ohmydentist
Senior Member
Yes, it's rather large jump from 27 to 53mm. We'll just have to wait a year.
--
^ ^
Just Shoot !
--
^ ^
Just Shoot !
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I would've liked 35mm f/2 (equiv.) lens instead
- Thread starter ohmydentist
- Start date
ohmydentist
Senior Member
X100 lens is 35mm (Full-frame equivalent). The lens in this discussion is 18mm (27mm equivalent).
Or, maybe you really meant 50mm equiv. Dang, it's confusing. . . ^^
--
^ ^
Just Shoot !
Or, maybe you really meant 50mm equiv. Dang, it's confusing. . . ^^
--
^ ^
Just Shoot !
Cannibalising sales isn't important if the buyer is spending over twice as much on another camera you sell anyway.
lnbolch
Senior Member
I will carry both the X100 and the X-Pro1. The X100 has a superb 35mm equivalent, plus it has a very nice camera attached to it. The weight of the two cameras along with all the lenses may actually be less than my D700 with just a prime mounted. The X100 is a highly viable partner with its silence and the ability to sync flash in sunlight. Both bodies have similar controls which is comfortable.
--
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
pkincy
Leading Member
I see no problem to carry two light cameras each with a different focal length attached.
No need to fumble around and change lenses. Simply grab the camera on your left for the 35 mm equiv and the camera on your right for the 90 mm equivalent.
Heck if they had a 23 mm and I didn't already have one attached to a good body I would buy the 2 lenses and 2 bodies so I could carry two mounted lenses to be ready to shoot either one.
If you think the AF is slow what do you think of the time necessary to dismount one lens and than put it in a bag, while grabbing another out of the bag and than mounting it and than resetting the body for this new focal length and than getting back to taking your picture.
By the time all that is done the light has changed or your subject is long gone.
Perry
No need to fumble around and change lenses. Simply grab the camera on your left for the 35 mm equiv and the camera on your right for the 90 mm equivalent.
Heck if they had a 23 mm and I didn't already have one attached to a good body I would buy the 2 lenses and 2 bodies so I could carry two mounted lenses to be ready to shoot either one.
If you think the AF is slow what do you think of the time necessary to dismount one lens and than put it in a bag, while grabbing another out of the bag and than mounting it and than resetting the body for this new focal length and than getting back to taking your picture.
By the time all that is done the light has changed or your subject is long gone.
Perry
viking79
Forum Pro
Who cares what some dead photographer used for his pictures. He used what was available and fit his vision.
No it isn't. Not to mention, most 50mm lenses are actually closer to 53mm.
Only if you let it be a problem.
Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
Cartier-Bresson used a 50mm almost universally anyway, and hated going any wider. I prefer 35mm as well myself, but I've gotten loads of good shots from times when I took nothing but a 5D2 and 50/1.4.
This and the fact going any wider will make the f/1.4 aperture problematic. Look at the Sigma 30/1.4 - great center sharpness but the corners are very sub-par. It'd also have to be markedly bigger, I think.
And on that track, a 23/2 is almost certainly going to be bigger than the lens on the X100, given that it won't have the specially-tailored sensor and therefore won't be able to protrude way back into the camera body. And a 23/1.8 or 1.4 (which is what I'd really love) would necessarily be much bigger. Note that the "pancake" they talk about is a much slower 28/2.8.
love_them_all
Senior Member
35-50-75 is the bread and butter for the RF bloodline. IF I have to pick just one lens I would go for a 50 eq. 21 is good for landscape or interior. While the 90 is a bit of a hit and miss (focus wise) on the M but I sure love the tele on the "small" RF body.
