miloz wrote:
re: ISOs - Steve Huff has a comparison up with the NEX-7- cameras are set to the same ISOs, shutter speeds and apertures and exposures all look essentially identical. He says the XPro-1 was overexposing when left to its own devices.
Ι tried it against the 5D, the x100, a zeiss Ikon and a p&s last night with constant light indoors and they all gave me the same exposure for the same iso value and vice versa. Very minor deifferences up and down, like 1/3 stop.
"But wait— there is a fly in my soup. I have since learned that the Fuji X-Pro1 has a 2.5mm thick sensor cover glass (same as the Sony NEX-7).
I did my first sensor clean today (my sensor came pre-dusted from the factory ) and I can definitely see the glass cover, not sure if it's exactly 2.5mm but it looks pretty thick, thicker than I've seen on other cameras. I was carefully lowering the sensor cleaning doohickey in the camera mount and it stopped very far from where I could clearly see the sensor was, and I couldnt work out why. Then I remember this article from Lloyd Chambers.
Good thing I'm happy with the Fuji 18mm lens otherwise good luck finding a good wide that wasnt designed for this camera. I suspect no symmetrical design under 50mm will give sharp corners.
Spyro P. wrote:
I did my first sensor clean today (my sensor came pre-dusted from the factory ) and I can definitely see the glass cover, not sure if it's exactly 2.5mm but it looks pretty thick, thicker than I've seen on other cameras. I was carefully lowering the sensor cleaning doohickey in the camera mount and it stopped very far from where I could clearly see the sensor was, and I couldnt work out why. Then I remember this article from Lloyd Chambers.
Good thing I'm happy with the Fuji 18mm lens otherwise good luck finding a good wide that wasnt designed for this camera. I suspect no symmetrical design under 50mm will give sharp corners....Show more →
I don't think we have enough evidence yet. Why would Fuji make their own M adapter if you couldn't at least use an 18mm on it? Someone will eventually get the Fuji adapter and use Leica 24/1.4 on it. Haven't seen that yet.
Maybe the Fuji 14 will be good enough nobody will care?
theophilus wrote:
I don't think we have enough evidence yet. Why would Fuji make their own M adapter if you couldn't at least use an 18mm on it? Someone will eventually get the Fuji adapter and use Leica 24/1.4 on it. Haven't seen that yet.
Maybe the Fuji 14 will be good enough nobody will care?
theophilus; contrary to your statement I think we have enough evidence: Fuji literature stating technology as used and implemented, i.e. lens optimized _for the sensor_ and not sensor optimized for the wide angle lenses. Hence their drumming out that the 18/2 had to be specially calculated to accommodate for the sensor. This is to me obviously the reason for the performance, or lack there of, in some aspects.
Why would Fuji not make their own M adapter? This simply means they want a slice of the alt business, not that it is a good solution for legacy wide angle lenses. The camera was not designed with these lenses in mind. They just came with a workable solution to please the crowd. How could the simple adapter magically transform it into a better solution than the proprietary sensor/lens design? It can't. It will work (optically) well with most M mount glass, but not all.
People will keep making belief when evidence has been there from the get go. I will not have to wait for someone to get the adapter and use the 24/1.4 to confirm this, and when confirmed people will still make belief and argue the lens is out of whack or that he/she should try a different adapter or lens copy.
For every new nail in the coffin someone is out there trying to pull it out, only to see it hammered in again.
I am all with you on your last sentence though; maybe the 14/2.8 will be better, that's how I hope it pan's out.
For SLR wide angle lenses I think the Fuji X Pro 1 will do great, possibly superb. But I am not keen on chunky SLR lens on a fairly large APS-C body. I hope they pull through with them other wides.
Had the X Pro 1 been a slightly smaller body with a fixed 35/1.4 lens it would have been a classic. A mile stone camera it might still become, but it is a mixed bag.
I look forward to trying it out myself as I will get to borrow one from my vendor for the weekends, but I am quite sure I will not buy it. I have been working with Fuji products for quite a few years, hence my disappointment and hence my knowing what to expect from the user interface.
Still love my X-10, though sometimes it quirks rather than chirps.
"**Update** The hundreds of downloads of the high resolution test pictures are causing my ISP problems, so for now I have taken them down.
For those of you who’ve not seen them, suffice to say all 4 edges and corners are smeared (badly when wide open) on all the lenses tested, the wides being worse than the longer focal lengths.
The only exception is the Fuji 35mm 1.4 which is excellent even when wide open. Have a look at my earlier article on the Voigtlander 15mm to get an idea of the problem.
To rule out any mechanical faults with the Kipon adapter I plan on trying another adapter but may wait until the official Fuji one comes out. In the meantime, if you have tried an adapter with leica fit lenses wide open with any more success than I have had, please do drop me a line. Properly functioning Leica glass on this sensor would be fantastic. "
At the end he goes on to say, in his conclusion so far;
"
1. The Fuji X-Pro 1 is just not a good optical match with M lenses.
2. My M lens adapter in some way is faulty.
3. Fuji know a trick or 2 for their own adapter which will increase the quality of results.
Unfortunately, at this time I have no real idea which of the above is the correct explanation for these results.
There is one simple way to rule out any errors in these tests – someone just needs to put an adapter on their X-Pro 1, shoot their Leica lens wide open and get sharp edges. I would be delighted !"
