On the linked Zeiss webpage you can see other pictures of the winning project. Together they make for a very well done document.
A colleague who is a keen amateur bought it, and is very happy with it. He doesn't use his big camera gear anymore, prefers walking around with the Q. But then he and I are of a generation that still thinks that an FM2 with a fixed lens was one of the perfect photo tools!I tried it and I loved the operation. Simple, to the point. Personally I would have preferred a 35mm lens with 50mm crop mode.I have not seen the resulting files, only looked at the lcd, tge he lens is indeed awesome. My colleague is very happy with the results.It is not cheap but I can see the appeal against a 5d or 8x0.
An interesting alternative, I am curious about the results.Only issue is for me as a left eye photographer is thar it would not be very ergonomic for me.
Nick Spiker: It's too bad really, you've taken a SLR flange distance, but not given us the benefit of a mirror. So now we have to use the screen and have to use Sigma lenses. It's a sub frame camera, with a full frame size mount, so now we've wasted the extra area with a crop factor.Good job :(Don't get me wrong, I love the Foveon design, I even have a SD-14, but can we please get a full frame with a short flange distance?
The further flange distance however makes it easier to create lensesBecause the light should fall as perpendicular as possible on the sensor for good results.
Very cool and interesting article. I had expected more automation!
Tom_A: I have a Fuji GA645 medium format AF rangefinder.Compact, light, stellar results. Same approach in digital would be awesome...
The GA645 is truly a gem. And user friendly!
I have a Fuji GA645 medium format AF rangefinder.Compact, light, stellar results. Same approach in digital would be awesome...
stevstoc: I converted to Fuji a couple of years back. I shoot with an X-Pro 1 and an X-E1.I just love using these cameras, much much more than any other since the good old MF film camera days.The quality on the Fujis take some beating, especially when you consider the "feel" of the finished images. They are are joy to use....slow but a joy.There were several things I would like to have seen on the X-pro 2 and minus the moveable screen, everything (And some) has been added or improved. My X-Pro 2 is on order and I can't wait until February to get my hands on it.You can keep your mega Nikons and Canons....Fuji for me every time baby!Main thing guys...buy what you want and need, not what everyone else tells you to get. Happy snapping!
I bought the XE-1 with the 35mm kit exactly the week when it was released, an aggressively priced combination. Very very nice results. Pin sharp and when I use jpg I like to set a film colour profile.Its slower than autofocus makes it not good for action, but otherwise I am very happy. Meanwhile I also have the standard zoom and the 23mm, all are excellent lenses.Hence not sure what was there to dislike about the xe1? I could conceivably be in the market for the xpro2, yet we have other costs in the household now.I was a Nikon user before, used a d200 for many years, of course an older camera yet with good lenses. I do prefer the fuji lenses and relative compactness though.
Not sure why
Searching: The 35 f2 on the Fujitsu is too limiting a focal length for a travel camera.
Actually I find 35mm equivalent a wonderfully universal walk around lens. I loved it in my film days (FM2 or F3 with only the 35mm lens during trips!), and I still like the aps equivalent of 23-24mm.
While on holiday in Japan last June, I bought an XA2 kit as a gift for my wife. Bought at popular discounter BIC camera, the price was very low.We were both pleasantly surprised by the general quality of the output at all usual iso levels. the output didn t feel much behind my XE-1 with the more expensive kit zoom.The xa2 is also a joy to use.
Frank_BR: The new generation of high-resolution lenses and sensors for the 135 format have practically caught up with the digital medium format. Add that global electronic shutters will make the leaf shutter totally obsolete. Does the digital medium format have a future?
50mp on a big sensor will look better than 50mp on a small sensor (assuming the sensors are both good). The lens quality and small diffraction effects will have less impact on the bigger sensor area. A ff 35mm camera like a d800 is best set to f8 because of that.There is also a kind of beautiful depth effect you get even at standard apertures with mf.What i still dream about is to one day be able to convert my beautiful classic rolleiflex to a digital camera with full size 52x52mm sensor, even if at today's resolution. I made my best pictures with it. Not only because of its technical excellence but also because it forces you to slow down.
Mamiya 6 and 7 were superb medium format rangefinders, like big Leica M's and suitable for traveling. I still own a few Fuji MF rangefindzrs with dimilar philosophy and quality.It would be awesome to see Phase 1 resurrecting the concept of a portable MF rangefinder in the digital world.
A D800 with a top nikon lens is a powerful tool.At the same time when you compare to an MF camera with a sensor with roughly similar resolution you will know the answer why they are still being made...
donCortizone: Fuji should improve the optics, if it's possible to do it without making the camera any larger.
Hopefully they can also bring their AF up to par with the best micro 4/3.
If anything the Fuji optics is the one thing that does least of all need to be updated.
back in my he film days, my Rolleiflex once fell from the table. I was so relieved when the first pictures afterwards all pictures were not ok in all areas of the image. A bit of deformation would have yielded frustratingly fuzzy pictures. So I can imagine how the leica owner felt.As an aside, this memory made me decide to pick up my Rollei again for pictures. I made my best pictures with it, mainly because it forces you to slow down.
I find it looks quite a bit like my XE-1.
Boss of Sony: The existence of this product shows how anal photographers can be. Nobody will notice the difference between B&W photos taken with this camera and those taken with another camera/lens of similar quality. Even if they did notice a difference, that difference would not be important to anyone. Photos in general are hardly important anyway. It's all just anal retentiveness.
Have a look at the samples.
22codfish: For that money, I would prefer the Pentax 645Z
Juck, have you seen the samples? You would not so quickly dismiss the camera then.
The sample images on the photo blog are excellent. Loved the detail and creamy tonality in the picture of the middle ages man.I shot and enlarged lots of bw in my pure film days (those superb results from a rolleiflex!), now i still regularly use film for bw. And even on my iphone I like to use hipstamatic with Akira "lens" and Nike AO "film" which gives often surprisingly good results.
All this to say that yes, I would be happy using this camera. We have currently other priorities in the family but I wouls be considering one in a year or so.
nicolaru: Hi FogdeanDurn.It is a 23mm F2. 23 X 1.5 = 34.5mm
JACS, I now see the point you want to make about shot noise. obviously the bigger a pixel is (and usually FR sensors will have bigger pixels than APS sensors), the more photons fall on a pixel, which would lead to less influence of poisson noise. Fine, this demonstrates that for high quality available light pictures you cannot beat a bigger sensor. But I don't agree that you can translate that into a simple 1.5x aperture equivalence.Aso, in the case of DOF, I checked dofmaster.com . On a distance of 2 meters the 23mm lens on APS film at f2 has DOF from 1.69 to 2.46m; a 35mm lens on 35mm film at 2m needs to be at f4 (not f3 !) to have a similar DOF (1.68 to 2.48m).