Michael Kaufman
Senior Member
If I only had one lens, I would certainly go for the 35, but with a choice, 28-50-90 isn't a bad set to have.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelthek/
I have also issues with carrying both... the whole idea of a single small camera is then lost, you may as well get something like pentax k5 with their excellent primes and it would probably weight less than both x100 with xpro1.
you are funny ,sorry to say....this is why in this forums i see many Pet and mom portraits....people dont learn from "masters"......anyway let us see some of your photos to understand what you can do better then a dead photographer
enlight us plswhy a problem? and why my? i see the only who can concern if a potential customr will not buy their product is fuji, sure its not a MY problem or YOUR....
if you have something intelligent to say or to show (photos) i m ready to learn from you ...
and what i said ?? i just said that what was standard in his times (50mm) now it s becoming wider (i.e. you see why cameras with just fixed focal lenghts are NEVER 50mm ( SIGMA DP1 DP2, leica X1, Fuji X100)
viking79
Forum Pro
Did I ever compare myself to a dead photographer? I think it is important to learn from master, but I also think it is important to follow your own visions (I assume you would pick masters that would be close to what you follow).you are funny ,sorry to say....this is why in this forums i see many Pet and mom portraits....people dont learn from "masters"......anyway let us see some of your photos to understand what you can do better then a dead photographer
This isn't about photographs, this is about your statement that you won't buy Fuji because the lack of a "normal" lens, when the 35mm is exactly that. Equivalent to 53mm in 135 format (35mm) film. That is less than 10% from 50mm, and in fact, many 50mm lenses are closer to 53mm in actual focal length (they mark them in standard markings, it could be anywhere from 47 to 53mm or so in length even if labeled as 50mm).
If you are saying the lack of a 23mm lens is a problem (35mm equivalent), than buy something else or wait until Fuji releases the 23mm f/2 for the X Pro1.
Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
Canyongazer
Forum Enthusiast
Yes, 27 to 53 IS a big jump...
OTOH, I do remember having two lenses for my Mamiya 7ii, an 80 and 50. I used this camera A LOT for many years...mostly landscape, some street. (great camera!great lenses!)
At 40 and 25 mm equiv I found them too close together considering that I had just the two lenses. I often wished the "long" were longer and the wide were wider.
I think, for just two lenses, 53 and 27 will be quite nice indeed. But, that might be just me.
At some point adding a REALLY w/a such as 18 equiv. would be nice.
OTOH, I do remember having two lenses for my Mamiya 7ii, an 80 and 50. I used this camera A LOT for many years...mostly landscape, some street. (great camera!great lenses!)
At 40 and 25 mm equiv I found them too close together considering that I had just the two lenses. I often wished the "long" were longer and the wide were wider.
I think, for just two lenses, 53 and 27 will be quite nice indeed. But, that might be just me.
At some point adding a REALLY w/a such as 18 equiv. would be nice.
love_them_all
Senior Member
I have a Zeiss 35 1.4 too but to be honest, if I am going to buy another lens, Leica M or not, 50 1.4 is a lot cheaper than a 35 1.4.
Using 50 1.4 on FF vs 35 1.4 on APS-C. Big difference in the lens price! I know FF bodies are more expensive but the money saved on buying 1.4 and 2.8/2 super wide just to use as wide is big. There is no 1.4 super wide I know of out there as well.
Using 50 1.4 on FF vs 35 1.4 on APS-C. Big difference in the lens price! I know FF bodies are more expensive but the money saved on buying 1.4 and 2.8/2 super wide just to use as wide is big. There is no 1.4 super wide I know of out there as well.
--
Andrew Koenig
Leading Member
It's the most useful focal length if it's your only lens. If you can change lenses, the situation is different.
LiChung Liu
Member
I think Fuji was banking on lack of competition in the small body with retro style, as Leica has banked on for years. The X-Pro 1 is supposedly a poor man's Leica. The closest is Sony NEX-7, but it's missing a OVF and the retro style. Their competitor is their own X100.
Lack of a 35mm is inexcusable on the X-Pro 1 line up. Are they seriously telling us its a "Street" camera but handicap us with only a landscape lens (24mm equivalent) and a normal lens (50mm eq.)? The only reason I can think of is, which someone already mentioned, that they don't want to eat into their X100 sales, drag their feet until X100 is no longer in demand, then introduce the 35mm for the X-Pro 1.
