XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
Absolutic
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,713Gear list
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to Asylum Photo, 8 months ago

Asylum Photo wrote:

La Roque has a preview up:

http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/2014/1/6/the-razors-edge-fujinon-xf-56mm-f12r

Probably won't satisfy critics, but I'm liking the results so far. Can't wait to shoot portraits with it.

-- hide signature --

I read the review before Laroque removed it.   What I can see already from his shots is that 56/1.2 has a certain character and sure to become one of the famous lenses around.  I can see the character and it reminds me of another lens but I can't put my finger on what.    Perhaps something Leica-like in just how the lens is rendering?

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
malcolml1
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to Krich13, 8 months ago

Understand that fine...I was not really thinking about the pixel size. That is the bit I was missing. Just curious - do FF pixels typically have 2.25 times the area of APS ones?

I assume that if the FF pixels were the same size as the APS ones, then my argument would be correct (just so I can be sure I understand correctly).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dark13star
Contributing MemberPosts: 975Gear list
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to Krich13, 8 months ago

Krich13 wrote:

No, you can use the same shutter speed, adjusting ISO accordingly for the same Image quality results.

Maybe on a Nikon FF, but have you seen how many Canon shooters here say they get better high-ISO results out of their Fujis? ISO must remain the same for the the comparison.

Now, if you had said that cameras with base ISO of 100 will get the same shutter speed as Fuji at 200, there would be some merit to the argument.

-- hide signature --

"I would be an historian as Herodotus was." -Charles Olson
http://herodot.us

 dark13star's gear list:dark13star's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon D600 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Red5TX
Senior MemberPosts: 1,586
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to Caerolle, 8 months ago

Caerolle wrote:

I see this misunderstanding of exposure on the forum a lot lately. People need to go back to using hand-held light meters and setting exposures across multiple cameras to see that exposure is independent of sensor size. Depth of field will change at a given f-stop though.

I actually tested this a while back. I set my 1/2.3" sensor compact and my full-frame camera both to the same aperture and shutter speed, and the ISO was within 1 stop.

I too used to believe that the light gathering was changed by the factor of sensor size, but it is not so: at the same aperture, no matter the sensor size, the exposure is the same, give-or-take differences in the camera meters.

Exactly.  I can use a light meter to tell you the proper ISO, aperture, and shutter speed without knowing your sensor size.  This would be impossible if sensor size were a relevant variable in determining exposure.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Krich13
Regular MemberPosts: 421
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to malcolml1, 8 months ago

malcolml1 wrote:

Understand that fine...I was not really thinking about the pixel size. That is the bit I was missing. Just curious - do FF pixels typically have 2.25 times the area of APS ones?

Some do, some don't. Nikon's DF and D4 have 16 MP, just like the APS-C Fuji. Others, (D610, Sony A7, Canons) are around 20-24 MP, two others (Nikon D800E, Sony A7R) have 36 MP. On the other hand, recent Nikon APS-C cameras also have 24 MP, Samsung -- 20 MP -- so yes, pretty similar pixel count and hence the photosite area. Factor 2-2.5 area advantage for most FF pixels. Additional advantage of fatter picels that there is less of an area loss at the pixel edges.

I assume that if the FF pixels were the same size as the APS ones, then my argument would be correct (just so I can be sure I understand correctly).

No, it wouldn't, but for a different reason. Yes, in this case every pixel of an FF sensor would be noisier than that of an APS-C sensor, but the total number of pixel would be greater. Once you scale the larger image down (downsample) to the same size as an APS-C one, the noise of the final image would be similar again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Krich13
Regular MemberPosts: 421
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to dark13star, 8 months ago

dark13star wrote:

Krich13 wrote:

No, you can use the same shutter speed, adjusting ISO accordingly for the same Image quality results.

Maybe on a Nikon FF, but have you seen how many Canon shooters here say they get better high-ISO results out of their Fujis?

One of the reasons I switched to Nikon was its (well, Sony's) better sensors. I heard the latest Canons (6D, 5DIII) are very good in low light, but I have no first-hand experience.

ISO must remain the same for the the comparison.

Huh? Why is that? For proper comparison ISO of the FF should be icnreased (compared to APS-C) by a stop and a little, and aperture set to its DOF-equivalent value. Shutter speed the same.

Now, if you had said that cameras with base ISO of 100 will get the same shutter speed as Fuji at 200, there would be some merit to the argument.

