Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Fuji X Pro 1 Lenses  (Read 11738 times)
Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2012, 02:52:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure which individual to reply to ...

I am a member of a photography club and enjoy the experience.  Our club members have a wide range of interests, backgrounds and ages.  We have a photo contest every month.  Last night's contest was for prints and those that entered usually entered an 8x10 print although a few were larger.  Last night's theme was "Junk".

As I walked around looking at many nice prints, I suddenly realized that virtually all of them were taken with smaller than 35mm "full frame" sensors at mid-range aperture.  Many would have benefited from increased -- even severe -- background blur. As I was making a note to encourage new members to take more control and force a larger aperture, I suddenly realized that very few club members had large aperture lenses and even fewer had a full frame sensor digital camera.  In fact, I don't have full frame digital myself!  In order to follow that advice myself, I'd have to revert to one of my old film cameras -- and I'll be doing that soon (for a roll or two).
Logged

scooby70
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2012, 08:22:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Since you're obviously making fun of my use of the word "soul", let me clarify that of the two image examples I referred to, I personally prefer the one with shallow DOF and used "soul" to characterize that difference. This alone has nothing to do with "soul of photography" or whatever you're misinterpreting here.

Just a quick personal point about DoF.

I have a 5D and a 20D with the usual lenses including 50 and 85mm f1.4's and I also own a GF1 and a G1 with a small selection of lenses including a 25mm f0.95. Now when it comes to DoF I can get shallower DoF from my G1+25mm than I can get from my 5D plus a f1.4.

I'm quite interested in the new Fuji as before I bought in to "full frame" digital or Micro Four Thirds APS-C cameras, the 20D and before that a 300D, were my daily toys and in some ways I think that APS-C is a happy medium offering a good for most things blend. A 20D+ a 30mm f1.4 is a nice thing and I think that a S Pro 1 + 35mm f1.4 could possibly be too. But having said all that a G1+25mm f0.95 manual lens when used with the screen folded to the body is a very nice thing and also a very film like experience IMVHO despite the EVF and will be a difficult thing to replace even with something as nice as the fuji. 
Logged
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2012, 04:54:03 AM »
ReplyReply

We all go ooohh and aaahh at APSC cameras while forgetting that from a creative point of view, these are barely better than the 110-type film cameras of yesteryear.

Your dictionary must be a doozy.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2012, 06:13:00 AM »
ReplyReply

To me it appears the discussion of FF vs. APS-C is a bit overrated.
The difference in DoF if I'm not totally mistaken is about 2/3 F-Stops.
Diffraction is another point, but in the same range of about 2/3 F-Stops.
With f 1.4 lenses for an APS-C camera there is a lot of room to play with shallow DoF.
And when I feel the pain in my arthrotic hip the decision for a lighter system comes easy.
I'm very much tempted to buy an APS-C system as long as I get really good and fast glass for the focal lengths I desire.
Just my 0.02 € ..
Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2012, 06:40:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm quite interested in the new Fuji as before I bought in to "full frame" digital or Micro Four Thirds APS-C cameras, the 20D and before that a 300D, were my daily toys and in some ways I think that APS-C is a happy medium offering a good for most things blend.

+1
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
AlfSollund
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2012, 07:22:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm for one would purchase this without lens, and use my M lenses. So the choice of Fuji lenses is of no consequences for me.

As to format; IMO the larger format will always be "best". With "best" I mean resolution (and therefore details), S/N and DoF options.
Logged

-------
- If your're not telling a story with photo you're only adding noise -
http://alfsollund.com/
nightfire
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2012, 07:36:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Your dictionary must be a doozy.

Thanks for this on-topic contribution.
Logged
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2012, 07:50:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for this on-topic contribution.

I think it is on-topic; you made a statement that I thought was ridiculous, but I tried to make it a bit lighter.

Barely? No.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1682



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2012, 12:21:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there any indication yet on how well Leica M and Zeiss ZM lenses will perform on the X-Pro1? In particular the wides and super-wides re colour shifts?
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1682



WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2012, 01:18:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I've just found this link http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120112_5-FujiXPro1-XFLens.html

Clearly there are concerns about M & ZM performance and possibly Fuji XF lens performance.
Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2012, 02:59:17 PM »
ReplyReply

How big is this camera compared to a Leica? Seems kind of chunky to me.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1682



WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2012, 04:05:37 PM »
ReplyReply

How big is this camera compared to a Leica? Seems kind of chunky to me.

About the same size. The following link shows a comparison.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/page4.asp
Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2012, 04:55:29 PM »
ReplyReply

About the same size. The following link shows a comparison.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/page4.asp

Given the smaller sensor, could they not have worked a little harder?


Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2012, 05:17:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Given the smaller sensor, could they not have worked a little harder?



