It does look awfully soft, all over the image. Something is dreadfully wrong, but what only the robots at Fujifilm know for sure.
After the early NEX-7 shots proved so frustratingly unsatisfying... leaving many of us looking for more, for better done evaluations, for interesting subjects, for a long time, I told myself I would not get trapped in that cycle again and here I am almost sucked in to the vortex again. At least I had an excuse with the NEX-7 - I had one on pre-order.
Not doing that again. Patience!
With lots of cameras seemingly in the wild, there'll be a decent evaluation series soon enough.
Spyro P. wrote:
see, there's a business opportunity, building massive brick walls and renting them for lens testing
And cats, lensrentals should have cats for rent too.
Is the crop of the CV12 this bad? I still cannot rule out he might have a bad copy of CV15... By the way, I think there some some slight cyan color shift on the short edge (farthest away from the center) similar to those on 5N.
michaelwatkins wrote:
It does look awfully soft, all over the image. Something is dreadfully wrong, but what only the robots at Fujifilm know for sure.
After the early NEX-7 shots proved so frustratingly unsatisfying... leaving many of us looking for more, for better done evaluations, for interesting subjects, for a long time, I told myself I would not get trapped in that cycle again and here I am almost sucked in to the vortex again. At least I had an excuse with the NEX-7 - I had one on pre-order.
Not doing that again. Patience!
With lots of cameras seemingly in the wild, there'll be a decent evaluation series soon enough....Show more →
+1
I feel how the surge of "no, it can't be true" is immersing the photo community in collective wait for the ultimate camera/sensor package and holding on to hope for longer than what is healthy,
instead of thinking "where there is smoke, there is fire". I work differently I guess. In my profession I work every day with fairly expensive tools. Some tool brands I use have a religious following but at least in that dedicated forum people acknowledge the shortcomings when they are presented. Of course some are in denial there too, exchanging parts and handing tools in for service that there is nothing wrong with, instead of swallowing the hard fact it is just that it isn't better than the competition, despite the hype.
For me the Pro X 1 is just another NEX7, not a bad camera at all, actually potentially great. Just not with legacy wide glass.
I think we will se more evidence to that as we go along. I find it hard to believe that suddenly all lenses are at fault at not even possibly the sensor. If a person has a lens that he has no camera out of several that will cram the most out of, of course he will lay blame on the lens, and not the cameras.
Spyro P. wrote:
you need one plane of focus to evaluate performance
ie a brick wall
Actually you only need one line, not a plane. Just tilt the camera so the line runs diagonally from corner to corner. I don't see so many people doing this. Maybe there are enough brick walls around
why would I bother with adapted wides
(unless I owned an M superwide, which I dont)
I think you make the right choice if you are interested in the X Pro 1.
Since I have a bunch of M glass, and some of them wides I am not primarily interested in the X Pro 1. If I was in the market for a new system I would definitely be interested. But, I would wait a little, regardless, and make sure there are no white orb problems, AF issues, software bugs or something like that. I think the Fuji wides that are scheduled will be terrific, look forward to seeing them.
FlyPenFly wrote:
So this is expensive, not good with RF wides despite no AA filter, and only one of the 3 lenses of the system seems good?
The 60 looks pretty good to me. The 18 looks okay, not great and not terrible. It's usable IMO, at least until the 14 and wide angle zoom are released.
Not a technical observation but there are 7 Fuji x100's on the buy/sell here on FM right now. That is a large amount based on what has been listed in the past. B&H has a 3/28 expected arrival of the X pro 1. So not sure if people are tryng to move their X100's in anicipation of receiving the new X pro 1
I think the 60 might be an awesome lens. Slow-ish AF preliminary reports indicate. But as long as it does not hunt I wouldn't mind it all that much. It is the manual focus by wire that puts me off a bit.
I think the X Pro 1 will sell well and I think it will be a great product, perhaps even a mile stone camera, not only for Fuji. Despite the quirks and shortcomings.
True, the 35 looks better. Actually, I really like it, at this distance. The 18 here doesn't look as good, but also not as terrible as it has in other examples. Perhaps there is more copy variation, or, it doesn't hold up as well at greater distances? The distance to the bookshelf is very, very close. Would be nice to see something like this test but at infinity... I'm sure it's just a matter of time.
FlyPenFly wrote:
So this is expensive, not good with RF wides despite no AA filter, and only one of the 3 lenses of the system seems good?
Thats pretty much same impression Ive got from it. And you might add, that AF would be beaten with years old dSLR (or even first mirrorless - Panny G1). Add natural quirkiness of Fuji cameras and its hype bubble about to make *plop*.