Well, Olympus OM-D E-M5 is going to eat their lunch. The body is only at $1000 instead of $1700. It's retro style comes in silver/black and all black. The Lens line up is compatible with all micro 4/3 lens, while X-Pro 1 lens line up is what....3 lenses? Granted it does not have a OVF, but with EVF it does not have to deal with the the constant frame size guessing from the parallax error.
EM-5 is weather sealed and has a battery grip (X100 is a battery hog). X-Pro 1 is suppose to be a pro camera, but it's not weather sealed? really? then why call it pro then? Do you see Canon call their Rebel or mid line pro? no, they call it prosumer grade for a reason.
I personally hate EVF, every camera I've purchase always had OVF as a major criteria. Olympus OM-D E-M5 will be released in April, 2012. Let's hope Fuji speed up their 35mm lens to "maybe" this year...
Lack of a 35mm is inexcusable on the X-Pro 1 line up. Are they seriously telling us its a "Street" camera but handicap us with only a landscape lens (24mm equivalent) and a normal lens (50mm eq.)? The only reason I can think of is, which someone already mentioned, that they don't want to eat into their X100 sales, drag their feet until X100 is no longer in demand, then introduce the 35mm for the X-Pro 1.
Well, Olympus OM-D E-M5 is going to eat their lunch. The body is only at $1000 instead of $1700. It's retro style comes in silver/black and all black. The Lens line up is compatible with all micro 4/3 lens, while X-Pro 1 lens line up is what....3 lenses? Granted it does not have a OVF, but with EVF it does not have to deal with the the constant frame size guessing from the parallax error.
EM-5 is weather sealed and has a battery grip (X100 is a battery hog). X-Pro 1 is suppose to be a pro camera, but it's not weather sealed? really? then why call it pro then? Do you see Canon call their Rebel or mid line pro? no, they call it prosumer grade for a reason.
I personally hate EVF, every camera I've purchase always had OVF as a major criteria. Olympus OM-D E-M5 will be released in April, 2012. Let's hope Fuji speed up their 35mm lens to "maybe" this year...
Michael Kaufman
Senior Member
First off, its a 27mm equivalent not a 24mm. That's a big difference. Second of all, its 27mm with 16mp. Is that really so far off of the X100's 35mm with 12 mp?
Perhaps, or perhaps they felt that they couldn't release the XPro1 having the widest lens at 35mm. Or perhaps they felt that since the normal lens was the one they had to include, 35mm was too close.
The Olympus looks like a very nice camera, but I doubt it is a direct competitor for three reasons.
1) The OVF is a huge selling point. Many people (like you, for example) write that they "hate an EVF". I took a long look at it, and if it had the OVF, I might have considered it over the Fuji, but without it, I just wasn't interested. I have a feeling I am not alone in this sentiment.
2) Lenses/DOF. For people who want fast primes with limited DOF, The Fuji is always going to have an advantage over the smaller sensor of the Olympus. The two cameras really are targeted at different audiences. That's why the Fuji came out with three fairly fast to fast primes and the Olympus came out with a kit zoom.
3) High ISO performance. Unless they have made some breakthrough with this camera, its going to top out at between 800 and 1600 usable ISO. I expect the Fuji will easily go to 3200.
I predict that both cameras will do well, but they are really going after two different markets. those markets certainly overlap, but not by enough that one will eat the others lunch.
You should understand that after about 10 feet or so, parallax error goes to zero, and inside of 10 feet the XPro1 has an EVF that can be used in the exactly the same way.
Show of hands: Has anyone ever gone through more then two batteries in a single shoot? If not, can we move past this battery hog thing? And by the way, if people want a huge camera with three batteries in them, there are probably better choices then a m4/3. If they aren't using the grip, the OM-D is supposed to have about the same battery life.
I do agree that weather sealing would have been nice, but its not really a deal breaker for most people.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelthek/
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum