Jonathan F/2: Those lenses look huge. Better off buying Micro Four-Thirds for the size and getting a DSLR when you need FF and proper continuous focus.
this is what you get after spending 4000 Usd on a full frame and pro lens.
135 mm, f2.8,full frame.
Look similar to Leica Noctilux 50/f0.95 on a M9.
i love them a lot.
I cannot believe heavy pp was used, maybe some vignetting, but the hardware she uses can generate these pics out of camera.
So indeed strange why she gets coverage at DPR, so many many other great ones on 500px?
Haha...no camera and lens can give results like that without post processing. I really like her photographs, but when having a closer look some of them are processed a little to much for my taste. Nevertheless these beautiful shots have inspired me both to use my SLR more often and putting some effort in PP.
BTW, it is a f 2 lens.
atone2: If Fuji gave us an non X-trans option with OVF and EVF then I would be really excited. Meanwhile I´m considering the X-A1 (Bayer) + 14mm for landscapes. I did own the X-E1 but I did not like the output (raws in lightroom). Come on Fuji - I´m ready to use a lot of cash on your system, but I don´t want X-trans sensors....
The three year old Fujifilm X100 with bayer sensor is fantastic :-)
Problem it that I have a huge Lightroom library and I don´t want to mess around with other programs. I want a non X-trans option that works well in Lightroom. I´m pretty sure I´m not alone...
If Fuji gave us an non X-trans option with OVF and EVF then I would be really excited. Meanwhile I´m considering the X-A1 (Bayer) + 14mm for landscapes. I did own the X-E1 but I did not like the output (raws in lightroom). Come on Fuji - I´m ready to use a lot of cash on your system, but I don´t want X-trans sensors....
Beautiful shot and processing. I loved every moment at that beach when I was there one week ago:
JohnCarolan: Something odd about the tonality on these images, both the ooc jpegs and ACR conversions look particularly 'digital', micro contrast and colour transitions are unsubtle and artificial looking, like the out of camera jpegs from a Sony p & s or something. Seen this on all of the relatively few samples I've found online so far. Hopefully firmware or raw converter updates will improve on this.
Agreed. They look artificial. I suspect NR, even at low ISO.
atone2: Definately not as good as the original X100. What are you doing Fuji??
Look at her eyes, her face, her hair... horrible rendering...
What´s going on here? I really don´t like the X-trans approach...
Pretty good high iso shot (but should not be compared with canon and nikon iso 6400 though, because of inflated ISO)
X-trans high iso is ok. Low ISO = underwhelming... I´ve owned the X-E1, and it looks like NR is beeing used also @ low iso. Pretty sick...
Yes, i did. But it´s not good anyway.
Definately not as good as the original X100. What are you doing Fuji??