Focal lengths and aperture, equivalent or not, hardly tell the full story.
I'd expect the 23mm lens to be quite good, but I'd also guess $900. It's size is pretty big too from mock up's I've seen.
Will it be sharp edge to edge though? Current 23mm on the x100 isn't, and that may not be an issue for some but others like that across the frame sharpness of the zeiss.
Same goes for its rendering. You can have the same calculated DOF but a different look. Zeiss contrast and transition gives a unique look. Not better or worse, just different. I love Zeiss rendering, and preferred it over my Leica glass.
Lastly, there is also the sensor to consider. 24meg rx1 sensor is better at high iso, offered more resolution, and no x-trans weirdness.
23/1.4 should be a great lens, and xe-1 is a nice camera, but its just not as simple as saying all it takes is a fast 23mm and its equal to the rx1
itai195 wrote:
True enough. If that's the tradeoff being made then I'd point out that the value of an image quality advantage is a fleeting thing. A few years from now, your Fuji lenses are likely to still be useful on newer Fuji bodies, but the RX1's image quality will not be at the top of the heap anymore.
I still use my 8 year old 5D with a lot of satisfaction about the IQ though. Like the 5D, the RX1 will still be full frame in a few years, but the Fuji lenses will not work on a hypothetical future Fuji FF body.
millsart wrote:
Focal lengths and aperture, equivalent or not, hardly tell the full story.
I'd expect the 23mm lens to be quite good, but I'd also guess $900. It's size is pretty big too from mock up's I've seen.
Will it be sharp edge to edge though? Current 23mm on the x100 isn't, and that may not be an issue for some but others like that across the frame sharpness of the zeiss.
Same goes for its rendering. You can have the same calculated DOF but a different look. Zeiss contrast and transition gives a unique look. Not better or worse, just different. I love Zeiss rendering, and preferred it over my Leica glass.
Lastly, there is also the sensor to consider. 24meg rx1 sensor is better at high iso, offered more resolution, and no x-trans weirdness.
23/1.4 should be a great lens, and xe-1 is a nice camera, but its just not as simple as saying all it takes is a fast 23mm and its equal to the rx1...Show more →
+1
Comparing the as yet seen Fuji 23/1.4 to the Zeiss 35/2 on the RX1 is likely not going to favor the Fuji for a number of reasons. First off, how many 1.4 lenses - particularly wide ones- are as good as the RX1 lens wide open? The chances of the Fuji being the exception are pretty much zilch. The RX1 lens is pretty damn exceptional even wide open. Then there is the combination of extremely pleasing bokeh (with perfectly round oof highlights, etc) yet corner to corner sharpness stopped down just a little. That's a very rare combination. To that, add a pretty darn good close focus ability. Finally, there is the issue of the sensors, which strongly favors the FF RX1.
mortyb wrote:
I have a feeling the Fuji 23/1.4 will be VERY close to the RX1 output.
How is a lens (no matter how good) going to magically turn a 16meg X-trans (foliage smearing) sensor into a 24 meg sensor in terms of resolution ? You can't have output from a lens alone, you need the sensor behind, and as long the lens is mated to a XE-1 or XPro1, I don't see how that can change.
Additionally, I think it would be highly unlikely that Fuji is going to be able to duplicate a Zeiss Sonnar design in the 23mm. I don't know that they would even want to if they could. Zeiss has the Zeiss look, and Fuji has its own look, just like Leica has its own look. People have different taste in lens just like they have different taste in brands of soda. Coke doesn't taste like Pepsi but they are both cola, but you prefer one or the other.
I've owned the Fuji 18 and 35's and know how they render. The 35/1.4 in particular is quite nice, especially for a $599 lens, but I never felt the output of it looked like my Zeiss 50mm Planar or Sonnar, nor did it look like my 35 Biogons. It was its own Fuji look.
Now again, this isn't to say the Fuji's have bad output, they don't, they take really nice images overall, great color, amazing high ISO performance from APS-C, and are just pretty all around nice camera's save for a few issues with some smearing of detail that may or may not one day (hopefully) be resolved.
Trying to suggest that all you need to do is stick a lens onto a Fuji camera to equal a RX1 is just silly. Not only is it not really possible for all the reasons already outlined, but its not appreciating the Fuji cameras for what they are, rather its trying to prove how they measure up, which in itself suggest not being as good.
They are simply different. An XE-1 or XPro, which I owned, is just a different shooting experience from a different type of camera. One is a system camera and the other is a fixed lens mother of all point and shoots basically. Makes no more sense to compare them equally to the RX1 than it does to compare the RX1 to a D800 with a 35mm prime. Just so different overall that you need to look at the pro's and con's of each, rather than trying to make them both into the same thing and then judge them because its just not going to happen.
mortyb wrote:
Bad day? I just said my feeling is the Fuji combo will be very close, not identical. Relax.
Having a perfectly fine day, thanks for asking
Do I give the impression of anything other than being totally relaxed ? I'm done with work for the next 2 weeks, heading to the Caribbean in a few days, and was participating in what I thought was a pretty good overall discussion about two really great cameras (Of which I've owned and loved both)
That said, still don't see what is going to make the 23mm on the XE-1 get close to the RX1.
Now, if down the road Fuji comes out with a different sensor, and Zeiss makes a 23mm Touit lens in the X-mount, then I could see it getting close, but without a Zeiss design, and a 24meg conventional Bayer sensor I personally think the difference will remain pronounced (as far as obsessive photo geek differences go. Avg person on the street probably couldn't tell either apart from an iPhone photo lol)
My point is saying it's silly to think the Fuji combo will equal the RX1 is fine, but that's never what I said.
