Jon Ingram: Let me clear up some misunderstandings: FF lenses do NOT allow for faster exposures at the same aperture. In other words, the 56 1.2 is equivalent to an 85mm 1.8 FF system ONLY in terms of DOF for similar compositions. In the field, the 56 1.2 is about a full stop better, meaning that it could use a shutter 2x as fast as the 85 1.8 on a FF system, but with an equivalent DOF, all else being equal. However, the FF system has the advantage of (usually) cleaner noise at high ISO's, which is the "one stop light advantage" that many people refer to. This advantage applies to the sensor, not to the lenses, and in case you haven't noticed Fuji does EXTREMELY well at controlling noise at high ISO's, even when compared to FF systems. In my opinion, this lens is perfectly designed because it retains the perfect DOF of a FF 85 1.8 lens, while allowing for faster exposures. Anything wider than 1.8 on FF creates DOF too shallow or difficult to work with for my tastes anyway.
Ah - and you haven't even mentioned the final image size or the distance you intend people to view the image from. DoF is about the size of circles of confusion on the sensor which translate into resolvable points on a print or a screen.
Look at this image close to then look at it from 12ft away and it will appear to have a greater DoF.
OK ... more in focus...
I the words of the cookie monster: "Me wants it but me waits". The $/£/€ thing gets to me. Even with UK VAT it should be 20% cheaper.
The Df camera is just pastiche.
Let's face it even the retro future is mirrorless with knobs on.
Fujifilm have got it right. The Sony Alpha 7 looks interesting.
All those old Nikkors are a dead weight for Nikon.
Words are *about* something but pictures are *of* something. These are two different modes of mind. You either do one or the other but not both together.
I just bought a pro account and now they are scrapping it. Isn't the Ad Free one twice the price?
Ho hum.... and I was just sold to Sky by O2 as a broadband customer as well.
Perhaps I should self host my photos
I can't remember if it was Groucho or Karl who went on about the workers needing to own the means of production. Now was it in Duck Soup or Das Kapital?
Next thing we will have to pay a subscription to keep our camera's working. You may own the camera but you only license the firmware that drives it remember - just kidding ;)
I used to love Kodachrome 64 but I did switched to mainly Fujifilm Velvia 100 before the end of film arrived. This was mainly for the (almost) extra stop and being able to get it processed cheaper, quicker and not mounted. In the UK you could only really get Kodachrome processed by post by Kodak.
I'm sure the Kodachrome slides will outlast any of the E6 slides I have. Looking through my old film stuff it is amazing how little is worth scanning - but then I'm not Steve McCurry!
BTW: Think of the financial cost of nipping off to India with a few hundred rolls of Kodachrome. The business model of photography has changed sooo much.
What I see a lack of is viewfinders! Fujifilm are the only ones and the X10 isn't that great. So we only have the X100s that is nice to look through - and you can't use the OVF for focusing!
Maybe I'm just old fashioned but I like to look through a camera at the scene unless of course I'm using a view camera in which case I want the scene upside down!
What I would like is manual focus feedback in the *optical* viewfinder so these cameras behaved more like "real" range finders.
I find EVFs horrible to use. It feels like you are losing touch with the subject and going to watch TV instead.
As I get long sighted with age back-screens are becoming worse. I either need longer arms or half moon glasses - not sure which is worse.
This leaves me with DSLRs or Leica's as my only options. We need to eat so Leica's are out.
It is a shame as these Fujifilm cameras are soooo nearly right. Oh and Raw support on Mac would be nice ;)
rogerhyam: I may be stupid. Infact I almost certainly am. But...
All the pictures on this page have been down sampled to less than 1500 pixels across and nearly all the images one "consumes" are on-line or in printed books.
It is all about angle subtended at the eye. If the picture doesn't work when viewed from at least its diagonal away then it doesn't work because you can't see the composition!
The diagonal of a 16x20" print (a very rare thing) is 25". Visual acuity of human eye (20/20 vision) is 1 arc minute which is resolving two lines 0.006 inches apart at 25". At 300dpi the pixels are 0.003 across - double the visual acuity. At 600dpi they are 4x the visual acuity. A 28 megapixel file will get you 300 dpi but you need 115 megapixel image to do 600 dpi and probably won't be able to tell the difference. That is a lot of pain for probably no gain!
Just buy a D800E and use some nice sharp prime lenses and you should be able to print 16 x 20" off every frame without stitching.
My calc isn't "wrong" in the sense you mean. Bayer style sensors use tone data from all pixels and fudge the colour. D800E and others lack anti-alias filters. Nyquist sampling rate is more of an issue for my argument. I only discussed pixel count. Larger sensors and larger pixels are better but you don't get those by stitching as suggested this article.
Send a 34 megapixel file vs a 100+ megapixel file to the printer. How big does the print have to be for you to tell the difference in a blind test? How big does the print have to be to say the 34 megapixel version isn't "good enough".
It all depends on the print and how it will be viewed and this isn't mentioned in the article - we are all just looking at 1,500 pixel wide images on monitors probably with a 72dpi resolution - unless you have a fancy new iPad.
I may be stupid. Infact I almost certainly am. But...