ZoneV wrote:
The "irregular" is very interesting. But I am not sure at which resolution an irregular pattern would be helpful. I could not imaging that at 6 megapixels irregularity would help. At the resolving power of film the irregularity helps a lot. Or with the human eye.
It has been explained already: Mainly it is to avoid color moiré, then it attempts to mimic the behaviour of silver halid emulsions.
With Fuji's record on AF, I'd be worried about external phase detect. One of the nice spots about mirrorless is that contrast detect is 100% accurate when it hits. I hope it has micro adjustments.
FlyPenFly wrote:
With Fuji's record on AF, I'd be worried about external phase detect. One of the nice spots about mirrorless is that contrast detect is 100% accurate when it hits. I hope it has micro adjustments.
I'd be surprised if there wasn't also CD-AF available, either as an option (high accuracy, lower speed) or even working together with the external PD-AF in some way.
alba63 wrote:
...
It has been explained already: Mainly it is to avoid color moiré, then it attempts to mimic the behaviour of silver halid emulsions...
Yes I read the hole thread.
But how do they achieve irregularity?
With a very high fill factor they could vary the patern mix, but I doubt if that alone gives much less moiré effects.
With a smaller fill factor they could change the positions of the single pixel probably 20% of pixel pitch. Seems not very effective too, at first glance.
Best would be a very irregular pattern probably with different size of active area (higher dynamik range) like in chemical photo emulsions. That would fit to "not want to talk about resolution" because that could be hard to tell.
I am eager to learn what the show - most probably I am dissapointed on Monday.
One thing is strange to me, everywhere I look people talk about weird problems
with X100, but they are saying the amazing image quality wins over those.
I've been looking for "amazing images" shot with X100 and I can't find them (?).
Even here on this board, the quality of pictures posted by NEX users
is way higher than anything I see from X100. The same with Leica X1.
Is it because there is so many more people here posting NEX images?
It's also probably because of all the great glass people use on NEX,
with X100 you're stuck with one lens, whatever it is...
Can you point me to a webpage with some great shots from X100, please?
snowboarder wrote:
One thing is strange to me, everywhere I look people talk about weird problems
with X100, but they are saying the amazing image quality wins over those.
I've been looking for "amazing images" shot with X100 and I can't find them (?).
Even here on this board, the quality of pictures posted by NEX users
is way higher than anything I see from X100. The same with Leica X1.
Is it because there is so many more people here posting NEX images?
It's also probably because of all the great glass people use on NEX,
with X100 you're stuck with one lens, whatever it is...
Can you point me to a webpage with some great shots from X100, please?
snowboarder wrote:
One thing is strange to me, everywhere I look people talk about weird problems
with X100, but they are saying the amazing image quality wins over those.
I've been looking for "amazing images" shot with X100 and I can't find them (?).
Even here on this board, the quality of pictures posted by NEX users
is way higher than anything I see from X100. The same with Leica X1.
Is it because there is so many more people here posting NEX images?
It's also probably because of all the great glass people use on NEX,
with X100 you're stuck with one lens, whatever it is...
Can you point me to a webpage with some great shots from X100, please?
I spend some time at a newspaper, working on the photo desk, and recall some nice photos from a Getty photographer just before the 9/11 anniversary, done in NYC, I think on the subway, with the X100. Unfortunately those are no longer in the active system for me to confirm. It used to be you could see some camera data in image searches on Getty's public site, but no longer it seems...
snowboarder wrote:
One thing is strange to me, everywhere I look people talk about weird problems
with X100, but they are saying the amazing image quality wins over those.
I've been looking for "amazing images" shot with X100 and I can't find them (?).
Even here on this board, the quality of pictures posted by NEX users
is way higher than anything I see from X100. The same with Leica X1.
Is it because there is so many more people here posting NEX images?
It's also probably because of all the great glass people use on NEX,
with X100 you're stuck with one lens, whatever it is...
