p.1 #1 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
Does anyone have experience comparing the two? The EVF on the XE5 is much smaller and lower resolution than the one on the XP3. One would assume MF lenses, particularly M mount, are easier to focus on the XP3 using focus peaking or other assists given the resolution and size of the EVF. At the same time, I’m curious if the higher resolution of the XE5 sensor plays a factor in more accurate focus peaking or other assists in the EVF?
p.1 #2 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
Using MF and peaking with Fuji lenses all the time on the X-E5 and and X-Pro3. No problem - and I can tell no difference between the two. Don't see a reason why M-mount lenses should behave differently.
p.1 #3 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
Nice! Good to know. Any discernible difference between the EVFs?
Nielk Mike wrote:
Using MF and peaking with Fuji lenses all the time on the X-E5 and and X-Pro3. No problem - and I can tell no difference between the two. Don't see a reason why M-mount lenses should behave differently.
p.1 #7 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
Have both the X-E5 and X-T5. The X-E5 has the 2.4MP EVF and the X-T5 has a 3.7MP EVF. Big difference, for me and my old eyes, when using my 2 Voigtlander X mount 18 and 27mm pancake lenses. So much so that while I wanted to use both on the X-E5, I am just using the 18mm and it is set to zone type MF at either 2m or 3m to ~, depending upon subject distance. The 27mm is now used on the X-T5 where it is much easier to use focus peaking.
While I like the X-E5, day 1 of the X Pro 4 release with the larger EVF (and WR, Dual cards, 1/8,000ss) it will be an immediate order for me and the X-E5 will be sold.
TN_nato wrote:
Got it and good to know. I’ve seen those specs and wondered how much of a difference it made. I think XPro3 is the way to go
p.1 #8 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
I used the Voigtländer 35mm f/1.2 X Mount on my x pro3 and it was a good experience and I wear glasses. I used the same lens on my Xh2 and the EVF from that camera is insane. Now I only own the xe5 and manual focus works just as fine (anecdotally).
If you want to use manual focus lenses, I would recommend Voigtländer lenses with an X Mount due to exif data support. There are small details that add to a much better MF experience such as detection of a MF lens and the camera switches to MF mode automatically without you having to flip a switch. You get full aperture data, all the information and better inclusion of focus assistance features.
p.1 #9 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
Good to know thanks! I’m using Leica M glass on it so I’ll depend on the focus peaking working properly in most cases as that’s what I’m used to with my SL2.
Derkuehlschrank wrote:
I used the Voigtländer 35mm f/1.2 X Mount on my x pro3 and it was a good experience and I wear glasses. I used the same lens on my Xh2 and the EVF from that camera is insane. Now I only own the xe5 and manual focus works just as fine (anecdotally).
If you want to use manual focus lenses, I would recommend Voigtländer lenses with an X Mount due to exif data support. There are small details that add to a much better MF experience such as detection of a MF lens and the camera switches to MF mode automatically without you having to flip a switch. You get full aperture data, all the information and better inclusion of focus assistance features. ...Show more →
p.1 #10 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
TN_nato wrote:
Good to know thanks! I’m using Leica M glass on it so I’ll depend on the focus peaking working properly in most cases as that’s what I’m used to with my SL2.
Do bear in mind that M mount short focal length lenses will likely not perform as well on Fujis as they do on the SL, edgesj and corner performance siffers at wide apertures because of the sensor construction, Leica cameras have special sensor stack construction to cope with oblique ray angles generated by M mount wide angles.
Not unique to Fuji, Sony and Nikon suffer similarly
p.1 #11 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
gyoung143 wrote:
Do bear in mind that M mount short focal length lenses will likely not perform as well on Fujis as they do on the SL, edgesj and corner performance siffers at wide apertures because of the sensor construction, Leica cameras have special sensor stack construction to cope with oblique ray angles generated by M mount wide angles.
Not unique to Fuji, Sony and Nikon suffer similarly
Gerry
But the corners are the most affected by this (and how much depends on the lens). Fuji X series cameras use an APS-C sensor, so in principle they shouldn't be as impacted by weak corners on full frame. In the end you just have to try it (or find reliable information about a given lens) and decide for yourself if there is a problem or not.
p.1 #12 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
mivadep wrote:
But the corners are the most affected by this (and how much depends on the lens). Fuji X series cameras use an APS-C sensor, so in principle they shouldn't be as impacted by weak corners on full frame. In the end you just have to try it (or find reliable information about a given lens) and decide for yourself if there is a problem or not.
It's true the aps-c format crops the worst of it, changing something that is awful on full frame to just soft until well stopped down.
I've used Leica Ms since I bought my M3 in 1968, and still had some modern stuff when I bought my first Fuji, an Xpro2, having tried Sony before, both full frame and APS-C. A couple of my wide angles did ok, others poorly, and none of them as good as the native Fujis until f/8, and some not even then.
It pays to look back through the Leica and alternative forum here on FM, as far back as you like. There are very few lens 35mm and less focal length that are much good in the corners until well stopped down. I was very sad to find my beloved 35mm Summicrons reduced to a performance level far below what I was used to on M6 and M3, and outclassed by Fuji's 35 f/2 for edge sharpness, and the Fujis render well too.
p.1 #13 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
mivadep wrote:
But the corners are the most affected by this (and how much depends on the lens). Fuji X series cameras use an APS-C sensor, so in principle they shouldn't be as impacted by weak corners on full frame. In the end you just have to try it (or find reliable information about a given lens) and decide for yourself if there is a problem or not.
