Hi K-H - I only have some test shots; I'll get one to post from the PS computer tomorrow.
At max magnification, the image isn't very sharp. I've found that it's helpful to go down a notch or two in magnification to compare; it makes it look a little sharper. I don't think it's a matter of insufficient magnification, just not very sharp/detailed.
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
Hi K-H - I only have some test shots; I'll get one to post from the PS computer tomorrow.
At max magnification, the image isn't very sharp. I've found that it's helpful to go down a notch or two in magnification to compare; it makes it look a little sharper. I don't think it's a matter of insufficient magnification, just not very sharp/detailed.
Thanks Danny.
Looking forward to the image, wondering whether that lens vignettes on the 50S, soft or hard a tad?
I will give your manual focus trick a try. Thanks again.
K-H.
Dec 20, 2018 at 01:41 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks Danny. That's good to know.
Could you please post an image with that lens? TIA.
My problem with manual focus is that the 50S doesn't seem to magnify enough for my eyes.
K-H.
K-H, as Danny says the image in the viewfinder at full magnification never looks that sharp, but for me the key is that relative sharpness is still easy to see. You just need to get used to your focus point being the sharpest part of the somewhat unsharp image even if that doesn't look all that sharp. Once you get that figured out, I find it works quite well. It doesn't look sharp in the viewfinder but it will be when you look at the output and you can select focus because it is the sharpest part. Although it would be great if the VF had enough resolution so that what looked sharp is sharp, I would much prefer this problem in which the sharpest part is easy to discern but does not look sharp, than the opposite problem in which something looks sharp but actually is not. Whenever the resolution of the EVF is lower than the resolution of the sensor you basically have one choice or the other.
Steve Spencer wrote:
K-H, as Danny says the image in the viewfinder at full magnification never looks that sharp, but for me the key is that relative sharpness is still easy to see. You just need to get used to your focus point being the sharpest part of the somewhat unsharp image even if that doesn't look all that sharp. Once you get that figured out, I find it works quite well. It doesn't look sharp in the viewfinder but it will be when you look at the output and you can select focus because it is the sharpest part. Although it would be great if the VF had enough resolution so that what looked sharp is sharp, I would much prefer this problem in which the sharpest part is easy to discern but does not look sharp, than the opposite problem in which something looks sharp but actually is not. Whenever the resolution of the EVF is lower than the resolution of the sensor you basically have one choice or the other....Show more →
Quote:”
What would make the GFX a delight to focus? Here’s my list:
More magnification at all three settings.
Continuously variable peaking sensitivity adjustable with a thumbwheel, going much lower than the present “low” setting.
“
K-H.
Dec 20, 2018 at 08:27 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Quote:”
What would make the GFX a delight to focus? Here’s my list:
More magnification at all three settings.
Continuously variable peaking sensitivity adjustable with a thumbwheel, going much lower than the present “low” setting.
“
K-H.
I a huge fan of Jim's blog and I like that post in particular, but peaking is something I have never found useful. I know other people do, but for me I never find it to work as well as I like no matter the system. I totally agree more resolution on the EVF which would allow greater magnification would be great especially as we go up in megapixels on the sensor.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I a huge fan of Jim's blog and I like that post in particular, but peaking is something I have never found useful. I know other people do, but for me I never find it to work as well as I like no matter the system. I totally agree more resolution on the EVF which would allow greater magnification would be great especially as we go up in megapixels on the sensor.
Thanks Steve.
For my Olympus and Sony mirrorless cameras on tripod I have exclusively relied on magnification - no exception.
Max magnification on those cameras always seemed sufficient to me.
I pointed to the article by Jim Kasson not in order to push peaking, quite the opposite, in order to focus on this point, quote:
"More magnification at all three settings."
I would appreciate more magnification of the 50S, even if it looked a bit fuzzy on the current EVF.
For my Olympus and Sony mirrorless cameras on tripod I have exclusively relied on magnification - no exception.
Max magnification on those cameras always seemed sufficient to me.
I pointed to the article by Jim Kasson not in order to push peaking, quite the opposite, in order to focus on this point, quote:
"More magnification at all three settings."
I would appreciate more magnification of the 50S, even if it looked a bit fuzzy on the current EVF.
K-H.
I guess what I am saying is that I think it is the resolution of the EVF that is holding back the magnification from being more effective. I think what we would all like to see is more magnification at clear resolution. That said, for me I don't find the level of the magnification to be the biggest problem. Instead, I would like the resolution even at the magnification that is provided to be better. That would make the experience better for me. Perhaps that is just semantics, but I don't need the spot where I am focussing on to be bigger, although that might be nice. I would like the image to be clearer.
What I absolutely don't want, however, is a clear image that looks sharp in the viewfinder but does not represent the best focus in the actual file. I find my Sony A7r II occasionally has this problem at least a little--it actually isn't too bad. There are times with the Sony A7r II that I focus and it looks sharp in the viewfinder and that wasn't quite the best plane of focus. In contrast, with the Fuji most of the time the image doesn't look that sharp in the viewfinder but I can easily place the best plane of focus and in the actual file that spot is tack sharp. Of the two cameras, both of which I use a lot, I actually prefer the Fuji even though I would like the image to be clearer. Nothing is more frustrating that having the image look sharp under magnification only to find out it is quite sharp because it wasn't the right plane of focus. That doesn't happen much with the Sony and when it does I am typically not missing by much, but it does happen every once in awhile, and I don't like when the viewfinder fools me in this way.
I tried out the Fuji remote app today and unless I am missing something, it doesn't allow you to focus magnify. It disables everything on the camera and hands over control to the app, minus the focus magnifying...
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks Danny.
Looking forward to the image, wondering whether that lens vignettes on the 50S, soft or hard a tad?
I will give your manual focus trick a try. Thanks again.
K-H.
Hi K-H,
Here's a test sample from the Zeiss 50/1.4 ZE "Classic" on the 50S. No hard vignetting! This has 100% vignetting correction applied in ACR; without correction, this lens always has considerable soft vignetting wide open, the same as nearly all Zeiss lenses.
It's hard to see in this photo, but there is still a little soft vignetting in the extreme corners. Most of the time I don't think it would bother me, but if it were critical, it should be easy to correct or even clone out.
