Yes, and it looks like it could have been from a p&s too, my X10 does that as good as, or better. It is one of those shots were there is very little detail and which masks lens deficiencies. Uniform spaces with no detail and converging lines mostly?
Any crummy lens will do that.
It would be interesting to see the amount of CA on that shot.
The shot of the lady above looks very nicely rendered though.
That macro lens seems to be as good as 35/1.4, wonder why they have to have such a gigantic hood, and I don't quite understand how the reported internal reflection is going to affect the result?
El Presidente wrote:
There is a straightforward workaround by using the camera in full manual mode but with auto iso enabled - I have scribbled a short article on this at http://picabroad.com/
El P, thanks for this. You commented on EVF lag - when lighting is lower - I wonder if this camera behaves as the X100 - try a half-shutter press and then pan or otherwise try to induce lag. On the X100 a half shutter press kicked the camera into gear and greatly reduced dim-light-lag. I was glad to read your comments on manual focus. Maybe the EVF is a little improved over the X100 after all.
Regarding your CV15 shots - I won't post these as clickable URLs as they are to full sized JPGs - I have a couple of questions:
People walking towards street, building and red bus in background - do you recall what your focus point was?
picabroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/DSCF0367.jpg
Couple sitting on wall - same question.
picabroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/DSCF0392.jpg
It does look like in both images only the central core is quite sharp and progressively in the outer third of the images there is more and more smearing of detail. In the shot of the couple the woman seems sharper / less affected by the edge effect than the man sitting next to her unless my tired eyes are playing tricks on me this evening.
Have you seen this behaviour in other photographs made with the CV15 on this camera?
The CV15 has been seen to deliver more consistent edge to edge clarity on some but not all other APS-C cameras; hopefully this isn't a foreshadowing of how other lenses < 50mm will behave on the X-Pro 1.
Henrik, Spyro - that's a fantastic shot of the elder woman. 60mm macro lens. Nice.
This is very interesting - another CV15 set of images with soft edges/corners.... But it did seem that kinson's results with the 12, at least on the right side of the frame, were better than the 15. I'm guessing performance will be better with the newer Leica lenses which are much more asymmetrical in design, though of course at a huge price penalty. Anyone have a WATE to throw on an XP1? At this point, it really looks like the Fuji 14 will be an influential factor because I can't see the justification for putting $3k+ lenses on this camera if similar can be achieved with a native mount solution. I have a suspicion this might not have been an accident on Fuji's part...
Regarding your last point, that thought had crossed my mind. It would be unfortunate if they planned from the start to sabbotage alt-glass (at least some | all alt-rangefinder glass) use on this camera.
Without any numbers to prove a point, I merely have a hunch that being open to alt-glass has resulted in more sales of cameras and lenses for Sony and certainly more mind-share and buzz for NEX. I'd hoped Fujifilm recognized this. Then again Sony made the NEX-7 somewhat unfriendly to certain types of RF glass so perhaps they don't feel alt-glass matters, or if it does, they recognized the needs of RF glass users until too late in the product release cycle.
I think we are overestimating how many people are actually concerned about the difference between a rating of 7.5 and a rating of 8.9 in corner sharpness of a lens. Just look at the countless Canon users, I bet 90% of them are fully convinced that the 16-35L is one of God's top-3 gifts to humanity.
Anyway, I still cant get over how good is that Fujinon macro lens for portraits (top of the page)
It has a large(r) format quality about it.
Spyro P. wrote:
I think we are overestimating how many people are actually concerned about the difference between a rating of 7.5 and a rating of 8.9 in corner sharpness of a lens. Just look at the countless Canon users, I bet 90% of them are fully convinced that the 16-35L is one of God's top-3 gifts to humanity.
Anyway, I still cant get over how good is that Fujinon macro lens for portraits (top of the page)
It has a large(r) format quality about it.
I noticed that with the X100 which is more surprising given it's wider lens. Long lens + close subject distance will generally give more of a large format look versus the use of a wider lens.
What still concerns me though is color gamut and accuracy. This shot in particular looks like all the color has been drained out of the subject. Unless this shot has been post processed to give this look, it concerns me a bit.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I noticed that with the X100 which is more surprising given it's wider lens. Long lens + close subject distance will generally give more of a large format look versus the use of a wider lens.
What still concerns me though is color gamut and accuracy. This shot in particular looks like all the color has been drained out of the subject. Unless this shot has been post processed to give this look, it concerns me a bit.
That is my last remaining question. I am ready to plunk down the $3k for this kit when that is resolved. I don't think we will know until Adobe supports it, because we can't make decisions based on OOC jpegs and crappy RAW converters.
The comment from the LL review on Fuji not cooperating with the 3rd party RAW converters is at odds with what Fuji said at the launch a while back. So either he's just frustrated that it isn't supported yet, or Reichman slipped his some info since he is a Lightroom alpha tester.
Spyro P. wrote:
I think we are overestimating how many people are actually concerned about the difference between a rating of 7.5 and a rating of 8.9 in corner sharpness of a lens.
I don't care too much about the popular opinion or performance of a single lens, no. So the Fujifilm XF18mm lens being less able at the edges doesn't matter to me at all although I wish it were better all around.
What I care about is the camera's ability to host *all* M lenses and particularly wide angle M lenses. Here we have another set of CV15 images that disappoint. You can see blurring at regular viewing, not just 1:1 pixel peeping. We know the CV15 can do *much* better - wide open or stopped down - than has been seen in these two sets photographs made with the X-Pro 1 and to me this feels like a replay of the dawning realization, drawn out over some time, that the NEX-7 wasn't going to be a panacea for M lens users. If it plays out that way that'd be unfortunate.
Unfortunately as you allude, many users will be oblivious to edge details issues and may simply figure all is well given the edge colour shift which plagues some lenses on some compact cameras doesn't appear to be a problem with this camera. Yay! Problem solved! Full steam ahead! Not. I'm joking only a little, because I have seen many comment on colour shift as it was the *only* problem with certain WA lenses on this or any camera.
On that last point I wonder if Fujifilm have configured the camera to detect colour shift and are auto-compensating in software? Maybe the camera could be fooled... take an image of an LCD screen representation of strong colour shift and see if the camera wipes it out!
Tariq, hopefully the image of the woman was post-processed to get the look. Whatever the case, as an image I sure like it. That lens for that purpose looks interesting but I wonder if my wife would want to be photographed with it. I'm guessing... no! The XF60 might need a well scratched up UV filter in front for some subjects.
No, you aren't alone - that's the site we've been talking about for the last handful of posts. "El Presidente" posted a link to the blog up thread (on this page).
At any magnification you can see the detail smearing away from the centre in some of the images (I pointed out two up-thread), and in those two samples they look to my eye even at web reproduction sizes to be off. I'm starting to wonder if they look worse than on the NEX-7 (ignoring colour shift for a moment).
The first one look really strange as the center front and back object seems to be sharper than the wall on the side, which should be covered in DOF. Not knowing his post here I asked him if there is any comparison with M8 on dp.
FlyPenFly wrote:
THe NEX-7 samples posted here for the CV15 look actually pretty good except for the color fringe.
Absolutely. I'll take colour fringe any day, at least you can address that.
Hopefully someone will post some useful samples from moderate wides. SOON. I'd love to see what a 24 or 25 or 35mm CV/Zeiss/Leica lens does on this camera beyond wide open close in portraiture. Ditto for a 50mm.
The internal reflection/flare on the macro 60 is a potential bummer, in the web sample it was pretty bad. It is something that might pop up now and then in regular use and it seems like a design flaw to me.
