peevee1: Isn't 12mm on APS-C (18mm eq) a little TOO wide in most cases? For close objects (like shooting inside a room, or on a city street), the corners will be pulled apart (ugly effect), and when shooting landscapes, you'll have to crop to something like 5:2 or 3:1 to have reasonable amount of land and sky left, and these crops are too wide for HD media.
I think Fuji 14mm is more suitable for 2:1 or even 16:9 landscape crops.
Oh, and it's also use in real estate a lot to get pictures in cramped spaces and make rooms look bigger than they are. :)
Some people just like the extra wide effect for it's surrealness and dramatic look. Great for sunsets or water motion. It's very popular for landscapes right now, especially with a mixture of foreground and background elements. This has been common since the 10-22mm range zooms on APS-C DSLRs became popular, and why fuji has a zoom in that range on their roadmap.
AngryCorgi: I have a feeling the 32mm will not be a very good seller, but the 12mm likely will, despite it being the more expensive lens. The 32mm doesn't offer enough performance advantage over native lenses on either platform to justify its price, while the 12mm does.
I agree, from what I've seen so far the main downside of the 14mm is the dramatic light falloff, and the main downside of the zeiss may be distortion (first review I found with stats said about 2.5%, which is just enough to be annoying for architectural). Otherwise they are close, and both can be fixed in post. However, 18mm equivalent is notably more appealing to landscape folks than 21mm equiv, and may push them over the edge.
I'm borrowing a 14mm right now and comparing to the voigtlander 12mm, and the difference in perspective is noticeable.
viciavillosa: no mention about AF confirmation?
Thanks for the added info, though the method on the NX line would certainly be workable here as well (if less than ideal), so to say it's not possible at all is a little overkill. That's really what I was getting at.
I agree though, just having a better magnified view or focus peaking would be preferable and more flexible.
"Can't be done"?
I wouldn't say that. All it involves is running the CD algorithm for the AF position while MF is active and providing feedback for a lock. Programatically it wouldn't be that hard. Most cameras with CD (point & shoot) put a very low priority on manual focus (even the top end raw capable models), so they haven't had much reason to do it to date. It would also probably be battery intensive, but you could make it so you could only have it active by press or toggle of the AF-L button when a fujinon lens isn't detected.
Victor Kapas: People, the XPro1 is not soft. Download a trial version of Silkypix Developer Studio Pro 5 and download DPR's raw file and you'll see the missing detail. Adobe ACR is softening the images, and dulling the colors too, as far as I can see.
However, I can notice some artifacts that look like aliasing on the line-drawn faces. Unless there actually are yellow stripes on them...
It would be interesting to provide a comparison of the two raw development softwares. That also belongs to digital photgraphy, no?
<snip>, this was in reference to the current version, sorry.
dmstraton: That's because the RAWs are wrong. You can't have JPEGs that look that much better in the other sample page and then complain that the RAWS are crap. It's BETA, people. It's a new array. You can't have RAWS with worse detail etc than JPEGs - the in-camera JPEGS are incredible. You can't start with mush and poor color and get to incredible...Adobe just has some work to do.
I have used the SilkyPix RAW, reduced all NR and sharpening to 0, exported to TIFF and into Lightroom and - wow! magic! presto! - the images are a ton better than these here.
Adobe will come through, it's in their best interest. I like what I am seeing from my Fuji, versus my other cameras from all the other big brands that start with C, N, and S.
I've downloaded the raw files and silkypix, and I don't see this improvement you are talking about. The color balance is better, but there is no more detail in the image than what I see above. There is visible blurring of texture detail that I should never see in a raw image. If anything silkypix is worse in some ways because it has some nasty color banding on the tighter patterns (moire effect).
I've yet to see anyone post any full size samples, JPEG or RAW, of the X Pro that come even close to the detail this sensor is supposed to have considering the lack of an AA filter, much less even comparable to any other similarly sized sensors. Every example of how wonderful it's supposed to be I've seen from people are scaled web gallery images or massively and visibly over-sharpened. And trust me, I wish I was proved wrong here. The color/noise rendition of the X-Pro is awesome, but the detail seems poor, particularly at low iso speeds.