Wow - hard to believe the lowly VC Color Skopar (which is average at best on the 5DII) would be better than the dedicated lens for the X-Pro1. Not so pro after all I guess, at least for that lens. Would be interesting to see how the Zeiss would do, or the Oly's (18/3.5, 21/2, 21/3.5).
Kinda sad as I was hoping Fuji did a great job on the system
The VC Color Skopar 20mm does quite well on 1.5 crop cameras. When using it with F to X adapter the lens' rear element is quite far from the sensor so the corner softness it not an issue.
nandemofoto wrote:
I'm really curious if this effect can be minimized by using lenses with better resolution, like the Zeiss 18mm f3.5 AIS.
I found the XF 18mm to be rather average (put it on sale in a different form) instead I'm using VC Color Scopar 20mm f3.5 AIS which has much better corners and overall better resolution.
I think the effect is intentional and a choice Fuji has made with their processing. It's there in both the raw's and jpegs I have taken with both the Leica Summicron R 50 (a very high resolving lens at F4/ 5.6) and Fuji's own extremely sharp 35 1.4. The effect seems to be replacing detail at the pixel level with a graphic rendering of shapes/ outlines in the image thus it seems to be clear it's the result of heavy processing at work. I suspect it's responsible for the unique and very crisp look of the Fuji images at native sizes OOC and it probably also contributes to the really good, "noise free" high ISO capability. The downside seems to be what I have shown.
Well, I debated on how to best present these comparisons but in the end decided to just show the Fuji output at it's default sharpening with the NEX versions sharpened as well, both with uncorrected out of camera color. If someone really wants to see the unsharpened versions, let me know.
All shots below were at 5.6 (the sharpest across the frame aperture for all lenses tested), base ISO for both cameras and tripod mounted. I did end up doing a little focus bracketing with the Fuji and the alt lenses as it did turn out to be much more difficult to focus with the lower resolution EVF versus the one in the NEX-7. That surprised me a bit as previously I had no issue with manual focus + alt lenses on the Fuji at closer distances. I guess the longer distances are really where the benefits of having a higher resolving EVF show up. Anyway, I'm 100% positive the focus was perfect - there was no difference in my bracketed focus shots.
The AWB with the Fuji X 35 1.4 seemed to be close overall, perhaps with a slight tendency towards cyan and green. Oddly though, as can be seen in the crops when using the ALT lenses, the AWB was completely off for the Fuji. I don't know why that is exactly unless the WB sensor for Fuji does not work through the lens. The NEX-7 tended towards very warm to yellow in it's AWB rendering with the two ALT lenses.
The Fuji raw files were put through Silkypix and all defaults, including sharpening (which as mentioned previously is fairly strong), set for all shots and the NEX-7 raws were developed with additional detail sharpening beyond the default (for landscapes, usually AMT=40, Detail = 40). All crops below are at 100%.
Finally, lots of variables here (different raw converters, different sharpening algorithms, different adapters, etc.) so take everything with a pound of salt.
My sense is that neither of these two lenses perform as well on the Fuji as they do on the more demanding NEX-7, which is very odd. This is clear with the off center rendering of detail on the Pentax and the very low contrast rendering of the Leica (low contrast which seems to be robbing the image of some detail) when used on the X-Pro1. Of course, one might initially think it's due to the adapters but I really don't think that's the case. I suspect the Fuji is extremely picky with lens design, even SLR lenses.
thanks Tariq, the fuji doesnt look like much of a platform for alts to me.
Yesterday australia post kindly decided to deliver my kipon adapter after sitting on it for 3 weeks. I learned 2 things: my otherwise tack sharp CV28/3.5 is as good as the bottom of a coke bottle on this camera. Secondly, I learned that I cant see the dof on the EVF even at f1.4 as I was secretly hoping, unless I zoom in which is not an option for my shooting. I couldnt see it with the fuji 35/1.4 either but I was hoping the camera might have stopped the lens down as part of its endless chattering.
Other than that the Nokton 50/1.5 looks nice enough, it's a very contrastly lens which works well with this sensor and the astia preset (which I find is surprisingly close to the real astia slides)
So anyway I like the fuji lenses so I think I'll just wait for the 28mm pancake next year, since the CV is no good and the Contax G doesnt look much better either (and nobody has dared focus it to infinity yet, the rear element sits way to close for comfort to the sensor)
If only the pancake has a marked, mechanical focusing ring
Spyro P. wrote:
thanks Tariq, the fuji doesnt look like much of a platform for alts to me.
