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.
Actually, while his images are creatively not so inspiring, they do reveal some information about what to expect from the system. My takeaway from his images I checked were that once again the 18mm can be made to look technically terrible and the 35mm seems to be optimized for closer distances wide open and needs to be stopped down some for urban landscapes if you want edge to edge sharpness. IMO, the 18 is a poor choice for urban landscapes.
So far the most significant technique difference between Chris Handley's photos (the guy whose Flickr you linked to) and those from Arias is that Arias has been working in a mostly reportage style that enhances the characteristics of fast primes - close to subject, non-planar subject, clear separation from the background.
Handley has been working at greater distances and creating images that are technically more challenging for lenses. Some of his close shots with the 35 though show that it is a sharp lens wide open. Actually, I think it's a sharper lens than the Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 II at closer distances.
rscheffler wrote:
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)....Show more →
Aren't we saying the same thing: the Fuji 35/1.4 has similar perceived DoF compared to the CV 35/1.2 wide open- which is a little odd? I'm judging DoF not on the background blur, but on relative sharpness of different parts of the subject: from the eyes to the ears, for example. To me, he's achieved a very full-frame look.
It could just be the character of the Fuji lens: the way some lenses transition from focus to OOF areas does give them a shallower look than the actual DoF, IMO.
alwang wrote:
To me, he's achieved a very full-frame look.
It could just be the character of the Fuji lens: the way some lenses transition from focus to OOF areas does give them a shallower look than the actual DoF, IMO.
I also found some images from my X100 reminded me of a rounder, larger format look - and that is with the wider 23mm lens. That lens has the same sort of transition in the dof fall off. The Fuji 35 1.4 and the 60 both look to have that look in combination with the pixie dust Fuji sprinkles over the sensors they use. Fuji really does "get" color as well as how to mimic film characteristic curves in their camera software imaging engines.
sebboh wrote:
doesn't look like any unusually narrow dof for aps-c to me. some of those look wider than 35mm to me though.
Agree. Plus the Fujfilm XF35 has a shorter minimum focus distance than many RF lenses (0.3 meters as opposed to 0.5 or 0.7 on many RF lenses) - assuming he got in /real/ close and the final result isn't cropped much, that alone could explain the look.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I also found some images from my X100 reminded me of a rounder, larger format look - and that is with the wider 23mm lens. That lens has the same sort of transition in the dof fall off. The Fuji 35 1.4 and the 60 both look to have that look in combination with the pixie dust Fuji sprinkles over the sensors they use. Fuji really does "get" color as well as how to mimic film characteristic curves in their camera software imaging engines.
i always thought the x100 looked very similar to my minolta lenses with respect to color, flare, low contrast, dof fall off, and maybe SA(?). i view this as a good thing and really wish the lens would work on a camera that doesn't turn me off so much.
alwang wrote:
Aren't we saying the same thing: the Fuji 35/1.4 has similar perceived DoF compared to the CV 35/1.2 wide open- which is a little odd? I'm judging DoF not on the background blur, but on relative sharpness of different parts of the subject: from the eyes to the ears, for example. To me, he's achieved a very full-frame look.
It could just be the character of the Fuji lens: the way some lenses transition from focus to OOF areas does give them a shallower look than the actual DoF, IMO.
alwang wrote:
Aren't we saying the same thing: the Fuji 35/1.4 has similar perceived DoF compared to the CV 35/1.2 wide open- which is a little odd?
I don't think it's odd, because they're both fast 35mm lenses and will have similarities on APS-C.
I'm judging DoF not on the background blur, but on relative sharpness of different parts of the subject: from the eyes to the ears, for example. To me, he's achieved a very full-frame look.
That's because it is a full frame look - the Fuji lens is full frame on that camera. But I know what you mean. Part of the 'FF look' is the falloff of performance towards the edges with lenses made specifically for a certain image format. So, a lens intended for the 35mm film format when used with an APS-C sensor will have much of that character cropped out.
Relative sharpness still has a lot to do with distance to the subject, and I agree with Michael, the Fuji 35 can focus pretty close. But I think that portrait was probably done around 50cm, maybe a bit closer. The subject in my photo was at about 70cm.
It could just be the character of the Fuji lens: the way some lenses transition from focus to OOF areas does give them a shallower look than the actual DoF, IMO.
Yes that could come into play, but I'm not seeing a shallower than expected DoF. As I mentioned earlier, the Fuji 35 seems to be quite sharp at near distances wide open, which will more clearly define the precise plane of focus. The CV is not all that sharp wide open and up close. It's very good, but I think the Fuji has less SA from the samples I've seen so far.
rscheffler wrote:
So, a lens intended for the 35mm film format when used with an APS-C sensor will have much of that character cropped out.
True, although aps-c sensors that have a hard time dealing with angled light rays can actually exaggerate field curvature and/or vignetting in 135 lenses, which can "add" some of its own character. Also, as Joakim has mentioned before, cameras with AA filters actually have a little less apparent DOF than cameras without AA filters.
Ultimately, I think the samples in that link look good, but the DOF isn't unusual, to me.
Seems like there's some darkening of the edges in the CV 12 and 15 shots. No real magenta cast though. Detail looks just ok- certainly not more resolution than I get with the NEX-5N+CV15.
rscheffler wrote: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kinson12/ has added images at distance with the CV12, 15 and 35 f/1.2 at various apertures to his Flickr account...
