Currently I have the XE-1 with only the 35mm lens. This 14mm lens seems like a very interesting second lens. Then when the 56mm f1.4 comes out I will have a trio of lenses that covers 95% of all my personal needs.
Never, ever combine cat faces with people faces.
JohnyP: another reason why photography is getting all the bad rep - chopped images that do not show the actual scene.
In the next article - How to photo-chop celebrities into your pictures and sell them to the media!
JohnnyP, I will copy here a reply I wrote above in this thread as it also applies in my opinion:
We're not talking about journalistic photography here, but about creative expressions. In my opinion, as long as the final image is good, who cares if it is realistic or the truth? Also, it doesn't really matter how much effort or which equipment was involved. The end result is what is important.Back in my film days I often used orange and red filters on my b&w films to add drama (indeed, these don't replace parts of the image, but change them drastically nevertheless).I do agree that this sample isn't the best one. The original sky was quite ok. But in the end, when I look at a picture I don't really care if it was the real sky, as long as I like the picture.What I often do in PS is remove an irritating detail, like a traffic sign, or a distracting poster on a wall. I don't feel the need to make excuses for that.As a entry level tutorial this article was quite ok I thought.
akophoto: I teach the same method all the time. Have done for last three years.Adding a sky is cheating in my eyes as the scene never existed. The correct use for this method is for blending bracketed exposures when the cameras dynamic range cannot expose a whole scene. For example a sunrise.
MarkInSF, we're not talking about journalistic photography here, but about creative expressions. In my opinion, as long as the final image is good, who cares if it is realistic or the truth? Also, it doesn't really matter how much effort or which equipment was involved. The end result is what is important.Back in my film days I often used orange and red filters on my b&w films to add drama (indeed, these don't replace parts of the image, but change them drastically nevertheless).I do agree that this sample isn't the best one. The original sky was quite ok. But in the end, when I look at a picture I don't really care if it was the real sky, as long as I like the picture.What I often do in PS is remove an irritating detail, like a traffic sign, or a distracting poster on a wall. I don't feel the need to make excuses for that.As a entry level tutorial this article was quite ok I thought.
Timmbits: @DPR:what are those pale horizontal pinstripes in the babyfoot pictures in the section entitled "Bokeh"? regardless of lens (18-55 or 35mm) or opening, the fullsize images of the babyfoot game all have very thin pale horizontal lines/banding right across the image, at a varying distance from each other. It seems to be something with either the sensor (improbable because they are not evenly spaced) or more probably the in-camera processing. I've seen this before in other samples as well (I don't remember what camera it was from) the pic was of a single engine plane, and the banding was visible in the blue sky. It doesn't seem to be some kind of horizontal moiré either, because the bands perfectly follow scrolling, and are always in the same place when you re-open the pic.Surely I'm not the only one to pick up on this. but I don't recall seeing it discussed anywhere.I noticed them when looking at the ball. they traverse the ball, the field, players, everything regardless of color.
Hi, I opened the first image that you linked and zoomed towards the ball. I can't seen any banding issues / stripes.I wonder if there is an issue with your graphics card ?
Marty4650: "despite it's sub-par movie mode and less than stellar autofocus performance, it earns our coveted gold award, by a whisker"... and this is also despite all the times it locked up and crashed.
Every camera has pluses and minuses, but these minuses aren't minor issures. These are very serious and major flaws. And it seems Dpreview overlooked them because the camera was "thoroughly enjoyably" to use.
I'm looking forward to the new Dpreview Platinum Award for cameras without any serious flaws. Because Gold is now the new Silver.
"Every camera has pluses and minuses, but these minuses aren't minor issures. These are very serious and major flaws. And it seems Dpreview overlooked them because the camera was "thoroughly enjoyably" to use."
Look, I use the camera since October, and I think that the review is rather correct.For a photographer like me who doesn't really care about video that specific disadvantage doesn't matter. I haven't even once tried to film with it, that is how little I care about it.But the image quality with the 35mm is seriously good.Regarding AF, I would honestly say that the speed will be sufficiently quick for most uses. It is true that it is its weakest side and the camera is not ideal for sports photography or if you have hyperkinetic kids jumping around. But it is good enough for many uses!Unlike many other cameras, this one is actually very natural and classic in use (for an old school photographer like me), and the output quality is truly remarkable.
I have the camera since October, with the 35mm lens. I pretty much agree with most of the observations.In my experience, the image quality is indeed very good, and jpg is indeed so convincing that I only bother with raw when the light is difficult. Usually my camera is set to Velvia, and I use aperture priority with spotmetering, very classic usage in fact. The end result barely needs further touching up, and I save so much time.The quality is so good that i don t need FF. Rhe 35 mm has nice enough bokeh already.
I am not very interested in video so that deficiency doesn t bother me.
2 wishes for an xe2:A lock on the exposure conpensation dial. It is currently too easy to accidently turn.A tiltable screen, making Rolleiflex-style belly height pictures more comfortable to accomplish.
Wael Hussain: 18-35 mm and 3.5 aperture short range and small aperture !!!!how bad for Nikoni prefer to buy sigma lenses; cheaper and better options
I recommend to first see how the tests come out. Very often Nikon is quite a bit better than Sigma in that respect.
rjx: Don’t worry!!!!
Everyone check out the 14mm f/2.8 by Samyang, Vivitar, Sakar, Polar, Walimex, Rokinon. The lens is identical regardless of which brand you select. Prices might be slightly different. Rokinon version is only $379.00!!!