Yesterday australia post kindly decided to deliver my kipon adapter after sitting on it for 3 weeks. I learned 2 things: my otherwise tack sharp CV28/3.5 is as good as the bottom of a coke bottle on this camera. Secondly, I learned that I cant see the dof on the EVF even at f1.4 as I was secretly hoping, unless I zoom in which is not an option for my shooting. I couldnt see it with the fuji 35/1.4 either but I was hoping the camera might have stopped the lens down as part of its endless chattering.
Other than that the Nokton 50/1.5 looks nice enough, it's a very contrastly lens which works well with this sensor and the astia preset (which I find is surprisingly close to the real astia slides)
but the focusing makes it a no go for me.
So anyway I like the fuji lenses so I think I'll just wait for the 28mm pancake next year, since the CV is no good and the Contax G doesnt look much better either (and nobody has dared focus it to infinity yet, the rear element sits way to close for comfort to the sensor)
If only the pancake has a marked, mechanical focusing ring ...Show more →
Did you happen to notice if your contrasty 50 1.5 maintained the contrast you are used to seeing or if it becomes a little flatter/ hazier when on the X-Pro1?
Also, could you confirm if the projected brightlines of the OVF get very faint/ almost disappear when you mount an alt lens and use it outside in bright light?
No, still very contrasty, especially in comparison with the fuji lenses it was night and day. My daughter never had bluer eyes, and thats the astia preset which is meant to be soft tones. It's actually not a bad combo with this lens if you dont mind mopping up all that CA wide open.
Confirming the framelines issue, they went very weak on me too. I still like the camera for the VF, sensor, lenses and ergonomics, but fuji has a ton of annoyances to iron out.
Spyro P. wrote:
No, still very contrasty, especially in comparison with the fuji lenses it was night and day. My daughter never had bluer eyes, and thats the astia preset which is meant to be soft tones. It's actually not a bad combo with this lens if you dont mind mopping up all that CA wide open.
Confirming the framelines issue, they went very weak on me too. I still like the camera for the VF, sensor, lenses and ergonomics, but fuji has a ton of annoyances to iron out.
Interesting regarding the CV 50. The shot of your daughter certainly looks nicely rendered.
Agree about the overall ergo of the X-Pro1 as well as the shutter sound and the Hybrid VF (though I did notice the accuracy of the OVF in mine was way off as compared to the EVF - moreso than what I saw with the X100). I really hope the camera is successful so Fuji continues to refine it in future versions. I'm sure, just as happened with the X100, the current X-Pro1 will only get better through firmware updates.
I just played with an X1-Pro at my neighborhood camera shop. Despite reading about it, I was pretty stunned at the low weight of the camera and 35 mm lens. My initial impression was that it felt like a hollow M-9. I've seen incredible images from this camera, but personally I would prefer it if it had some more heft.
I find it hard to understand why weight is equated with quality. If the camera is too light, one could hang a 5 lb weight from the bottom tripod mount screw.That would make it more hefty and probably make it a higher quality camera, too. Or, one could spend $7,000.00 for the Leica and get the weight and implied quality that is evidently associated with heft.
Personally, I find the X-Pro1 to be a great sharp, quality camera and the weight is proper for carrying.
Wm. Manther wrote:
I find it hard to understand why weight is equated with quality. If the camera is too light, one could hang a 5 lb weight from the bottom tripod mount screw.That would make it more hefty and probably make it a higher quality camera, too. Or, one could spend $7,000.00 for the Leica and get the weight and implied quality that is evidently associated with heft.
Personally, I find the X-Pro1 to be a great sharp, quality camera and the weight is proper for carrying.
Just to set the record straight, I was not suggesting it's not a great camera - just expressing my surprise at how light it is. As far as my personal preference for something with a little more heft, I just find it easier to hand hold a camera that has more heft. I can hand hold at slower shutter speeds with my Nikon SLRs than with my NEX.
Interestingly, the only time I have ever fired a hand gun was on a ranch in Wyoming this past Fall. As someone who has never shot a hand gun before, I was surprised to find that I was much more accurate with a heavy metal Smith and Wesson 38 as compared to a light Glock with lots of plastic. I'm not saying the S&W is a better hand gun than the Glock, but I was more accurate with it as it was easier for me to hold steady than the much lighter Glock. The guy running the shooting range said that was a pretty normal experience.
