If I were going to pay someone to remove an AA filter in a newish camera like the NEX-7, I'd write about it. So far, Google-fu eludes detection of any such writing.
How dare this mystery owner go dark in our hour of need!
The frame lines are electronic, so they'd be easy to adjust on the fly. I'd guess the only odd thing would be when the magnification lens comes in and out a certain focal length.
"The X-Pro1 is a Fuji X camera so I’ve said my fair share of curse words using it but then the effing @#&*!@ camera locks on and O. M. G."
The dynamic range captured in some of those shots is really extreme and the way the X-Pro1 has dealt with blown out highlights and color looks exceptionally good/ film like. It just sucks the AF apparently sucks so bad. I just have to wonder how many great shots Zack missed. Why must Fuji torture us like this - it's not as if the technology for decent AF in a camera like this does not exist.
Those are some very nice images. Sensor doing a good job for sure. Photographer probably has something to do with it too, or is there a menu choice in the camera for that?
When my X100 worked, it worked very well. I expected to see the XP1 do that much better given the improved sensor and it certainly seems to. They seem to have fixed some of the software and operational curses the X100 had to bear.
Except for AF. We read that AF is better, but AF was never great in the X100. At best in good lighting and subject conditions it was ok. If the XP1 moves from OK to Good in the best of conditions, and from deplorable to #*&(#$# but finally it works in bad conditions, that's not much of a step forward, certainly not enough given this is their third kick at the can with this series of cameras.
Silver lining time? It'll still be good enough AF performance for many.
And, if MF lenses work well on it, it may yet be the go-to camera for alt-glass folks.
Probably not for me though. I really like the idea of using an AF camera with MF lenses but still having the fall back of decent AF lenses for certain purposes. I'd actually want good to great AF performance in that case, even if I'd only be using AF lens(es) for a minority of the time, because during those times AF would be the key requirement, not IQ or bokeh or micro contrast or resolving power.
The NEX series is frustratingly close. Good, even great AF for a compact, good manual focus assists, but the NEX-7 has its issues with the symmetrical wide angles lenses I own. The GXR which I love I won't add to this grouping because AF lens choices from Ricoh are restricted to but a few. Who else? No AF on a Leica digital M camera.
And Fuji - almost there but not quite and wide angle RF glass still an unfolding mystery.
Hmnn, not a lot of choice. Hopefully that means an as-yet not fully tapped out market so new competitors, or new models from the existing few, should meet this basic need. Good MF performance and usability experience. Good to great AF performance. Sell more lenses! Yeah!
michaelwatkins wrote:
Even the 50mm Noctilux shot of that scooter (@ f/11) looks off to me at the edges, although the entire image is probably suffering from motion blur. Hopefully kinson will get out during daylight hours and shoot in some decent light.
Maybe those very large rear elements in the X lenses are important after all. The 18mm lens has a larger rear element than the front. All of them seem to have larger rear elements than ZM lenses but I am just eyeballing that observation.
I had a look through all of his images and it kind of baffles me why he'd shoot so many of them at 1/30 second at relatively low ISO. Of course you're going to get camera shake...
If you look at his two 50 Lux images, the one of the pole is front focused, which makes me wonder how easy the magnified focus is for precision, assuming he used it. The one of the flowers tells me that the Lux suffers somewhat with higher pixel density sensors, especially wide open and near distances, where IMO, it's not that sharp, like many fast lenses. I see this also with it on the M9, at least my copy.
As for Zack Arias's XP1 photos, I think the takeaway is that like any camera equipment, results are very, very photographer dependent. And we can see in his images someone who not only has a creative eye, but also good post production skills.
BTW, love the last one of the woman in the car. As someone mentioned earlier, some of the Fuji lenses seem to flare somewhat. But at least here, he's used it to his advantage and it looks great.
As a side note, in my years of newspaper photography, having made the transition from film to digital along with 8-9 photographers in the department, it didn't matter if it was shot on film or digital, I could pretty easily ID who shot what just by the look of the image. Somehow, even with differing layers of technology thrown on top, the look of a given photographer manages to come through. We see that here in the various image threads, which IMO can be misleading for some when trying to determine how equipment will suit their needs. In other words, you still have to try it out to be sure it's right for you.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
"The X-Pro1 is a Fuji X camera so I’ve said my fair share of curse words using it but then the effing @#&*!@ camera locks on and O. M. G."
The dynamic range captured in some of those shots is really extreme and the way the X-Pro1 has dealt with blown out highlights and color looks exceptionally good/ film like. It just sucks the AF apparently sucks so bad. I just have to wonder how many great shots Zack missed. Why must Fuji torture us like this - it's not as if the technology for decent AF in a camera like this does not exist....Show more →
What strikes me is the extreme shallow DoF he's getting on some of these shots, like the headshot of the older fellow with glasses, or some of these:
Sounds like he's using the 35/1.4, but it doesn't look like any 35/1.4 on APS-C I've ever seen.
alwang wrote:
What strikes me is the extreme shallow DoF he's getting on some of these shots, like the headshot of the older fellow with glasses, or some of these:
Sounds like he's using the 35/1.4, but it doesn't look like any 35/1.4 on APS-C I've ever seen.
doesn't look like any unusually narrow dof for aps-c to me. some of those look wider than 35mm to me though.
Than either this guy is super-bad photographer (well he isnt great thats sure..) or they have different camera. I know that it depends on photographer, sure.. but those photos are just tiny bit too perfect for SoCs.
Mescalamba wrote:
Most samples from this combination I saw were well, mediocre.. nothing special. These are most definitely not, very impressive stuff.
Most photographers are mediocre; Zack is not. He's also been using the X100 extensively, so he should know his way around Fuji X cameras in general by now.
Mescalamba wrote:
It reminds me APS-C shots done with Voigtlaender 35mm/f1.2 .. which is bit strange.
Not that this is comparable to the above image, since the composition is looser and a bit softer because it was at ISO 6400, but this is the Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 II on the NEX-5N:
I don't think the DoF he's getting from the Fuji 35 is anything different. What you're probably seeing is optimum camera to subject to background distance relationships that can have a huge influence on the apparent background blur.
BTW, the exif is intact in all his images, and most were done with the 35mm either at f/1.4 or f/2, and there's one X100 image tucked in there as well (b&w of the kid on crutches).
(although he states its 35mm/f1.4)