It’s a great quality lens for less $$$ than what Fuji will charge for theirs.
You need to buy an inexpensive adapter to use the lens on the X-E1 or X-PRO1.
Take a look at these 14mm images!!!http://500px.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=samyang+14mm&type=photos&page=1&order=votes&license_type=-1
I've seen and held the Samyang. I have no opinion on its optical quality. But it sure is a beast compared to the Fuji. the fuji lens and body retains that pleasant compact overall size, with the advantage of autofocus and highly likely top image quality. I do know that I would often leave the big Samyang at home, while I would often bring the fuji lens along. In short, the Samyang does not really fit within the compact lightweight concept of the fuji system. I will pass it by.
I have the XE-1 bought as a limited launch kit with the 35mm 1.4 lens.This is such a nice combination, giving very convincing bokeh and perfect sharpness and colours, that I was a bit disappointed when trying the 18-55 in a japanese shop. Yes the quality seems to be good, but the speed and bokeh is lost. I may eventually still buy the 18-55 as a good single lens for holidays.But for now, I think I'll just stay with the 35mm and walk a bit more instead of zooming :-) There is something to be said for minimalism !I am curious about the 23mm, it has the perfect angle of view for walking around like a classic full frame 35mm lens. However if I read the DOF charts well then at medium distances this 23mm f1.4 lens has a similar DOF as a classic 35mm lens at f2.8.
A friend of mine has the X1, similar lens but much slower AF. Even so the pictures he took were very very nice, and I am picky. A very good compact travel camera, if you could live with the slow AF. So the X2 should have fixed that. Yes it is expensive, but that doesn't mean there is no value.Meanwhile I have the Fuji XE-1 with 35mm lens. Granted the angle of view is not the same. Even so, i may see him this weekend and it will be interesting to do a few comparison shots. My Fuji has so far amazed me in the image quality department, iI expect it to be better than his X1 at high ISO, however I am curious about any difference at lower iso.
J2Gphoto: If you look at this and cannot say that is hands down the ugliest recent camera made, then you have rose color Nikon glasses on.
ACtually I found hat Pentax K design quite refreshing and it felt nicely logical in the hand.
From reading the summary, I have the impression that subjectively, the camera scores higher than 75% .It looks like an interesting premium compact camera. I still love my LX5 and will skip this upgrade, yet it is an obvious recommendation for many people !Operationally, I find it nicer to use than the famous RX100. I examined both at a shop and the usability of the LX7 was higher.
What I found an interesting bit is his claim that the 1 series are number one in Europe, in the mirrorless segment. Are there independent numbers to back this claim? Also, what would be the share in the rest of the world?I must say that th V1 impressed me when I examined it.
Very good interview, except the interviewer could, in my opinion, have asked a few questions about the popularity of mirrorless cameras in the lower price range, and how does the N1 perform there. Etc.
Photoman: Coming from selling Leica cameras, Leica diffently do stand by their customers. On two occasions were the local importer would not cover the repairs under warranty, I sent them to Leica to see what they could do. They did a full service on one lens and replaced a M9 sensor free of charge for my customers. Needless to say, that my customers were very happy with their service.
Regarding the "High Price" of a Leica camera. Until you see what goes in to the camera and the dedication by the staff, it is a high quality tool that you use and appreciate for many years. I have access to high end Canon/Nikon cameras, but I always want to use a Leica rangefinder instead. Unless you have used a rangefinder for a while, it makes you think about photography and not just shoot 100's-1000's photos, then pick the best later. A rangefinder makes you work to get that one good frame.
I expect that that is indeed his salary, considering all his bitter posts about anything above $500.
cjhwang: I would really like a more LEVEL HEADED complainer. By that I mean, have you shot a rangefinder in film era or in the digital era, either a Leica M# or an Epson R-D1. (and not only for a week but for 6 months+)
If you have, then I'll give you the right to complain all you want, as you will have had time to get used to the rangefinder shooting style and the "fun" factor of being part of the environment you are shooting in.
it also helps if your shooting style is more "street" (aka candid, casual, non-posed)
EDIT: I've shot for about a year in an Epson R-D1s and I regret the day I sold it, and I am constantly waiting for a more affordable digital rangefinder but as I grow older, I might just have to save and buy one and keep it forever ;D
Indeed Mr. Wang, Francis is criticising something he doesn't fully grasp. In such situations it is better to keep silent, and try to learn.
However Having photographed with M series before, and experimented with the X100 and X1Pro, I would say that when having a decent AF, a "real" rangefinder is not necessary. What is still nice about the Fujis is the "direct" view on the scene where you can see a subject coming "into the frame", which is one of the nicer experiences of a RF.I also wonder if, with a resolution of 24MP, the mechanical rangefinder will be precise enough. If you need to use the magnification to get the best sharpness where you want it, then a hybrid EVF like the Fuji would be better than the pure RF. I am curious how the tests will be in this respect.
Photoman, don't you worry about Francis's comments. In nearly all threads he complains about any price that is more than say $500.
If you think about it, the Leica X2 has already that Apple-like sophisticated simplicity. It could have been an Ive design.
Mr Fartleberry: LOL he can say whatever he wants. I'm not buying into it. Guess that makes me more important eh?
I had a good size film Hasselblad system and I ditched them when they came out with their coloured camera debacle. Sad really. Just like playing on the old moon camera theme.
So why was your system suddenly less useful when they came out with the colour variants?