I believe they could, but I feel they didn't want to..., it's supposed to be a Leica alternative right? So its "feeling" oughts to be similar! It's just the way "marketing" does things for ages.., especially in Japan and more so in Japan's photo industry. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2012, 05:30:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Sometimes I can't help but wonder how surreal all of this is. I mean, before digital... we all shot full-frame, right? I made great bokeh shots with my father's Canon A-1 and his 50/1.4 lens when I was 10! (actually, not because of my artistic genius, but because I knew nothing about aperture and therefore always left the setting at f/1.4  Grin)

Fast-forward to 2012, and look at how we're struggling to get back the same kind of creative control, ergonomic design, and performance which was taken for granted only decades ago. We all go ooohh and aaahh at APSC cameras while forgetting that from a creative point of view, these are barely better than the 110-type film cameras of yesteryear. And we all dream of "upgrading" and scraping together our savings one day for the next big thing (be it full-frame, or even just a working, well-designed camera without bugs) - something I already walked around with when I was a child. I know, I know, the comparison is flawed, today's cameras give us HD video and what not, but still - stepping back , I can't help but wonder what else we did strictly from a user, not a technology point of view in the last 10 years, except for going full-circle...  Roll Eyes
I can assure you that all the Canon 7d, Nikon d7000, fuji S5pro and Leica M8, .....are much more "from a creative point of view" than "barely better than the 110-type film cameras of yesteryear" you foolishly state up there.  Huh Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
allenmacaulay
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2012, 07:19:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Fast-forward to 2012, and look at how we're struggling to get back the same kind of creative control, ergonomic design, and performance which was taken for granted only decades ago. We all go ooohh and aaahh at APSC cameras while forgetting that from a creative point of view, these are barely better than the 110-type film cameras of yesteryear.

One of these photos was taken with an Olympus Pen-FT, a half frame camera with about the same frame size as APS-C, the other is a full frame OM-1, both of them using their standard F1.8 kit lenses (38mm & 50mm, respectively) wide open.  I've shot tons of photos with both cameras and other than the difference in aspect ratios I'd struggle to tell the pictures apart.





Quote
And we all dream of "upgrading" and scraping together our savings one day for the next big thing (be it full-frame, or even just a working, well-designed camera without bugs) - something I already walked around with when I was a child. I know, I know, the comparison is flawed, today's cameras give us HD video and what not, but still - stepping back , I can't help but wonder what else we did strictly from a user, not a technology point of view in the last 10 years, except for going full-circle...  Roll Eyes

That, I'd agree with.  There are very few cameras which I can pick up and use without first spending a few hours reading the manuals and fiddling with the menus & buttons.  There's a DSLR, which I won't mention, where I couldn't find the power switch for a good minute or two.  The Pentax K-5, Samsung NX100, and Fuji X100 are the only cameras where I can adjust the shutter, aperture, focus, ISO, and white balance just by picking it up and playing with it for a minute or so.  They make things simple, pretty much every other camera makes things a PITA for me.
Logged
gullevek
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2012, 12:26:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I for one think that this new Fuji camera is a good addition to what is out there. I think they did a very good job with the X100 and looks like they also did with X Pro 1 as well. There is always room for improvement, but I think that it is obvious that Fuji listened to the users of X100 when designing the X Pro 1 when it come to menu construction and buttons placement and functions.

It irritates me to read about all the negative stuff people are writing about both the X100 and X Pro 1. Fuji just made a really compact, very well performing and beautifully designed rangefinder camera, I seriously don't think that there is that much to cry about.

When people write online comments they all whine. Of course the X100 is not perfect, but some people love to whine, or perhaps try to convince themselves why the spend 10K for a M9 + lenses. I love my X100, even with the flaws, because it is a camera I have with me every day, where ever I go. Furthermore I can give this camera to someone and say, press the button here and they can use it like a simple P&S camera.
Plus the image quality is really amazing.
Logged

gullevek
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2012, 12:39:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I have no idea why people are so obsessed with full frame for this camera. The reason we wanted full frame M-mount rangefinder and full frame SLRs were for only reason because the lenses were designed and made for full frame. So to be able to shoot your 50mm like before you needed a full frame.

The X-pro 1 has lenses designed for this size of the sensor. Plus in this short distance, having a smaller sensor is better, just look how much things need to get "fixed" in the M9 for several lenses. Not to forget the cost that a full frame lens + sensor would be. Because a sensor is always a certain size, the chances of one being bad and has to be discarded is high in comparison to the amount of sensor you get from one original wafer. This is not like CPUs that get smaller and smaller so you can put more of them on one wafer anyway.

I doubt there will be any full frame mirror less cameras any time soon. Especially as all the current lens lines are fixed on this size.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #38 on: January 27, 2012, 03:14:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I have no idea why people are so obsessed with full frame for this camera. The reason we wanted full frame M-mount rangefinder and full frame SLRs were for only reason because the lenses were designed and made for full frame.



No, that's only one raeson, and valid for people who already have a good stock of such glass; for anyone else, it wouldn't be a reason.
The prime reason is size: larger, as with film, allows more flexibility in any number of areas. What is seen as a disadvantage by some becomes an advantage to others (different DOField, for example), but generally speaking, the more one is likely to be engaging in large prints, the more advantageous the larger format.

Frankly, the only valid reason I can see for not owning an MF camera is cost as it relates to budget. Even though I would ideally like an M9 for a walkabout camera, that doesn't mean I wouldn't actually be grateful for a larger camera on other occasions. I did use both 135 (35mm) and 120 (6x6 and 6x7) formats in my pro days, and yes, I abandoned 4x5 as soon as my interests allowed, which was almost as soon as I went solo. I currently use dslr FF and cellphone, so what about that as a range? Neither can replace the other for what each does.

Rob C
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1682



WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 27, 2012, 06:38:27 AM »
ReplyReply

The Fuji is interesting and I'll keep a close eye on the reviews but ultimately I'll probably buy the Leica.

As far as size is concerned I prefer the Leica and Fuji to the more compact Sony/Canon/Panasonic.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad