 |
sgoldswo
Lives in
Enfield, United Kingdom
Works as a
Solicitor
Joined on
Jan 14, 2012
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
shutterdragon: Finally!
I tried and the output result is mixed. While I like the color rendering on Aperture better than Lighroom, the detail suffers from color noise and other artifacts when viewed at the pixel level.
Adobe took many months to get it right, so I hope Apple keeps improving the algorithm. I think I'll hold on to Lightroom a little longer.
I don't know which x-trans camera you have, but the level of artefacts seems much reduced with Aperture vs LR (it's particularly evident with X100S files).
rattymouse: The X Pro 1 has been out over a year. Aperture simply will not support this camera, PERIOD.
Looks like I should ask you for the lottery numbers... Oh no, wait...
Aperture is pretty good with X-Pro1 RAWs in case you were wondering.
Martin Ranger: I can't wait for a Fuji portrait lens either. In fact, I won't. I bought into the Fuji X system believing the promise of the lens roadmap, which now turns out to be inoperative. This change in "plans" makes the camera much less useful for me (I shoot a lot of portraits). Even if I were willing to wait another nine months for the 56mm lens, why would I believe the new roadmap?
The 60mm macro is actually a pretty decent portrait lens. Exremely sharp and distortion free with lovely bokeh. It could certainly serve as a compromise until the portrait lens turns up
flysurfer: Nice writeup! As usual, Andy seems to see things very much like I do.
I was actually able to test the prototype lens with a pre-release copy of the new firmware, here's my article including many sample images: http://www.fujirumors.com/first-look-xf55-200mmf3-5-4-8-r-lm-ois/
It will also tell you what the OVF is doing in the X-Pro1.
Nice write up on Fuji Rumors Rico - I can't imagine this will be a dog given the optical quality of the lenses thus far (only the 18 is a bit weak IMO). I know you can't comment on image quality and you did comment on handling, but are we talking a front heavy lens or not? It's not necessarily a problem, I used the sony 18-200 on a NEX-5N for a while, but wouldn't mind hearing your views.
rusticus: the only true Fuji camera is still the awesome X100 - nobody needs a Fuji system -
I can not Fuji-System, for that I have my Pentax K-5: still the no. 1 for System Camera
You know I'll disagree with you there. The X100S is a better camera than the X100. This lens (excellent) just adds to the amazing 35 and 60 as reasons to buy a Fuji X camera system. It's a stunning landscape lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/8529823068/
mapgraphs: Sorry, but I just have to ask it…
While I understand the teenage crush some of the staff have with the Fuji X line (and it a very decent line), are you guys honestly saying that the images you’ve shown for wide open, center and edge sharpness and vignette make this a Gold Award “fast” ultra wide?
For the vignette, I could see it if the lens was an f/1.4 and perhaps f/1.8 but that amount of vignette for an f/2.8? Come on.
Doing the “It's not bad at F2.8” is an opinion, not supported by what your review offers. Shooting at f/4 kind of defeats the intent of “fast” Ultra Wide doesn’t it? At f/4 one could pick up a Heliar, get better sharpness and less vignette and save some money. From what the review offers it seems like a very decent consumer grade “fast” ultra wide. But your review hasn’t shown anything to put it into a class above that.
Yabookie, you seem to be hard of thought. It isn't a lens for FF 35mm sensors. It's designed for an APS-C sensor. In light gathering ability it IS an F2.8 lens. In DOF terms it will give you more DOF at all apertures than a F2.8 lens designed for FF. That is an advantage for a UWA lens!
mapgraphs: Sorry, but I just have to ask it…
While I understand the teenage crush some of the staff have with the Fuji X line (and it a very decent line), are you guys honestly saying that the images you’ve shown for wide open, center and edge sharpness and vignette make this a Gold Award “fast” ultra wide?
For the vignette, I could see it if the lens was an f/1.4 and perhaps f/1.8 but that amount of vignette for an f/2.8? Come on.