Can you point me to a webpage with some great shots from X100, please?
I think its a mixture of things. The X100 definitely doesn't have the install base of the NEX cameras, then there is, as you stated, the single focal length that prohibits other types of photography. I don't think the body, sensor and lens are the issue since I've seen amazing photos with it. I also think the camera is pigeonheld as a "street" camera when, in fact, its great at lots of other things when you account for the EVF.
That's funny, to me I have seen lots of great X100 shots, but I can't recall yet seeing a shot made with a NEX which blew me away. Even worse, once in a while, someone with a NEX goes back to their old 5DII or D700 and makes a couple of shots, and they look way better.
Anyway, I am excited to see what the X1 (this -Pro business is just silly, I am calling it the X1) will bring.
You should see the Redwood thread, snowboarder's shots with the 5N were very impressive in that thread.
It seems Carstenw, you have some sort of beef with the Nex system and perhaps Sony in general? I know you've been looking around to perhaps pickup a mirrorless system and I remember you thinking about going MFT over NEX which is a perfectly valid choice.
Its funny, looking at X100 images and you see a difference in direct artistic intent vs. the general nature of NEX photographers. Fuji photographers seem very interested in getting great (or at least) interesting tonality and contrast but not focused on high contrast. Almost ethereal and partly introduced by Fuji I think.
bluetsunami wrote:
Its funny, looking at X100 images and you see a difference in direct artistic intent vs. the general nature of NEX photographers. Fuji photographers seem very interested in getting great (or at least) interesting tonality and contrast but not focused on high contrast. Almost ethereal and partly introduced by Fuji I think.
Interesting.
This reminds me of discussions about differences between Kodak and Fujifilm characteristics. Back then I used both. I'm still open to doing that
I'll sign up on the "Fujifiilm X-Pro 1" list, and you sign up on the "Fujifilm X1" list. I'll get to Scotland before ye*!
* with an X-Pro 1 in my pocket.
But who wants to take this camera and subtract the Pro out of it? Just makes no sense. They have an X10, they have an X100, are they really so insecure about the status of the X1 that they feel the need to add pro to it??
FlyPenFly wrote:
You should see the Redwood thread, snowboarder's shots with the 5N were very impressive in that thread.
It seems Carstenw, you have some sort of beef with the Nex system and perhaps Sony in general? I know you've been looking around to perhaps pickup a mirrorless system and I remember you thinking about going MFT over NEX which is a perfectly valid choice.
The NEX is a valid choice, for sure, and the redwood shots were very good, but I would credit them to the photographer, not the camera. I don't think the NEX brought anything to the party. It is clearly a competent sensor, but as a system, it falls flat for me, and I don't buy cameras only for their sensors. I find the bodies too small and slippery (caveat: I have not handled the NEX-7), I find the lenses totally and utterly uninteresting and unimpressive, I find the menu system weird, unintuitive and annoying, and I have no confidence in where Sony is going with this system. To me the NEX is a camera for those who care only about sensors. Adaptability is a plus, of course. The Fuji hits very different notes for me. There is promise in the sensor (and the 24MP of the NEX-7 is total overkill for an APS-C sensor; the 16MP of the 5N make so much more sense), there is a lot of promise in the lenses (right specs, and Fuji is a lens maker, unlike Sony, which is a consumer electronics firm), and then there is that very neat hybrid sensor. The best of both worlds.
For the record, I am not anti-Sony, I very nearly bought an A900 and only in the last second decided for the Nikon D3. I just don't think the NEX system is half as interesting as this board makes it out to be. I think the NEX system is a bottle of water in a desert; right place, right time. I think the Fuji might be a bottle of champagne.
carstenw wrote:
But who wants to take this camera and subtract the Pro out of it? Just makes no sense. They have an X10, they have an X100, are they really so insecure about the status of the X1 that they feel the need to add pro to it??
I don't care what they call it. I just know it'll be easier to get one if I ask for what's written on the box.