It isn’t quite that simple, assuming that you’ll print/share your photographs at he same size regardless of the capture format.
While, indeed, you are using relying on a sensor area that doesn’t extend as far away from the center of the lens, you are also enlarging the image more, thus revealing any issues a bit more. In addition, Fujifilm x-series lenses are generally designed for hte smaller image circle of the APS-C format, while lenses for full frame cameras are designed to cover that format’s larger area.
p.1 #15 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
gyoung143 wrote:
I had a total of 8 lenses 35mm and less, of which a 28 1.9 Voigtlander Ultron is good, a 21 Elmarit asph was OK, rest poor. 50mm and up are good.
Gerry
Just curious, how are you determining "good" or "not good"? The widest M mount lens I currently have is the CV 35mm f/1.2 III and the few times I've used it on my X-T5 I've been happy with the results (but I'm not shooting landscapes with it).
p.1 #16 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
gdanmitchell wrote:
It isn’t quite that simple, assuming that you’ll print/share your photographs at he same size regardless of the capture format.
While, indeed, you are using relying on a sensor area that doesn’t extend as far away from the center of the lens, you are also enlarging the image more, thus revealing any issues a bit more. In addition, Fujifilm x-series lenses are generally designed for hte smaller image circle of the APS-C format, while lenses for full frame cameras are designed to cover that format’s larger area.
You are correct that it “depends on the lens.”
Although the higher resolution may reveal/magnify lens aberrations in the sensor's field of view, the soft corners that were visible in the full-frame image will be out of the field of view of the cropped sensor.
p.1 #17 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
TN_nato wrote:
Does anyone have experience comparing the two? The EVF on the XE5 is much smaller and lower resolution than the one on the XP3. One would assume MF lenses, particularly M mount, are easier to focus on the XP3 using focus peaking or other assists given the resolution and size of the EVF. At the same time, I’m curious if the higher resolution of the XE5 sensor plays a factor in more accurate focus peaking or other assists in the EVF?
If only concerned with focus peaking, I would choose the XPro3 over the XE5.
Although technically the higher resolution of the XE5 sensor does play a role in more accurate focus peaking (more image data = more edge data = more accurate focus peaking), I doubt it will make a noticeable difference to a user. I have personally never once heard of Fuji (or anyone else, for that matter) advertising a higher resolution sensor as being beneficial for manual focusing.
The bigger observable difference will be in the size, resolution and magnification of the EVF.
p.1 #18 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
mdude85 wrote:
Although the higher resolution may reveal/magnify lens aberrations in the sensor's field of view, the soft corners that were visible in the full-frame image will be out of the field of view of the cropped sensor.
How to say “I did not understand your post” without saying “I did not understand your post.”
p.1 #19 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
mivadep wrote:
Just curious, how are you determining "good" or "not good"? The widest M mount lens I currently have is the CV 35mm f/1.2 III and the few times I've used it on my X-T5 I've been happy with the results (but I'm not shooting landscapes with it).
The tests were very subjective, I had the lenses already and had been using them on film Leicas M3 M6ttl and a III. I simply wanted to know of I could carry on using them as I had done before, for landscape, travel, architecture etc. I had a couple of handy test sites near home, one a row of shops easily viewed from the front so I could get lens axis perpendicular to the plane of focus, the frontages of the shops, and a straight line of poplar trees about 200m long which I could view similarly from distance. I photographed them at apertures from maximum to 16. I did the tests first on a Sony A7, and a couple of years later on an Xpro2.
The 28 1.9 Ultron performs pretty well as good on digital as it does on film, gives visually sharp results to the edge of the frame at f/4 and smaller. On both full frame and APS-C. It is an unusual design for a rangefinder lens, a quite long retrofocus design similar to SLR lenses. Note this is an old design, I bought over 20 years ago and long superseded. I still use it
The 21mm Elmarit aspheric has a similar 'long' body for its focal length, it produced good results at f/8 across the frame but was at least 2 stops worse than on film. Not reallygood enough at the edges at 4 or 5.6 to use where edge sharpness is required, which for me is pretty well all the time with a wide angle. The Fuji 23 f/2 I have is as good at 4 as the Elmarit was at 8, much more useful.
The other 6 lenses were never really good enough to be useful to me even at f/8 even though they are good performers on film. They are 15mmf/4.5 (vers 1) 21 f/4, 35 f/2.5 LTM Voigtlanders, 35mm f/3.5 Summaron, and two 35mm Summicrons, the original 8 element for M3 and the later aspheric I used on the M6ttl.
I have other Leica lenses from 50 to 200mm and all work well. All are old designs but good ones. Your 35 f/1.2 is a much more recent design, I can't comment on it but if you look at the Sony and Leica and Alternative forums Fred does excellent tests, and usually in the case of M mount lenses does it both on a Leica M and a Sony full frame, so you can see the effect of the different sensor constructions, you can judge what it would be roughly on a cropped aps-c sensor, I think Fuji has similar sensor construction, cover glass construction etc to Sony, apart from the filter array but I don't think that would be significant. I think there have been several versions so make sure you are looking at tests of the right one!
p.1 #20 · Manual focus M mount lenses on X-E5 vs X Pro 3
gdanmitchell wrote:
How to say “I did not understand your post” without saying “I did not understand your post.”
They were discussing edge/corner sharpness of the M lenses. You were discussing how the APS-C sensor magnify some aberrations of the lens, which is true, but not the corners/edges (which are cropped out).