Doing the “It's not bad at F2.8” is an opinion, not supported by what your review offers. Shooting at f/4 kind of defeats the intent of “fast” Ultra Wide doesn’t it? At f/4 one could pick up a Heliar, get better sharpness and less vignette and save some money. From what the review offers it seems like a very decent consumer grade “fast” ultra wide. But your review hasn’t shown anything to put it into a class above that.
Err, no. This is a pro grade lens and you will get better results that the helier you mention at any aperture.
Note the added DOF is a positive advantage over an equivalent FF lens (query if there are any equivalents this good for any system.
RStyga: First and foremost worry for Fujifilm, in my opinion, should be to get complete software support for their RAW files; it seems that they're getting there, at last, but they have lost precious time and this delay has given their cameras a questionable name that, unfortunately, will take time to be erased. Their lenses also seem to be very good albeit not enough to warrant the name of a system quite yet. Last, the pricing needs to be a bit more aggressive in favour of the consumer; currently, lenses and bodies are a bit expensive.
Has it? I sold my NEX-7 for my X-Pro1 notwithstanding the RAW "issues" (that are now solved by the way). Thanks for the FUD though!
This is a truly excellent lens and about all I could come up to argue about was the AF speed (it is fast if you keep the focus box large). This is very much the equal of Zeiss and Leica lenses which are much more expensive. With a tad more resolution in the sensor I think you could get stunning results...
In any event take a look at this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/8457284364/lightbox/
yabokkie: it looks that the new Canon mini is guaranteed to have not as good image quality as new Sony or Nikon sensors. but do those who bought m4/3" cared about image quality? Canon 100D is significantly smaller than GH3 and is comparable to G5, while using a shame old sensor from the stone age, the image quality is still half stops better than Olympus E-M5 and not like m4/3" cameras, 100D can use all the EF lenses. while loosing ground to Nikkor EF lenses are still the strongest army on the Earth.
You'll have to explain that part about it having better image quality than the E-M5.
Because I don't think it even keeps up with the G5 and that's a last gen M43s sensor... ;-)
samsamsamsam: For me as a travel Photograph, this is the Camera I dreamt of, only lighter and a sensor like the NEX7 could make it better. And I would need a light 35mm fix lens, with IS, for APS-C. Because 340g for the 35mm/f2 is to match, when a normal 50mm weight 150g.
And the pancake looks to cheap, for me, because then It is better to use a RX100.
samsamsamsam, nice one, make sure you post a few shots in your gallery from your Rambo ;-)
agentul: the camera seems nice, but one of the things that i like in my friends' DSLRs is the much longer battery life. A rating of 380 CIPA shots is comparable to what my GH2 can achieve (i think it's 320 or something). And it's a camera with EVF, so you have no way of taking pictures without using some amount of energy. A DSLR, with its OVF, is much more energy efficient. So 380 CIPA shots means that Canon used a really small battery. It's probably understandable given the size of the camera, but it kills one of the main advantages it could have had over mirrorless cameras.
Probably more like 800-1000 to a battery from the GH3 if you are shooting stills, if you only use the LCD screen much and rely on the EVF it doesn't really drain the battery.
Bill Bentley: Panny G5 = 120 x 83 x 71 mm
Articulated LCD
Good
Canon SL-1 = 117 x 91 x 69 mm
No Articulated LCD
Bad
LOL!
Yabokkie, the G5 has better image quality than the 100D if its the same canon 18mp sensor...
Benarm: Canon's second failed attempt at taking a jab at mirrorless market. The longer they avoid producing something competitive to NEX/Oly/Panny, the more Canon will lag behind. And why would they put a 2009 sensor on it? Fail.
