jcolwell wrote:
Anyway, while fooling around and half-blinding myself in the process (580EX II in the face from 0.2m)
scortched retina...
did you try the pc port with the canon flash at all? I have a thumbs up that I cant live without on the hotshoe, so my only option for flash is the pc cable (which I have no clue where I've put it)
kosmoskatten wrote:
Jim; thanks, it seems like you are not likely to have ghosting under normal shooting conditions, which is all good.
Henrik, you're welcome.
kosmoskatten wrote:
Regarding the Sunpak; do I smell molten plastic..?
Nope. I figured out how to use something smaller. I think I'll put the 622 back in the crypt; fully-charged, in case anything from Team Edward shows up.
did you try the pc port with the canon flash at all? I have a thumbs up that I cant live without on the hotshoe, so my only option for flash is the pc cable (which I have no clue where I've put it)
Nope. The only PC connector I can find is for the Sunpak 622. Oh well, back to the crypt...
kosmoskatten wrote:
Tariq; seems like you managed to provoke moiré, which would be a first for the X Pro 1, it seems very resilient to moiré. Do I say congratulations or that I am sorry? Anyway, that is a very unforgiving subject and it is not present in the jpeg version. The reds, seems not to be a strong point of Fuji, I am not happy with the way reds are rendered in the X10 either.
People rave about Fuji colors, I don't find them as accurate as some of the competition.
Doesn't RPP support Fuji RAW?
RPP supports the X100 and does a great job on the files - much better than ACR imo. Unfortunately, I don't think it has been updated yet to support the unique X-Pro1 raws.
Regarding the color, the raws seem very accurate with regard to color out of Silkypix by default.
Anyone with the 18mm willing to do some infinity-focused landscapes? I don't think I have a good feel for how far into the corner the softness appears.
If anyone has shot the 5D + C/Y 28 Distagon how does it compare? The Distagon can get a little bit softer in the corners, but the center is so amazing the corners could be just fine. Anyway, that is my reference point for the 18mm and what I would hope for.
When the 14mm comes along I think my reference will be the Zuiko 21/3.5.
I think I'm going to talk to the wife today about ordering the XPro + 18 & 35. Will have to sell the rest of my Canon glass and the X100.
Spyro P. wrote:
Heh sorry for not contributing to the tecnical discussion, I'm not very technical myslef (most of the time I dont know what you're talking about ) but I could add a couple of real world photos if you dont mind
Those look really nice. This camera seems to suit you well.
This does not apply to most folks so just disregard if your using this camera for street/ people/ editorial type stuff. My use includes that subject matter but it also requires decent quality for larger landscape prints. I thought perhaps the sensor, with it's lack of an AA filter and great dynamic range, might work well for this use. Unfortunately, as it is now, the following result means my X-Pro1 is going back unless a third party raw converter shows up which does not exhibit the issue shown below.
This test was initially just to compare the NEX-7 with a 35 3.5 Pentax SMC Tak against the Fuji with the 35 1.4, both taken at optimum F-stops and base ISO (200 for the Fuji, 100 for the NEX-7). F-Stop compared here is 5.6. Silkypix used for the Fuji raw and ACR used for the NEX-7 raw. Both were then interpolated up in size to 30"x45"@240PPI using Alien Skin Blow UP II. One thing very noticeable right off the bat is that the Fuji 35 1.4 is amazing. Tack sharp across the frame. The Pentax is not getting the most out of the NEX-7. These are large so sorry for the big files. In all cases below, the NEX is on the left, Fuji on the right. P.S. Be sure and click when the magnifier shows up when you mouse over each comparison to see the full size..
Seeing some odd artifacts in the foliage of the Fuji, I interpolated both up as mentioned above (30"x45"@240PPI)
Here is the 50% view which approximates what each print would look like with regard to detail at that size: http://www.gibranstudio.com/lgcompare50.jpg
Finally, here is a 100% crop at the large print size (30"x 45"@240PPI) showing a detail of the dreaded "watercolor" effect in the Fuji file. It's also there with the jpeg so the only possible hope would be in another third party raw program. This same sort of watercolor effect was seen in early Mamiya MF digital backs/ cameras by the way. http://www.gibranstudio.com/lgcompare1.jpg
Tariq; this is quite interesting. I actually meant to ask you whether the Fuji X Pro 1 displays watercolor artifactsery, something that is present in the X10 at higher ISO and it is something I have noticed with Fuji cameras before.
aleksanderpolo wrote:
So the "watercolor" thing is a sharpening artifact of the jpeg engine?
Any noticeable LoCA or purple fringing at f1.4 and f2?
Unfortunately, the "watercolor" effect is in both raws (as processed by Silkypix at least) and OOC jpegs. The examples I posted are from raws, not OOC jpegs.
Yes, I noticed some LoCA in bright, contrasty oof areas and it's there beyond F2. It's really the only fault (a fairly minor one imo) of this lens.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Unfortunately, the "watercolor" effect is in both raws (as processed by Silkypix at least) and OOC jpegs. The examples I posted are from raws, not OOC jpegs.
O, how come? So it's a sensor thing? Well at least it is not too visible unless you look at the 100% crop...
aleksanderpolo wrote:
O, how come? So it's a sensor thing? Well at least it is not too visible unless you look at the 100% crop...
I doubt it will be visible in the majority of images even at 100% unless there is something like foliage and you are looking for it. The only place it would really show up is if you plan to make larger than native resolution prints.
After what Henrik said above about this effect showing up in other Fuji camera files, I was curious if it actually was present in my X100 raws. Sure enough, the effect is there. I processed a very similar x100 foliage shot in three different raw converters (Silkypix, ACR and Raw Photo Processor) and it shows up in all of them when enlarged. So, it would appear to be a Fuji trait and not something just associated with either Silkypix or the special color filter array of the X-Pro1. That's actually more disappointing to me as it means it's likely never going to be addressed/ corrected.
Tariq: it seems plausible to me that Fuji thinks that the watercolor artifacts are not going to show in general printing and web publishing, i.e. that the effect as such will be masked and not clearly visible in printed media.
To what extent it is a real problem I don't know, only that I have seen it, others have seen it and it is there. I don't think Fuji are going to fix it either. I would like to know why, but I think they think it will not pose a significant problem and that it will bring other advantages to the signal processing.
Maybe it will pose a real problem when you need to up-res and image.
I think one conclusion is very clear: digital imaging has come a long way, but there are still teething problems with pretty much all platforms and that there is still a long way to go.
The X-Series from Fuji is a step in the right general direction but I am sure we will see better things coming, both from Fuji and from others. I don't honestly see the X Pro 1 as the game changer I was hoping it would be.
kosmoskatten wrote:
Tariq: it seems plausible to me that Fuji thinks that the watercolor artifacts are not going to show in general printing and web publishing, i.e. that the effect as such will be masked and not clearly visible in printed media.
To what extent it is a real problem I don't know, only that I have seen it, others have seen it and it is there. I don't think Fuji are going to fix it either. I would like to know why, but I think they think it will not pose a significant problem and that it will bring other advantages to the signal processing.
Maybe it will pose a real problem when you need to up-res and image. ...Show more →
Yes, your probably right. It's almost forgivable on a $500 P&S camera (and, as you say, the effect may have other benefits such as the illusion of detail at native output) but on a $1700 camera body such as the X-Pro1, it's not going to fly imo. At least some of the users in that segment are going to push the files and will expect more out of them.
) but I could add a couple of real world photos if you dont mind