munro harrap: D750 AA and low pass filter?D7100, same res, half the price, no AA filter-better detail acuity and visibility, than ANY Canon, but why do Nikon continue to put filters in front of their sensors? WHY?Why go back to the dark ages. Why did they ever fit them at all?It is a good question.The 5D Canon is better at making images than is the D3, or the D700, as was the first Canon 1Ds, due to their having weak AA filters.You can see the difference even on a normal typists 1920x1080 monitor.
We should be sold machines without AA/low-pass etc filters, and then have them fitted IF we are unhappy, not have to pay a fortune to have them removed, or wait until the odd rare model appears without one.
Instead these greedy folk programme in obsolescence decades before they make anything, force you to pay upfront for software without which you are stuck with jpegs (and no jpeg 2000) and cant use the camera!!!!
AS bad as the banks.
You need to do more research on the positive and negative effects of AA filters. I've owned several of cameras with and without AA filters, and it's a trade off. Part of the problem is that negating an AA filter sometimes creates the impression of detail that isn't there, due to aliasing, which apparently excites some photographers, but not everyone sees that as a positive.
Either way, 24mp on aps-c is about the tipping point where the negative aspects of removing the AA filter become minor enough to be worthwhile, so we're really looking at the next round of FF cameras, rumored at 50mp+, to be the first FF cameras where removing an AA filter makes sense for most applications (outside of Leica M, where AA filters cause issues with the oblique light rays of their lenses.)
It's not as if the camera companies are dying to use AA filters. They're a reasonably expensive part of the sensor.
raydream: I suspect that the engineers had worked around the technical difficulty of the full frame E mount, by covering the mistake that original E mount wad never designed for full frame, and introduced these converters to achieve wide angle.
You're correct. A relatively small mount that is so close to the sensor creates a bottleneck, which is why we're seeing FE fast lenses that are similar in size to their DSLR counterparts. Leica and Nikon have smallish mounts, too, but they're further from the sensor, and Leica has to use special sensor designs to deal with their lenses. There's a reason that NEX, NX, Fuji, m4/3, etc. mounts are so relatively large for their sensor size. If Sony made the FE mount a little wider, they could have designed shorter fast lenses.
Even just a few years ago, a Sony rep talks about how e-mount was a little too small for a FF sensor. They pulled it off, but large fast lenses are the penalty. Granted, at least no mirror in the way allows for high quality, albeit large, designs.
villagranvicent: The converter will give a 50mm focal lenght, but still a 23mm depth of field??
It'll be just like using any other 35mm f2 lens on any other aps-c camera.
Zvonimir Tosic: Nice, but never as beautiful as a dedicated 50mm lens. All right, who dares to be the first manufacturer to make a compact camera with a fine, retracting 50mm lens? Or something around 40mm?Film cameras were much more advanced / adventurous in this regard, with Contax T2 still being the king of the compact history's hill with its amazing 38mm Sonnar lens (IMHO, better than this Fuji's 35mm from X100).
This lens looks beautiful to me. See here:
justinwonnacott: Soft on the edges......
Imaging Resources just tested the TCL-X100, and it got rave reviews. Similar to the WCL-X100, there is basically no image penalty, outside of software-corrected distortion. Fantastic work, Fuji.
bincho: Great. So, how much is it? $2300? I'd rather buy a full frame mirorrless available now.I could also buy a decent mirrorless with aps-c and several lenses.
HowAboutRaw, I'm not sure where you're getting all of your supposed lens info, but you're pretty far off base about Leica lenses, outside of the 50/2 APO. The FE 55/1.8 runs circles around the 50 Summilux. Most of the fantastic Leica designs from the last 15 years are being equalled by other mirrorless manufacturers theses days, and they don't have the classic Zone B dip that so many Leica lenses have...and this is coming from an M9 user.
Bastian Junker: Would be great to see some sampleshots. I guess the bokeh should be affected by the longer distance. They say it's still F2.0 with the TLC, but when the area where the light comes through is the same but the mm distance changes (from 23mm to 33mm) there should be a difference in F-stop too.
23mm / 2.0 => d = 11,5mm 33mm / 11,5mm => F-stop = 2,86
I'll buy one anyway. Great job fuji;-)
p.s. the same happens with the older WCL-X100, too. When you attach it to the camera, the aperture appears to get smaller when looking at it through the front of the lens, so the effective aperture remains at f2.
Of course, the disadvantage of teleside converters is that they're difficult to make with high quality, which Fuji seems to be doing a good job of.
Apertures are calculated by the focal length divided by the size of the entrance pupil, rather than by the focal length divided by the size of the actual physical aperture opening.
It's a pretty common mistake you're making, because there is a difference between the size of the entrance pupil and the size of the physical aperture opening. The entrance pupil is a virtual image that you see when looking at the hole of the aperture through the front of the lens. The physical aperture opening is the actual size of that aperture opening.
When you put a teleside converter on a lens (that's what the TCL-X100 really is, rather than just a teleconverter,) it changes the size of the virtual image of the aperture (entrance pupil,) so the effective aperture stays the same.