The other way around. What you can get on Fuji at ISO 200, you can get on Nikon at ISO 450. What you can get on Nikon at ISO 100... you can't get on Fuji at all (base ISO is 200).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nalax
Regular MemberPosts: 489Gear list
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to Krich13, 8 months ago

Let us know how much to change for our 4x5 or 8x10 cameras. Would a banquet camera require more of your "proper" exposure? How about one of Maxwell Smart's spy cameras? Exposure is exposure, buddy.

I hope to see more of the 56mm, hopefully soon!

Krich13 wrote:


ISO must remain the same for the the comparison.

Huh? Why is that? For proper comparison ISO of the FF should be icnreased (compared to APS-C) by a stop and a little, and aperture set to its DOF-equivalent value. Shutter speed the same.

 nalax's gear list:nalax's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 12,058Gear list
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to nalax, 8 months ago

nalax wrote:

Let us know how much to change for our 4x5 or 8x10 cameras.

You can use tri-x w/o fear of grain - 35mm cannot.

How about one of Maxwell Smart's spy cameras?

Needs slow microfilm for decent grain when enlarged.

Exposure is exposure, buddy.

Yes, it is - and one of the constraints has always been noise vs. enlargement.

-- hide signature --

Erik

 Erik Magnuson's gear list:Erik Magnuson's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 450D Sigma SD10 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Nikon D3200 +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brandagnostickk
New MemberPosts: 11
Like?
envy is what comes to my mind for this lens
In reply to DJF77, 8 months ago

I own several brand DSLRs but I have to say this lens looks good enough to entice me (more) to think about a mirroless venture.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Krich13
Regular MemberPosts: 421
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to nalax, 8 months ago

nalax wrote:

Let us know how much to change for our 4x5 or 8x10 cameras. Would a banquet camera require more of your "proper" exposure? How about one of Maxwell Smart's spy cameras? Exposure is exposure, buddy.

I hope to see more of the 56mm, hopefully soon!

Krich13 wrote:

ISO must remain the same for the the comparison.

Huh? Why is that? For proper comparison ISO of the FF should be icnreased (compared to APS-C) by a stop and a little, and aperture set to its DOF-equivalent value. Shutter speed the same.

You really don't understand. For film, yes, you need exposure per unit area. For semiconductor sensors the relevant parameter is total amount of light captured by the entire sensor.

Especially for you, I copy my post over again:

________________________________________________________________________

Depends how you define "exposure". In the old film days, it was indeed "exposure PER UNIT AREA" regardless of frame size. Deliver too few photons, and the film is underexposed, milky what not. Deliver too many, chemical changes facilitate turning the entire frame black.

For semiconductor sensors what matters is the total number of photons per photosite, pretty much regardless of the site area. Make two sensors: say an APS-S and FF ones both of say 16 megapixels. Expose them using the same scene for the same duration using 56/1.2 and 85/1.8 lenses respectively. Each photosite will receive the same NUMBER of photons (the number per unit area is 2.25 times larger in the first case, but the area itself is smaller by the same factor). Each photosite (given equal quantum efficiency) will produce the same number of electron-hole pairs (photocurrrent) ergo the same signal and the same shot noise. If you read each sensor with the same preamplifier, equal Read noise will be introduced in both cases, as would be required amplifier gain!

However, a Photomertist would assign the first case say ISO 100, and the second -- ISO 225 based on exposure PER UNIT AREA, even though the physical amplifier gain is exactly the same in both cases.

The origin of your confusion is extrapolation of ISO sensitivity concept to modern sensors -- irrelevant one for digital sensors, the proper metric would be "light delivered to the whole sensor")

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin Datzinger
Senior MemberPosts: 2,216
Like?
Aperture ring
In reply to a l b e r t, 8 months ago

I'm pretty much on a decission here because I'd like to invest in a kit prime lenses and I have yet to decide which system. I have a D600 with the 2.8 zooms as workhorses. From the primes I want to have a decidedly different shooting experience. So it may very well become the Fuji with 23/1.4, 35/1.4 and a 90/2 they'll hopefully release someday (but sadly not before 2016, according to the roadmap - why they'll rather stick to big tele zooms I don't know).

Or I chicken and invest on Sigma, the 35 already being excellent, the 50 was announced yesterday and a 135 is very much on the horizon.

