angle to the sensor. Therefore there will be some vignetting and perhaps mild color shifts. My question would be whether such corrections, including distortion correction, are baked into the RAW file as well? Unfortunately that is Leica's implementation for the vignetting and color shifts.
To be honest Hasselblad does software lens corrections with great success with their high end digital solutions. I'm not sure that digital corrections for lenses is the devil incarnate if done properly?
rscheffler wrote:
My question would be whether such corrections, including distortion correction, are baked into the RAW file as well? Unfortunately that is Leica's implementation for the vignetting and color shifts.
This is what I was worried about. I don't feel there is anything conceptually wrong with lens corrections but implementing undefeatable, hidden, and extensive corrections to hide system flaws as Leica (and IIRC Micro-Four-Thirds) have done strikes me as underhanded. It also points to some obvious hyperbole in Fuji's marketing, since if the lenses truly projected at right angles, no correction would be necessary.
The camera + 35/1.4 showed up on preorder for 1079GBP. Since that is VERY close to the leaked 1300EUR price, I am wondering if the retailer is just making a guess and will adjust the price accordingly when the cameras start appearing.
Lenses coming in 2012:
-14mm f/2.8
- 18-72mm f/4.0 with IS (Image stabilization).
Lenses coming in 2013
- 28mm f/2.8 pancake
- 23mm f/2.0
- 72-200mm f/4.0 IS
- 12-24mm f/4.0 IS
that is an awesome looking lens road map!
the new 18mm sample looks very good to me, obviously it's a jpeg not optimized for maximal per pixel sharpness just as all the other samples. none of the other lenses look any sharper in the center of the frame which indicates to me the jpeg conversion is emphasizing smooth transitions over absolute sharpness. the corners on that new shot look very good compared to the center. better than either of the sony wides including the zeiss i think, but who knows what corrections have been done. i do wish these were manual focus lenses and m-mount.
Beni wrote:
To be honest Hasselblad does software lens corrections with great success with their high end digital solutions. I'm not sure that digital corrections for lenses is the devil incarnate if done properly?
With super high MP sensors with resolution to spare (Hasselblad), it may not be as bad as with lower resolution sensors. IQ would take a hit, theres just no free lunch. How noticeable is the question. That said, I really doubt Fuji will be using software correction for their lenses.
How on earth could a preorder be successful for anyone else than the ones receiving your cash and buying mojitos for all on some nice paradise island far, far away?
Fuji themselves have already stated the expected price at CES yesterday and it is the higher one. They could always change their mind I guess but I certainly would not put much stock into pre-order pricing from questionable places.
rscheffler wrote:
I agree. I find it odd that there isn't a high speed portrait prime in the line up. The macro seems nice, but I would imagine an f/1.4 option would be desirable, well, at least for me.
Is this an admission that a lot of people will just use M-mount 50/2.0-1.4 lenses. Long enough that edge issues shouldn't be a problem, lots of 50mm M-glass out there. Really interested to try the V-lander 50/1.1 or 75/1.8 lenses.
The price from the mirrorlessrumours website seems a bit low, but more in line than the $1700 for the body price.
UPDATE: I clicked on the link and it said it was no longer available. "Sorry, this product no longer exists." Dhun-dun-Duuuuhn.
Frankly, I want a short tele portrait lens first, then a wide. The 35mm lens to me is not as useful.
If the Zoom lenses are small then they'd pair very nicely with the Fujinon primes. Seems like Fuji have (correctly) decided that size over speed is important in regard to the zooms.
anselwannab wrote:
Is this an admission that a lot of people will just use M-mount 50/2.0-1.4 lenses. Long enough that edge issues shouldn't be a problem, lots of 50mm M-glass out there. Really interested to try the V-lander 50/1.1 or 75/1.8 lenses.
The price from the mirrorlessrumours website seems a bit low, but more in line than the $1700 for the body price.
UPDATE: I clicked on the link and it said it was no longer available. "Sorry, this product no longer exists." Dhun-dun-Duuuuhn.
Frankly, I want a short tele portrait lens first, then a wide. The 35mm lens to me is not as useful.
Well, I agree with that... I would just use a fast M mount lens since I already own some. But there will be those who desire AF and want to focus closer than 1m... sounds like the macro lens
BTW, I own the CV 75 f/1.8 and it's a decent lens, though I don't consider it the sharpest one out there, especially wide open. There's a reason Cosina included 'classic' in its name.
As for the zooms... size is one thing I was wondering about. I have the Canon 70-200 f/4 and would have mixed feelings about using it on an M9 size camera. It's possible Fuji's lens designers will figure out a more compact solution, though I suspect that might mean it increases in size as it zooms, which I also kind of dislike..
Tariq Gibran wrote:
With super high MP sensors with resolution to spare (Hasselblad), it may not be as bad as with lower resolution sensors. IQ would take a hit, theres just no free lunch. How noticeable is the question. That said, I really doubt Fuji will be using software correction for their lenses.
I think some corrections are inevitable. However, I personally would want to know what exactly is being corrected, and also would expect to have the possibility of turning off the corrections completely, or the choice to apply them selectively in the raw converter.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think some corrections are inevitable. However, I personally would want to know what exactly is being corrected, and also would expect to have the possibility of turning off the corrections completely, or the choice to apply them selectively in the raw converter.
There is none on the x100 and the lens design is similar with a very large rear element. Is it in some spec somewhere that I missed on the XP1?
