Someone said the X-Pro1 has the same sensor as the Sony, but the sony has terrible noise smearing, and this looks much much better. Must say the noise is much more beautiful than my 5D II at 3200 - well at least in these samples. I am not familiar with the Nikon D3s, but any likeness? Maybe I will start using higher ISOs...
I have been looking at these samples very closely and even asked Moon if he was using any NR software and he said he was Neat image lightly applied.So it looks really good but hard to say just how good it really is with out seeing shots without the NR applied.
-Jim
If that's with NR isn't that terrible... errr, I mean no different than just about any other APS-C... ? Up to 2,500 ISO my GH1 looks just about the same - (with no NR applied)... Besides the streaks that the early Panasonics have that is. His 3,200 samples best the GH1 considerably tho. His 400 ISO sample was for sure raked with an NR package of some kind... UG! Dead smeary washed detail!
edwardkaraa wrote:
Well, 24x36 is not a magic formula or the holy grail. But it has worked well for a century and bigger is still better. Maybe for guys who started photography with digital, the advantages of 24x26 are not immediately obvious. But as long as we obstinated old timers who have shot years of film are still alive, they will have to cater for us
24x36 is the pinacle for the max sensor area, fast lenses, system size, and cost. No one is making (quality) faster lenses for the smaller sensor sizes. A 35/1.4 on APS-C doesn't compare to the same lens on FF. Ditto for any fast focal length lens, until you get to telephoto, where the smaller sensor can sometimes be an advantage. As the sensor sizes get bigger than 24x36, the lenses all get slower, size and weight increase dramatically, along with the cost of the system.
Yes, Paul. the 24x36 is the archaic size we are "stuck with" for the reasons you have described. I find it to be a solid format for digital as well, for performance/size ratio as well as the ubiquitous amount of lenses present to choose from.
Much as I love Medium Format it is more or less "dead" for me. For many a reason; cost, versatility, size, cumbersombatility etc.
If anyone could make an ersatz A12 Hasselblad back for my old Superwide with off set micro lenses and no AA-filter I am serious when I say I would be happy with that camera alone and let myself be buried with it when all is said and done and over with. I'd put the rest of my monetary resources into travelling and printing.
I have agonised over going MF digital, but kosmo's objections are mine, exactly. I can afford it—but now that I have retired from pro. photography, I can't find it in myself to do it. Re. digital in general (and speaking here as someone who made rent-paying images for many years with two F2As and four lenses), the Sony A850/900 made the best digital images I have ever made.
I sincerely hope that Ricoh, or Fuji, or somebody makes that final jump to making a digital camera with an excellent EVF with an AA-filter-less 24 x 36 sensor, and a universal mount (so LTM, M, M42). This company would do well in the present environment, I think. In the meantime, there's the GXR-M.
I have to confess, though, I have pre-ordered the new XPro 1...
h00ligan wrote:
You can zoom with a button further in evf, so I think they probably didn't see the point.
In the EVF you get a 100% view plus magnification if desired a la X100 - there is no complaint there.
I believe what Tariq is commenting on and I share his view is how small the compose area within the frame for longer lenses is due to the two fixed magnifications in the OVF. To me this design - in 2012 - screams "what's the point?".
kosmoskatten wrote:
If anyone could make an ersatz A12 Hasselblad back for my old Superwide with off set micro lenses and no AA-filter I am serious when I say I would be happy with that camera alone and let myself be buried with it when all is said and done and over with. I'd put the rest of my monetary resources into travelling and printing.
That would be a terrific way to go. I wish I'd bought a Superwide instead of heavily into the Rollei 6008. A digital back on that big box would not be that much fun, much as I miss my 40mm Super Angulon.
pdmphoto wrote:
24x36 is the pinacle for the max sensor area, fast lenses, system size, and cost. No one is making (quality) faster lenses for the smaller sensor sizes. A 35/1.4 on APS-C doesn't compare to the same lens on FF. Ditto for any fast focal length lens, until you get to telephoto, where the smaller sensor can sometimes be an advantage. As the sensor sizes get bigger than 24x36, the lenses all get slower, size and weight increase dramatically, along with the cost of the system.
I would agree with you, technically, but I think the market has already determined that aps-c is the sweet spot. Aps-c seems the digital equivalent of 35mm film, 35mm sensors seem the digital equivalent of medium format film, and so on.
As the posters above mentioned, I'd love a 6x6 digital back that was more affordable, myself.
Keep in mind that one of the things that Leica does better than anyone else in the world is to make good, but small, lenses. If the XP1 was really FF, then the lenses would be quite a lot larger, and likely both larger and not as good as the Leica lenses (not as expensive either, I am sure). I think they probably found the sweet spot for their camera.
Sure, Leica lenses are fantastic and expensive, but I'd probably still be happier with Voigtlander or Zeiss rangefinder lens quality on a 135 sensor over the Fuji lenses on an aps-c sensor.
That being said, Fuji will likely release smaller aps-c cameras with this mount without the hybrid EVF.
Sorta bucks the good lenses first theory. I guess if shallow dof is the main goal. Tough otoh I don't find zeiss worse for shots with greater dof...so I can see your point.
michaelwatkins wrote:
In the EVF you get a 100% view plus magnification if desired a la X100 - there is no complaint there.
I believe what Tariq is commenting on and I share his view is how small the compose area within the frame for longer lenses is due to the two fixed magnifications in the OVF. To me this design - in 2012 - screams "what's the point?".
Right and my point was, I think most of the manufacturers would ask what the point of making the ovf is when you can have the evf..the ovf is mostly useful for environmental portraits or photojournalism, not 200mm..
The OVF on a fixed lens camera like the X100 served an obvious purpose, and on the widest angle lenses still will on the X Pro 1; it just becomes a lot less useful when the subject doesn't fill the viewfinder and less and less useful as the focal length increases.
If one is already a rangefinder camera user, this is old hat. I betchya there'll be some less than happy SLR converts who buy into this system once they realize that what you see is more than what you get. All hail the Pre-Order.
Anyway my point is that re-implementing an opto-electronic viewfinder that gives only one of the benefits of the rangefinder view (more than the frame) but not the focus benefit seems like a waste for manual focus glass users. For AF lens users - well maybe they'll be ok with it. Or maybe they'll find they prefer the 100% view of the EVF when not shooting the widest Fujifilm lens.
It's different and that can be applauded. For me, the hybrid finder in *this* camera (I liked it in the X100) doesn't help me buy the camera but quite the opposite, makes me want to avoid it because I don't want to pay for an intricate feature I won't be using.
Wondering when they'll announce a follow-up camera to this one...
His 400 ISO sample was for sure raked with an NR package of some kind... UG! Dead smeary washed detail!