But honestly the Fuji route is somehow more tempting, a system more around what I'd expect from prime lens shooting. Aperture rings and stuff. But there is the issue, the XF primes' aperture rings until now looked very floppy to me. So I very much welcome that the 56's announcement states "The aperture ring is designed to ensure it’s easy to detect ‘clicks’ between f-stops"

I guess that stems from user feedback, a thing Fuji is very much known to take serious. So do you think they'll facelift the existing lenses for a stiffer aperture ring? IMO they could go from 1/3 to 1/2 stop detents at the same time, but a ring that can't be turned by the tip of the small finger or by accident would be nice enough for me.

Best regards,

Martin

-- hide signature --

www.datzinger.net

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
malcolml1
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to Krich13, 8 months ago

Ok - in the second question I actually forgot to say that I meant the same number of pixels (though I realize this would result in a lot of dead space on the sensor - it was a hypothetical question).

Now I've thought a bit more, I think there is another source of confusion....I have convinced myself again that, whilst I accept that noise levels would be different, if I took a photo with my Fuji and the 56/1.2 at ISO200 and did the same with my (now sold) 5D mk2 with the 85/1.2 at ISO 200, both in aperture priority mode, they would both select much the same shutter speed (I assumed that both Canon and Fuji agree on definition of ISO).

To you (I think) equivalence also includes achieving equivalent noise levels. Pixels are buckets for collecting photons and converting them into electron-hole pairs (as you said). Obviously a bigger bucked can collect more photons (and generate more electron hole pairs). But then the actual number of electron-hole pairs is not used to form the image - rather the signal is digitized when it is read. If both the APS and FF sensor are 14 bit, then in underlying analog signal is converted into one of 2 ** 14 levels. Further, I assume that the levels (at base ISO or amplification) are spread (non-linearly, I know) between 0 and 'full' (max electron-hole pair capacity for that pixel).

To me, a given exposure would result in of the same output level regardless of sensor format - I think this is because the supposedly common definition of ISO.

The advantage of a larger pixel size is the confidence level you have in the level you measure after conversion. More exactly (I work with statistics...), you would be confident that if you repeated the measurement with 10 different pixels they would report the same level for that actual exposure. For example, a uniform area of blue sky - with bigger pixels, you have much more confidence that adjacent pixels would measure the same level after conversion to digital. You have less confidence with smaller pixels - and in fact this lower confidence manifests itself in adjacent pixels reporting more variation in the level they measure. We see this as noise.

Even simpler example - if the read error (I think this is what it is called) is + or - 10 electron-hole pairs for both APS and FF sized pixels, and the APS pixel has a maximum capacity of 100 vs the FF pixel of 1,000 (making the numbers up for illustration), then the likelihood of the analog signal being converted to exactly the same level in the blue sky example is lower for the APS sensor (+ or - 10 out of a total number of 100 is a much bigger error than + - 10 out of 100).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
a l b e r t
Senior MemberPosts: 1,289Gear list
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to malcolml1, 8 months ago

malcolml1 wrote:

Ok - in the second question I actually forgot to say that I meant the same number of pixels (though I realize this would result in a lot of dead space on the sensor - it was a hypothetical question).

Now I've thought a bit more, I think there is another source of confusion....I have convinced myself again that, whilst I accept that noise levels would be different, if I took a photo with my Fuji and the 56/1.2 at ISO200 and did the same with my (now sold) 5D mk2 with the 85/1.2 at ISO 200, both in aperture priority mode, they would both select much the same shutter speed (I assumed that both Canon and Fuji agree on definition of ISO).

To you (I think) equivalence also includes achieving equivalent noise levels. Pixels are buckets for collecting photons and converting them into electron-hole pairs (as you said). Obviously a bigger bucked can collect more photons (and generate more electron hole pairs). But then the actual number of electron-hole pairs is not used to form the image - rather the signal is digitized when it is read. If both the APS and FF sensor are 14 bit, then in underlying analog signal is converted into one of 2 ** 14 levels. Further, I assume that the levels (at base ISO or amplification) are spread (non-linearly, I know) between 0 and 'full' (max electron-hole pair capacity for that pixel).

To me, a given exposure would result in of the same output level regardless of sensor format - I think this is because the supposedly common definition of ISO.