T3 it is a second attempt to stem the flow of customers to mirrorless. It's a failure as a concept because putting big lenses on a smaller camera is just uncomfortable (and looks weird). I wouldn't be surprised if we see another announcement in 12 months from Canon senior management saying "we aren't sure why, but we didn't sell many of these cameras"... I can only see existing canon customers buying this camera.
tkbslc, people say canon is lagging behind because its the biggest and best horseshoe manufacturer in the business, but recently someone invented the motorcar, to use a metaphor.
If canon doesn't compete with mirrorless it will be hurt financially as the APS-C DSLR market shrinks. To go back to my metaphor, they think they can compete with motorcars by refining horseshoes...
TacticDesigns: This is cool! I know. It's just a smaller camera. But that's a big thing for me!
Example. We're making the trek to WDW this summer. I'm taking my Nikon D5100 and not my Nikon D90, why . . . because its smaller. I can toss that thing with my 18-135mm superzoom in a small little bag and tuck it under my arm and pretty much forget its there.
But this Canon camera, with that pancake lens, its like having your cake and eating it too! It can be a small (and potent) camera for carrying around [An enthusiast P&S and m4/3 killer <grin>], but when you want to have a bit more power, just change the lens. If you've already got some Canon lenses, you're good to go!
Nicely done Canon!
:)
I want some of what you are smoking
Chris Dodkin: Oh dear...
Canon trying to stem the tide of people moving to compact mirror-less systems, whilst not killing their EF lens cash cow.
Will most likely go the way of the M -System - i.e. epic fail
Chris, have to agree entirely
Alendrake, it isn't just M43s - APS mirrorless with better quality sensors than in the 100D are available which have smaller lenses (because they have a shorter flange back distance). Frankly if you believe DXO the current entry level canon sensor is behind the sensor in almost all current mirrorless cameras including the smaller sensor in M43s. Saying it's a bit smaller is like saying "this 6 foot broadsword, I've improved it by making the handle smaller..."
This is a weak defensive move, nothing more.
Steve: as i am thinking of going mirrorless from my d7000, i'm wondering about the point of buying this camera. although smaller and lighter than my d7000, if i want a wide zoom walk-around lens, i'm still going to have a honking big lens hanging off this little guy..
what would that do for balance ???
and the total size and weight savings would be marginal..
no ?
yes ?
It isn't exactly pocketable... For those who want a inbetween camera an E-PL5, NEX-3N or GX1 would be a better option
optongo525: I am sure some people will like this, but Cannon missed the point: with digital sensor technology, the extra reflection optics will be obsolete like the film. How small can you make those mirrors? Certainly not smaller than the sensor. Mirrorless is definitely the way to go. Look at Kodak and Fujifilm, be careful Cannon (and Nikon).
yabokkie, you must be smoking something good. All the XF lenses Fujifilm makes are high quality optically (much better than almost all APS DSLR lenses) and metal bodied.
Lee Martin: Yet another boring unnecessary black box from Canon. Canon desperately need a decent mirrorless camera to retain any credibility and keep up with competitors , Sony and Fuji are very clearly showing them the way , with the Fuji X Pro 1 and almost certainly a full frame NEX within the year. The EOS M is dead in the water, it's not selling in Europe anyway and it's no wonder as to why. The design is without any imagination, compared with the offerings from the aforementioned . Surely Canons research and development dept can come up with something that we actually want, with some flair and imagination that will be a genuine mirrorless, capable, camera. Let's have a well made ,intuitive retro styled high specification camera, that will accept existing lenses and not another drab, plastic product that has been thrown together without a hint of emotion or imagination. This cannot possibly be the best that Canon can produce, as if this it, Canon are in big trouble
Have to agree, I thought this was a joke when I saw the rumours and I realise it is now its been announced. When a company starts producing kit that is simply defensive and not innovative, the writing is on the wall.
Peiasdf: I just want to say this is a much better effort against EVIL/mirrorless/CSC encroachment than Pentax K-01.
Err, why exactly? Keeping the same lenses was the problem with the K-01...