Otherwise I mostly agree with what you're saying. Personally I've grown a bit tired of the Zeiss looks, as I often find it actually can distract from the content itself. I really like the Fuji rendering. I was also really fond of the rendering of the Leica X2. I guess it goes in cycles for some of us.
mortyb wrote:
Bad day? I just said my feeling is the Fuji combo will be very close, not identical. Relax.
As an X100s owner (but not for long,) I'm not sure there's any lens that one could put on the X-E1 to make it very close to the RX1, because of that sensor. Maybe at high ISO, but not overall. I'm not even sure there's a lens that you could put on it that would make me choose it over a NEX camera, to be honest, let alone the RX1.
Boy, I tried to get out of X-trans conversations in this thread, but it really kills the system for me.
As far as the Zeiss look, I don't really think the RX1 is all that "Zeiss-y," at least in terms of Contax C/Y and older Zeiss lenses. It really almost reminds me more of some of my Leica lenses, at least partially.
mortyb wrote: My point is saying it's silly to think the Fuji combo will equal the RX1 is fine, but that's never what I said.
Otherwise I mostly agree with what you're saying. Personally I've grown a bit tired of the Zeiss looks, as I often find it actually can distract from the content itself. I really like the Fuji rendering. I was also really fond of the rendering of the Leica X2. I guess it goes in cycles for some of us.
Anyways - happy holidays!
Leica renderings certainly can be nice for certain subjects. I really loved my Leica 90 Cron, gave a fantastic look for portraiture. Had a VC 75mm Heliar that by most metrics was a poor lens by again for portraits, it really just worked.
Never had an X2 but did own an X1 for a while, and I agree, it did have a good bit of Leica character to that lens, even though it was maybe a little more clinical.
I just always gravitated towards Zeiss though, the color and that unique transition from in to out of focus that really makes an image "pop".
My 35 Biogon's were my favorite lenses on my M8.2 and then M9 (I think Douglas might actually of been the one to have bought my M9 come to think of it) and then when I switched over to NEX's I kept using those lenses adapted, which was something of a pain, though they did produce nice files.
I initially choose to skip the RX1 just due to cost and was pretty happy with my Fuji's, because as I said, they are great cameras overall, but then I'd see images from the RX1 and while it wasn't a perfect camera for me in a lot of ways, cost being a big one, having a proper Zeiss 35mm, and with AF, was something I couldn't pass up.
Not a one size fits all camera, and I think its a camera that a lot of people have to grow into as I think first impressions aren't always the best, but the files...man, provided you like a Zeiss look and the 35mm focal length....they just keep you coming back for more.
Personally I don't really understand the huge issue many seem to have with the x-trans sensor. I don't think of it at all, but then again I normally don't check foliage and stuff at 100 % because I seldom print very big. I realize the sensor can have a few issues under certain conditions, but I also think it's kind of overblown in real life - unless of course you shoot under conditions where these issues show clearly.
What I like about the X-E1 (and 35/1.4) is that the photos it produces look really good. Plain and simple. At least to my eyes. Nice, smooth tones. Really nice colors. Sweet falloff and bokeh. It just looks really good. Also I enjoy using it, the experience. This is subjective of course, but I like it.
I used to be a "Zeiss person", but often with Zeiss, what grabs my attention is mostly the separation/3D thing, not the content itself. I agree the RX1 looks a tad less Zeissy than what I'm used to, and I must be honest and say I've seen some stunning shots which leaves no doubt about the photographic tech. qualities of the RX1. I'd love to own one again, and probably will when price goes a bit down.
Yeah, I really tried with X-trans. After being very unsure of last year, I made the jump with the X100s, hoping that raw conversion was good enough. After shooting it with the newest LR, I kept seeing all of these issues, so I actually switched to Aperture, which mostly solved the LR issues, but had its own issues, so I kept going back and forth, depending on the file, trading smearing with other artifacts and vice versa. As you say, though, it all depends on output, but I could seen the issues even when looking at images full size on my screen (which I believe equates to about a 30% crop.)
X-trans, Zeiss lenses, EVF vs OVF etc all aside for a moment, darn if the VC OVF doesn't look darn good on the RX1....and much better than the 3x as expensive Zeiss OVF
Its surprisingly accurate as well, being right above the lens so there is no horizontal parallax which is nice. I still use the LCD for precision work, but other than being a "dumb" finder, it has turned out to be as accurate as the Fuji's OVF.
Choice of camera's aside as well, its really amazing how far technology has come in the past few years.
I remember when this huge 12meg FF Nikon D3 was the high ISO champ and my go to choice for the 35mm focal length. Now I can have something about 1/10th the size and weight that far surpasses it on DR, noise and resolution, and that cost only about half what I originally paid for my D3's
Yeah, I couldn't believe how relatively accurate with AF that I am with the "dumb" finder. Like you, I use the Voigtlander OVF most of the time... and I agree that it looks pretty cool.
grahamb3 wrote:
Interesting millsart. You black out "Sony" and the model name on the RX1, but not on the Nikon.
I appreciate the wisdom of not advertising your equipment, I do the same thing with my bodies, but why not the Nikon?
Graham
The RX1 came that way as I bought it used. I do have a few Nikon's that are gaffer's taped over which I used when doing things like backboard remotes for basketball. One of those things I never otherwise really gave much thought to unless there was a specific reason to black things out.
That said, I do think the camera looks a bit better with the "sony" and "rx1" filled in, so had it not been done already, I guess I maybe would of done it myself. "Nikon" logo would take far more paint to fill it too lol
Yeah, I just threw a couple of small rectangles of camera leather over the RX1's logos, to make the camera a little more subdued looking (did the same with my M9.)
Like the 5D, the RX1 will still be full frame in a few years, but the Fuji lenses will not work on a hypothetical future Fuji FF body.
. millsart is a "bad" influence 