This is that kind of depressive stuff that always makes me bit sad - potential to make something great and near perfect, which fails badly. Tho I would say thats Fuji trait since start of digital cameras. They always try something nice, new, promising and it always backfire on them, cause they cant finish it properly. Most of their cameras is like "beta-version-with-possible-great-potential".
Looks like the 35/1.4 is much better than the 18/2 (still mushy on the edge at F8)
Actually, check out his photo stream. He has more than just bookshelves and actually makes the 18mm look good in a number of images. It really does seem to be scene dependent...
Spyro P. wrote:
Besides, the fuji lens is f2, small and cheap, and the samples look good enough
why would I bother with adapted wides
(unless I owned an M superwide, which I dont)
I guess I wonder ... if they can't do a better job on the 18 (EFL 28mm, one I use a lot), is there reason to believe the even wider lenses will be better? Perhaps I missed something, did Fujifilm announce that "we know the 18 is just ok but we'll charge a premium price for it anyway but trust us the next ones will be even better"?
You don't like fly by wire focus and don't want to adapt to using AFL in manual mode to select a focus point. In other words, you are a manual lens curmudgeon.
What you'd really like, but might not get, is edge to edge sharpness and reasonably low distortion
An alternative might have the rendering | contrast | flare characteristics | physical controls or weight you want. (I actually like a heaver lens on these small light cameras)
You are allergic to plastic lenses? Or you don't want to invest in vendor lens mount lock-in if there are alternatives.
I like how the XF 35 seems to perform and haven't been turned off by the 60 either. the 18 isn't doing it for me. But maybe my ZM18 would look even worse when mounted on an Xp1.
rscheffler wrote:
Actually, check out his photo stream. He has more than just bookshelves and actually makes the 18mm look good in a number of images. It really does seem to be scene dependent...
Sure, just like there's no doubt one could use a problematic 15 or 18 on the NEX-7 and still take away some great images, depending on the scene. I'm just miffed the 18 (28 in my mind) isn't a little better because then maybe I'd be inclined to check it out in person... not that I really *need* a reason to check it out. More the opposite.
The tree shot in his series again reinforces that it's going to be unclear on the edges subject distance from the lens increases. There's more CA or astigmatism going on there on the edge. Does it matter for web size or small prints, probably won't matter too much, most of the time. That said I can see it in an image occupying half my screen so probably it would matter to me.
In the end I wouldn't care about this lens much at all if I knew I could put an alt-alternative on there and do better but that's still something of a question mark at present.
michaelwatkins wrote:
I guess I wonder ... if they can't do a better job on the 18 (EFL 28mm, one I use a lot), is there reason to believe the even wider lenses will be better? Perhaps I missed something, did Fujifilm announce that "we know the 18 is just ok but we'll charge a premium price for it anyway but trust us the next ones will be even better"?
Maybe it just costs more to make a good 18mm for that format that a $600 price point can accommodate?
I know it's for full frame, but Canon makes a 28/1.8 lens which is just ok optically. And it costs $500. I have one. It's useful but doesn't blow my socks off. It's one of the reasons I moved over to rangefinders - I really like 28mm and there just aren't that many great 28s out there.
It's a shame the Fuji 18 isn't look that hot. I was really interested in this system, but some of the 18 pictures really have left me underwhelmed. I'll just stick it out with the gear I have.
Sure, I get that. My two stop slower much heavier ZM18 cost me not quite twice what the Fujifilm XF18 costs. The CV15 is no slouch and is price competitive with the XF though. No doubt Fujifilm could sell a really hot performing 18 for more money, but maybe not sell enough to warrant the design and production. I guess they made some trade offs and what we see is what the market got.
For what it is, perhaps the XF18 ought to be priced a little lower and thus avoid setting expectations that it would match the overall quality seen coming from the XF35.
What would be really frustrating for 28mm perspective lovers is if you can't mount nice alt-glass and get the kind of results you'd hope to see on this camera, leaving no good option for 28mm EFOV fans who are or want to be XP1 owners.
Yeah I agree. I know a lot are into alt glass, but I was actually thinking of sticking with the X lenses, as long as the AF was decent and the 18 was good. Sure, I'd buy the M adapter to stick shit on there for the fun of it, but I imagine I'd mostly use the native lenses.
The problem with alt glass on crop cameras (in my mind) is the wide end. There aren't a lot of 18/2 lenses out there Never mind something appropriate for a 21 FOV. By the time I buy all the appropriate lenses in addition to the ones I use on my film M, I might as well buy an M9.
It annoys me that 28mm FOV is the unwanted child in many manufacturer's line ups. I had hopes for the Fuji since they announced it as one of their first lenses...
