i like what i see from the x100 lens a lot more than what i see from the panny 20/1.7, which is the closest µ4/3 has to a similar lens. the panaleica 25/1.4 looks pretty nice, but it is a totally different focal length and much bigger.
Yeah...m4/3 really needs an AF 35mm equivalent that's good. The Oly 17/2.8 is rather meh, with an unremarkable look, average sharpness and high CA. The 20/1.7 is very sharp, but is very clinical. The Voigtlander 17.5/0.95 is spectacular, but pretty big and of course manual focus.
FlyPenFly wrote:
To be honest, I still haven't see any Stunning pics with the X100.
Anyone have a link? I'm sure it's capable of it and it's many an enthusiasts hands.
i've seen a ton of beautiful shots, but i think my tastes in lens rendering run contrary to yours. as far as stunning goes, that has everything to with the photographer and almost nothing to do with the camera/lens.
FlyPenFly wrote:
To be honest, I still haven't see any Stunning pics with the X100.
Anyone have a link? I'm sure it's capable of it as it's many an enthusiasts hands.
Wait, have you never owned a X100 or at least used one extensively?
The way you assert that "The PL25 and PL45 are especially much nicer lenses than the X100", I would think that you would have used all the equipment in question.
I can't tell you which lenses are better than which, and if I'm being honest, I don't really care.
I care about images. To me, the lens is just a means to an end.
You can search Flickriver for X100 if you need. Just be aware that there are lots of amature "product shots".
sebboh wrote:
i've seen a ton of beautiful shots, but i think my tastes in lens rendering run contrary to yours. as far as stunning goes, that has everything to with the photographer and almost nothing to do with the camera/lens.
But rendering has little to do with the photographer and more to do with the lens and sensor i.e. it's about how each lens and sensor renders color, contrast or micro contrast, etc. Terms like film-like, Velvia-like, 3D-like, etc has do with how well a lens and sensor renders these things. No? If we are talking about artistic expression and the content of a photo, that's a different matter altogether.
DTOB wrote:
Wait, have you never owned a X100 or at least used one extensively?
The way you assert that "The PL25 and PL45 are especially much nicer lenses than the X100", I would think that you would have used all the equipment in question.
I can't tell you which lenses are better than which, and if I'm being honest, I don't really care.
I care about images. To me, the lens is just a means to an end.
You can search Flickriver for X100 if you need. Just be aware that there are lots of amature "product shots".
I did own one and used one extensively. Except about 2 or 3 pics that I liked, I haven't found it that especially exceptional except for it's ability to hold on to DR at higher ISOs.
The lens is a means to an image... so I would think that is pretty important.
Did you find the Leica X1 or X2, Fuji Xpro, m4/3 with 20mm 1.7 etc any more or less stunning ? I've owned all of them and honestly none of them made me a better or worse photographer as they are all capable.
Now you might be a very tough one it impress, and maybe you only are impressed by 1 out of every 10,000 or so images you see, regardless of camera, but I think its a bit unfair to imply that the X100 is less capable of producing stunning pics than anything else out there unless there is some good solid evidence of why that might be.
Does the X100 not attract any skilled photographers ?
Is is "cork sniffer" talk about lens rendering or color reproduction etc that make one not able to see for forest for the trees so to speak ?
Does the X100 have any major issues in operation such as a AF, lens speed, lack of high ISO, that would make it unable to capture good images in a majority of settings ?
I'm just not following where your going with that statement.
If we assume that otherwise good photographers are using the X100, and yet the X100 can't produce stunning photos, then surely its the camera that is holding them back.
No one wants a camera that holds them back of course, so what should one buy instead ? And for that matter, is there an assurance that they simply need to switch away from the X100 and then will then be producing stunning photos like nobodies business ?
If the pictures aren't good enough must be the camera ??
bobbytan wrote:
But rendering has little to do with the photographer and more to do with the lens and sensor i.e. it's about how each lens and sensor renders color, contrast or micro contrast, etc. Terms like film-like, Velvia-like, 3D-like, etc has do with how well a lens and sensor renders these things. No? If we are talking about artistic expression and the content of a photo, that's a different matter altogether.
that is why i distinguished between beautiful (due to rendering) shots and stunning (due to photographic vision, composition, and decisive moment) shots. should have explained what i meant better.
fly tends to like the zeiss rendering style with high contrast and high microcontrast while i typically am not a big fan of such rendering and prefer the more subtle feel of rokkors.
bobbytan wrote:
But rendering has little to do with the photographer and more to do with the lens and sensor i.e. it's about how each lens and sensor renders color, contrast or micro contrast, etc. Terms like film-like, Velvia-like, 3D-like, etc has do with how well a lens and sensor renders these things. No? If we are talking about artistic expression and the content of a photo, that's a different matter altogether.
Well, that depends. Some things like micro-contrast or DoF falloff are mostly a function of the lens. But color, for example, is completely under the control of the photographer. Sure, each lens/sensor combo has "native" color characteristics, but you can easily tweak, adjust, and manipulate color in post-processing. In general, when people talk about color that a sensor produces they mostly mean the color profile that's either embedded in the camera's JPG engine or that's default in the RAW processor of their choice. Change the color profile and the sensor's color characteristics will change as well.
Makten wrote:
I had the X100 for a while and liked it, but it didn't fit my style. Now, much later, I have the OM-D and it is everything the X100 wasn't. With a small lens like the Panasonic 20/1.7, image quality is almost the same, but not quite there. Though, if you like strict composing, the EVF of the OM-D is much better. The AF is better as well, even if the 20/1.7 lens is a bit slow.
Hey Goosey
Just dropping in to agree 100% with this. (Makten usually knows what he's talking about.)