In other words, teleconverters between the lens and the camera body reduce the effective aperture size, but teleside converters on the front of a lens, like the TCL-X100, keep the same effective aperture.
The MTFs look like we won't be giving too much up in the way of IQ.
nathondetroit: Pardon me while I place a football helmet on my Chihuahua.
It doesn't really look anymore ridiculous than a kit zoom on a T3i.
Jogger: Better to get an RX1/r and crop.
Not sure why, HotShot106. You XM-1 doesn't have the optical viewfinder or leaf shutter of the X100s, and it isn't in the same universe of image quality as the RX1, so I don't think it's a good comparison.
AV Janus: I thought the TC was already out. Fuji is s l o w in this regard.Now X100(s) needs a 2.2x or 2.5x TC and a wide one so that you can have a body small bag, one body and 3 TCs for 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm small f2.0 kit.
NomadMark, there is no sub-MFDB digital camera on the market that has an optical viewfinder, leaf shutter and offers interchangeable lenses. The optical viewfinder and leaf shutter are two of the major reasons to buy an X100 in the first place, and adding a couple of converters doesn't change that.
Edmond Stuart: I still insist that a TLC which extends the focal length by only a factor of 1.4 makes little sense. You get (almost) the same result by cropping the picture with a factor of 1.4. Admittedly, you will lose some resolution, but any TLC will degrade the performance as well. To me, only a TLC which approaches the focal length of a portrait lens (X2.0 or so) is worth the money.But even then it makes little sense as it runs counter to the philosophy of the X100(S), which was intended as *compact* camera.I agree with NomadMark: "Buy an ILC and be done with it".
28/35/50 is a common street photographers lens setup, which this TC allows for with the X100/s and the WCL-X100. The WCL-X100 doesn't degrade the X100's performance, so it's possible that Fuji pulled the same trick with the TCL-X100.
AngryCorgi: $350 for a filter-ring-TC?? Ehhhh...
If it's as good as the filter-ring-WC that is already available, it's not a bad price.
Kelvin L: I really like my X100, it's been everywhere for the last 3 years, but given the price of the WCL-X100 adapter (USD$315 on a well known website) I think I'd be better served putting the money for both wide and tele adapters towards another camera. I love the X100 for what it is - the digital version of the Konica Hexar AF, just grab and go.
I'd end up using the electronic viewfinder with the adapters anyway so I might as well use something else for wider or longer focal lengths. Adapters are a neat concept but pretty fiddly to use in practice.
The X100 concept is still valid with these adapters, and the system is interesting for several reasons:
- 28/35/50 is a common focal length trio for street shooters.- I believe this is the only digital system that has those 3 focal lengths with an optical viewfinder and leaf shutter (outside of medium format digital.) - all three focal lengths are still f2- no worries about sensor dust.
I'll still use my X100 on its own most of the time, but I have a second X100 body (camera backups are wise) that always has the 28mm converter attached, and I'll add this new 50mm to my kit for those times when I don't mind bringing a bit more gear. Modularity isn't necessarily a bad thing.
My RX1 didn't have the same optical viewfinder capabilities of my X100. The OVF is a major reason to buy the X100/s.
Everyone needs to remember that, while this converter will block more of the OVF, the framelines for the converter will be a lot smaller in dimension, so it should still be as usable as some of the larger Leica 50mm lenses on an M body.
p.s. to answer a common question in this thread, aperture is still f2.
Donnie G: "Canon should do things the same way that Sony does". REALLY? Sony is closing 65 stores in the U.S. and eliminating 1,000 jobs. They call it restructuring or cost control. Others might call it RETREAT. Canon controls their costs by selling specific products to the regions of the globe where there is an actual demand for that product, (ie., the EOS M2). Thus, no excess inventory and no wasted marketing dollars. Which is the better cost control strategy? Don't know? Sony does!
"Canon should make their CMOS chips the same way that Sony does, because the Sony chips are way better". REALLY? Some Gear Heads may indeed see an advantage in the Sony chip design, but Gear Heads make up less than 1% of the camera market, and chip design, by itself, doesn't sell cameras. Brand identity does. Over 70 million Canon EOS DSLR owners think the Canon brand is perfect for their needs. How many Sony Alpha, DSLR, SLT, NEX, etc., owners feel as strongly about the Sony brand?
Sony's camera division issues are mostly tied to the drop in compact camera sales. They are doing ok in mirrorless cameras.
I don't think any Canon user would argue against a sensor that performs as well as Sony's EXMOR. Sony, Pentax/Ricoh, Nikon, Hasselblad, Fuji, Olympus, Leica and Phase One all use Sony Exmor sensors.
nathondetroit: Beautiful. There's obviously some serious X series glass if you want to go that route, but this available X100S kit offers a lot of capability for the enthusiast.
Everyday, there are plenty of budding photographers tearing it up doing 55mm 5.6 portraits with their kit lens. This 50mm 3.5 will definitely be capable of amazing work as well.
Yeah, this will essentially make the lens a 35mm f2 lens on the X100, has a FF equivalent of about 55mm f3.1.