I am "guessing":
1: affirmative, it is not a good optical match for the M-glass, maybe for some, but not all M lenses.
2: negative, Kipon knows how to make adapters, and the fit was tight. But there is always hope.
3: negative; why on earth would they conjure up a magical mechanical adapter to compensate for legacy wide angle glass to render corners without smear and not use this technology to start out with, for their own glass/sensor combination. Extremely wishful thinking, and naive. This would be like Fuji saying; we could not make the best out of our own lens technology in combination with our own newly developed sensor technology, but we managed to make the existing RF wide angle lenses work BETTER with an adapter than we manage with our own optimized and specially calculated lenses on which we base our system.
kosmoskatten wrote:
I think the Fuji 18/2 looks terrific for close range work though.
for pretty much everything that doesnt involve sharp corners at infinity that will be printed large and inspected from close by very observant viewers who are also photographers :P
But if something bugs you, it bugs you. It must be fixed
Apr 01, 2012 at 06:55 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I do think there might be a decent option at 18mm for an slr lens. Once the adapter market gets going, I would like to see the Zuiko 18mm f/3.5 on the Fuji X-pro 1. It is a fairly small lens and just 250g, and seems to have decent corners even on full frame 35mm. The Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 will also likely be quite good for those who want a framing that is just a bit less wide and it weighs just 180g. So it seems likely that people who care about this focal length will have a decent fast lens for more close up shooting (i.e., the Fuji) and a decent landscape lens with sharpness across the frame (i.e., the Zuiko).
So basically, the X-Pro1 is in the same class as the NEX-7 when it comes to wide angle, alt lenses but, usability wise, the NEX-7 is better with these lenses (focusing aids, better EVF) and, of course, much cheaper.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
So basically, the X-Pro1 is in the same class as the NEX-7 when it comes to wide angle, alt lenses but, usability wise, the NEX-7 is better with these lenses (focusing aids, better EVF) and, of course, much cheaper.
Actually, no, it looks like the X-Pro1 is significantly worse than the NEX-7. The NEX has significant colour shift and mild resolution loss in the corners (the former is mostly fixable with Cornerfix) with wides and zero issues with longer lenses, the X-Pro1 seems to have moderate to major smearing in the corners, including with longer lenses. That essentially renders the X-Pro1 useless with M lenses where the NEX-7 is merely inferior to the 5N and GXR but still usable with some post.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I do think there might be a decent option at 18mm for an slr lens. Once the adapter market gets going, I would like to see the Zuiko 18mm f/3.5 on the Fuji X-pro 1.
Yes, and likewise on the NEX-7 as well. Problem is, and just like the Heliar 15/4.5 and even the ZM18, working aperture will be stopped down to f/8 or so to get the corners and one will have to resort to higher ISOs. The Zuiko is now a little cheaper than a ZM18, but not by much. The wide angle legacy solutions are not very fast, short or long register.
mawz wrote:
Actually, no, it looks like the X-Pro1 is significantly worse than the NEX-7. The NEX has significant colour shift and mild resolution loss in the corners (the former is mostly fixable with Cornerfix) with wides and zero issues with longer lenses, the X-Pro1 seems to have moderate to major smearing in the corners, including with longer lenses. That essentially renders the X-Pro1 useless with M lenses where the NEX-7 is merely inferior to the 5N and GXR but still usable with some post.
Good to know. I did not realize the X-Pro1 also had an issue with longer M lenses. That's odd.
Before the images were taken down from the M-lenses test (due to bandwidth problem), the Summilux 35 and 50 ASPH both shows some corner problem wide open.
Couldn't resist.... picked up the X-Pro1 and a 35 1.4 yesterday. Weather is absolutely horrible here... fog and slush.. come on now. Can't wait to test this thing out.
mawz wrote:
the X-Pro1 seems to have moderate to major smearing in the corners, including with longer lenses. That essentially renders the X-Pro1 useless with M lenses where the NEX-7 is merely inferior to the 5N and GXR but still usable with some post.
I'm glad to see this comment. From the very first samples, even with a 50mm Leica lens (can't remember which), smearing looked to my eyes to be a problem. With some of the wides it is so bad you can see easily that there is something wrong with the image, at web resolution and sizes, no need for pixel peeping.
No doubt Fujifilm knows this which is why they elected not to release a M adapter at product launch, in order to avoid bad press over this aspect of the camera at a time when sweetness and light is preferred.
Maybe they figured M lens shooters were all loading up on SLR Magic f/0.95 primes and shooting nothing but wide open close up where edges don't matter a heck of a lot? Yes, that's the ticket!
Being mostly restricted to using native lenses isn't a crime of course, I just can't figure out why they decided to draw attention to M lens compatibility by announcing an adapter. Maybe they witnessed the long period of denial the alt lens community went through with the NEX-7 and thought they could lever that time and interest in alt-glass for marketing purposes.
) and I can definitely see the glass cover, not sure if it's exactly 2.5mm but it looks pretty thick, thicker than I've seen on other cameras. I was carefully lowering the sensor cleaning doohickey in the camera mount and it stopped very far from where I could clearly see the sensor was, and I couldnt work out why. Then I remember this article from Lloyd Chambers.