The advantage of a larger pixel size is the confidence level you have in the level you measure after conversion. More exactly (I work with statistics...), you would be confident that if you repeated the measurement with 10 different pixels they would report the same level for that actual exposure. For example, a uniform area of blue sky - with bigger pixels, you have much more confidence that adjacent pixels would measure the same level after conversion to digital. You have less confidence with smaller pixels - and in fact this lower confidence manifests itself in adjacent pixels reporting more variation in the level they measure. We see this as noise.

Even simpler example - if the read error (I think this is what it is called) is + or - 10 electron-hole pairs for both APS and FF sized pixels, and the APS pixel has a maximum capacity of 100 vs the FF pixel of 1,000 (making the numbers up for illustration), then the likelihood of the analog signal being converted to exactly the same level in the blue sky example is lower for the APS sensor (+ or - 10 out of a total number of 100 is a much bigger error than + - 10 out of 100).

The comparison of APS-C sensor and FF sensor is a complicated one. It is because the sensor performance from one generation to the next can be very different.

For example, the high ISO performance of the X-Trans CMOS I sensor is on the same level of the FF sensor in 5D2, even though the sensor is 2.25x larger.

Moving along to the sensor in 5D3, high ISO noise is much lower. So when one has to compare, the comparison needs to be made to roughly the same generation sensor.

Then there is the number of pixels on the sensor. If you have a 36MPix sensor such as the one in D800, the pixel size is the same as the pixel size of a 16MPix sensor. It is because 36 / 2.25 = 16. So the number of pixels within an APS-C crop of D800 sensor is the same of that of a X-Trans sensor.

Since pixel size is the same, and the D800 sensor is roughly the same generation as X-Trans I, the quantum efficiency of the two sensors should roughly be the same.

Yet if you examine at the pixel level, you'll see that the noise of a 36MPix D800 sensor is actually noisier than the X-Trans I even at ISO 1600. I believe having two extra green pixels in a 6x6 grid helps lower the luminance noise.

Now if you compare to the next generation 36MPix sensor in A7r, you'll see that the high ISO noise is comparable to the X-Trans CMOS II.

Another reason why full frame sensor appears to have lower noise when viewed on the screen is due to pixel binning. You scaled down a 36MPix sensor to fit in your 3MPix screen. It is going to look better than a 16MPix sensor scaled down to 3MPix, both in terms of noise and details.

So all it boils down to is how large of a print are you going to make. It is not going to make a whole lot of difference even if you print it as 16x20.

 a l b e r t's gear list:a l b e r t's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X10 Nikon D3S Fujifilm X-E2 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
malcolml1
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to a l b e r t, 8 months ago

Hi Albert,

I totally agree that things are complicated when comparing noise capabilities across different generations of sensor. And also that up to a certain size print no one really cares (I even remember shooting 1600 ISO film that looks noisier than my X-Pro or XE-2 at 6400 even on a 7 x 5 print!).

So my question to you is.....assuming I am not making huge prints and don't care about the small amount of noise difference, if I set the 5d mk3 to ISO 200, with the 85/1.2 lens, and take the identical image with the XE-2 and 56/1.2 also at ISO 200 (position adjusted to give the same image), how would the exposure time differ between the two (assuming that Canon and Fuji have the same definition of ISO - i know that isn't the case, but I want to understand the ideal case before the more complicated reality)

Malcolm

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,593Gear list
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to malcolml1, 8 months ago

malcolml1 wrote:

Hi Albert,

I totally agree that things are complicated when comparing noise capabilities across different generations of sensor. And also that up to a certain size print no one really cares (I even remember shooting 1600 ISO film that looks noisier than my X-Pro or XE-2 at 6400 even on a 7 x 5 print!).

So my question to you is.....assuming I am not making huge prints and don't care about the small amount of noise difference, if I set the 5d mk3 to ISO 200, with the 85/1.2 lens, and take the identical image with the XE-2 and 56/1.2 also at ISO 200 (position adjusted to give the same image), how would the exposure time differ between the two (assuming that Canon and Fuji have the same definition of ISO - i know that isn't the case, but I want to understand the ideal case before the more complicated reality)

Malcolm

Why make it so complicated.

Same Aperture + Same ISO = Same Shutter speed. PERIOD.