I think we need to see similar shots from a few other people before drawing conclusions. My concern with his samples is that for some, like the CV35 f/1.2, the lens might not have been focused correctly, which also makes me wonder just how easy it is to focus such lenses with the EVF. The CV15 looks quite soft in the corners until it's stopped down a fair amount, which wasn't what I experienced with it on the 5N or GXR, but it could be possible he has a poor copy. Or it just doesn't work well on the XP1. His CV12 samples remind me of what I saw with mine on the 5N, with one side sharper than the other, which leads me to think there is either a slight centering issue with the lens or the adapter mount is slightly off. The CV35 is difficult to draw a conclusion about because it appears from the wider aperture images that it was not focused correctly. But even stopped down to where depth of field takes over, I'm not sure there will be much, if any, benefit to using a fast rangefinder 35mm over Fuji's own, based on many of the recent good samples from it.
Given the range of shots / different lenses, I'm surprised we haven't seen one from kinson12's series that looks super crisp. The CV15 shots of apartment towers start to get close but should be sharper than they are. You'd think it would be hard to miss focus on those blocks... so maybe focus is a problem with this camera. Or perhaps there's something else at work.
I wonder if this kind fellow could be convinced to head out again and shoot a similar series, this time using in-camera JPGs. All the images I checked were developed with Silkypix. Maybe it shares some of the blame, stranger things have happened under the midnight sun.
On a positive note, no moire appearing on some structures I'm confident other AA-filter free cameras probably would have shown some false colour on.
The samples are free from color cast and moiré, which is a good thing.
Corner smear seems evident, what are the odds that ALL his lenses are not resolving the corners well, on a crop sensor? None, I'd say.
The corner smear with M wide angle glass seems to make sense, considering the sensor adapted lens design of the Fujinon 18/2, which is stated in their own literature. The wide angle lens/es are designed to cater to the sensor, and not the other way around.
This was brought up in the X Pro 1 discussion thread by me at an early stage and I am surprised people are surprised now, when it is something Fuji has indicated in their own literature with schematics on lens and sensor design.
So, my conclusion is that M wide angle lenses will suffer from corner smear since the sensor is not developed with them in mind. But, false hope is sometimes better than no hope at all.
Considering the Fuji X Pro 1 lens road map there will be plenty of wide angle glass to choose from, primes and zooms. They will be tailored to the sensor by default and probably good enough.
I don't see the X Pro 1 as a viable platform for my M wide angle glass, which is a pity considering how good the sensor seems to be.
Ron/Alwang/Michael:
I am quite certain this is the level of performance we are to expect from the X Pro 1 with wide angle glass: very good to excellent, but not in the corners. People can test ten different samples and vary the distance as much as they like, but I think this is the way the sensor does; not better than the NEX5N, apart from the lack of color cast on the X-Pro1. In my book it is not worth the premium for the X Pro 1.
If I were to buy the X Pro 1 it would be as a stand alone system and I think the lenses seem good enough on their own. I have some lingering doubts on the 18/2. But, considering the design is done to suit the sensor I am sure they made it as good as they could considering the design criteria; small, fast and wide.
I would still hate the focus by wire though. No real manual focus is sad.
Also, it seems the 60 macro is slow to focus. It is a lens I'd be happy to have with real manual focus on it, iffy AF and iffy MF too? Bummer.
Henrik, I kind of agree with you. If the upcoming Fuji 14mm and 12-24 are very good, there will be little compelling reason to adapt rangefinder lenses, other than if one already owns them, or really desires the manual focus build.
What we don't know about the Fuji sensor is the composition of the toppings, other than it doesn't have an AA filter. The rumour that the cover glass is 2.5mm thick would lead one to believe that Fuji's lens design is in part to offset the problem such thickness would present for more traditional rangefinder lens designs. That said, I think kinson12's CV12 samples are comparable to my 5N results. I've been chatting a bit with him in the comments of this image http://www.flickr.com/photos/kinson12/6829096888/ and he said his CV15 also looks bad on the M9, so it could be that he has a poor copy, which is the way I'm leaning based on his XP1 samples. But I agree, compared to the 5N, I don't see any compelling advantage for the Fuj with adapted lenses so far. And it will likely be on a somewhat lens by lens basis. Hopefully they do well with the performance of the upcoming lenses.
What's odd is that the Fuji 18/2 doesn't seem all that great at the edges, either. You'd think that, with all of the effort that Fuji made by removing the AA and redesigning the CFA, that they'd also thin out the sensor filter pack, if that indeed is the issue. It would have helped both rangefinder and native lenses at the edges.
Either way, I also think that native lenses make the most sense with this camera, and they seem fine to me, for the most part.
Of all his images, the CV15 shots of the apartment buildings with the green building in front look the most reminiscent of how a bad lens/sensor matchup (like the NEX-7 with some lenses) will destroy details in the edges. Centre third sharp (not that sharp in these samples), outer thirds progressively clubbed to death by FilterPack The Destroyer.
It might be a great camera with native lenses (I still want to see more city scapes and distant scenics to see how it performs in those situations) but doesn't look like a compelling camera for my purposes.
To be honest, I'm relieved. If the XP1 delivered stunning edge to edge image quality with RF lenses I own or might own, I might have been tempted to look at it. In person. In secret.
The standing joke around here goes something like this:
Wife: I've not seen your small camera in the open for a few hours | days. Is it still the same one or have you exchanged it for another?
Me: Occasional red face and explanation that starts of with "But..."
Part of the 'FF look' is the falloff of performance towards the edges with lenses made specifically for a certain image format. So, a lens intended for the 35mm film format when used with an APS-C sensor will have much of that character cropped out.