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bernie Ess
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,924Gear list
Like?
Re: Aperture ring
In reply to Martin Datzinger, 8 months ago

Martin Datzinger wrote:

But honestly the Fuji route is somehow more tempting, a system more around what I'd expect from prime lens shooting. Aperture rings and stuff. But there is the issue, the XF primes' aperture rings until now looked very floppy to me. So I very much welcome that the 56's announcement states "The aperture ring is designed to ensure it’s easy to detect ‘clicks’ between f-stops"

I use the X-E1 since a year or so, and I like the lenses I currently have (27/35/18-55/55-200), but I really think I'd easily switch to aperture via thumb wheel (camera backside, upper left side) if Fuji made it available via firmware to control the aperture in both ways.

I do it on my tiny and extremely sharp 27mm pancake, I did it for years on my DSLRs, in my opinion it requires less effort and concentration than turning an aperture ring. I never had an issue with the operation of any of the rings (easy, medium, hard), except for the fact that it always is less automatic than turning that small thumb wheel.

As for the system question: You say the Fuji system is better around what you'd expect from prime lens shooting: There is of course the weight of the kit that is much lower than the Nikon/ Sigma. However the FF kit gives you better DOF control with all of the classic primes (35mm, 50mm - annonced - 85mm) and the quality of all recent Sigma Art lenses has apparently been breathtaking. More than anything anybody thought Sigma could do even 1-2 years ago. Add a 135, a 85mm/ Mk II  and maybe a 24mm and Sigma may have the highest quality set of all manufactuers.

For me the main issues are weight and the Fuji look that I really like. Although not quite up to the old Fuji DSLRs, I still think Fujis have better colours than Canon and Nikon. I never came to like the ook of the Nikon files, regardless of profiles and Raw converter.

I am also hesitating to buy those expensive Fuji lenses rather than going dual with Fuji (for lightweight shooting) and Canon FF for the rest. I may wait for the 50mm Art lens, the Sigma 35/1,4 already looks stellar.

Bernhard

-- hide signature --

'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
malcolml1
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to bigpigbig, 8 months ago

Yes - exactly - that's what I believe too. but some others argue differently.....and I am trying to understand why!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigpigbig
Senior MemberPosts: 1,593Gear list
Like?
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
In reply to malcolml1, 8 months ago

malcolml1 wrote:

Yes - exactly - that's what I believe too. but some others argue differently.....and I am trying to understand why!

They are either misinformed or making an necessary conversion from actual ISO to some hypothetical equivalent ISO.

Light meters have no input for sensor size or film size. I can shoot ISO 100 35mm film or an 8x10 sheet of ISO 100 film and if the same aperture is used then the same shutter speed will be required for an equivalent exposure.

Will more "total light" reach the 8x10 film sheet, of course. But it is irrelevant to the exposure (tone). Will more detail be captured by the 8x10 sheet, of course. But it will have the same exposure (tone).

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ross Kennedy
Regular MemberPosts: 292
Like?
Re: Aperture ring
In reply to Martin Datzinger, 8 months ago

Martin Datzinger wrote:

But there is the issue, the XF primes' aperture rings until now looked very floppy to me. So I very much welcome that the 56's announcement states "The aperture ring is designed to ensure it’s easy to detect ‘clicks’ between f-stops"

I guess that stems from user feedback, a thing Fuji is very much known to take serious. So do you think they'll facelift the existing lenses for a stiffer aperture ring? IMO they could go from 1/3 to 1/2 stop detents at the same time, but a ring that can't be turned by the tip of the small finger or by accident would be nice enough for me.

Best regards,

Martin

-- hide signature --

www.datzinger.net

I've had the 14/18/35/60 for a long time and loose aperture rings really aren't a problem in real-life use. I always check the aperure dial setting as I raise the camera to my eye and you can constantly check the setting in the OVF/EVF while you take pictures, so I rarely mess up a photo due to an incorrect aperture setting.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bernie Ess
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,924Gear list
Like?
Aperture is electronically coupled anyway...
In reply to Bernie Ess, 8 months ago

I forgot that as far as I know, the aperture ring is a pure "mockup", it just controls the aperture electronically, not mechanically. Just like the Manual focus on these cameras is not direct, but focus by wire. I hardly ever used it.

As aperture is electronically coupled, control via thumb wouldbe the more logic choice anyway.

At least in my opinion. The lens ring is pure nostalgia without necessity, inlike on the older lenses where the ring really changed something.

-- hide signature --

'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads