Not interested, but X-T30 shows the way.

Raist3d wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

I beg to differ with the xf35 f2.0 example I gave. you don’t see vessels because of the size and eye of subject it’s also true xtrans compromises in color resolution to gain on luminance The part to see here is the hair if you are getting a hairline as a single pixel

Sorry, I am looking at the subjects eyes and skin. The stands of hair were reflecting sunlight - high contrast, no wonder they stand out.

Yes but look at the resolution I am not talking about the contrast If the hair is pretty much one pixel width that tells you how sharp this is

Not sure how you’re measuring hair width as “1 pixel” but however many pixels represent hair should be visible, yes?   As the sunlight reflecting off the blonde hair is high contrast, I’m not surprised it stands out.  What I am surprised at is the waxy skin, eyes, lashes, brows reveal poor detail, sort of a fused or smeared look.

I'm looking at the subtle (lack of detail) in the skin and eyes. Her hair is no thicker than eyelashes. There should be detail there.

they are in shape it really depends They aren’t that big But that said color resolution of xtrans is less than Bayer

also the hair is probably in 100% focus while the eye behind it is not This was wide open

At f/3, 50mm equivalent, DOF should be 6-8 inches deep at that distance.  If the hair is in focus, the brows, eyes should be too.  Eye-AF is available no?

pretty much you can’t get sharper than that - white the girl on the bathtub has a bit of a blur

At 1/60th of a second indoors with a squirming toddler, you're surprised?

fair and fair point to raise the issue on iso so not quite a valid pic to compare (but then, don’t post that one )

Yet still shows eyelashes and blood vessels even wide open.

It looks soft and you are way closer to subject than the one I posted which goes to explain partially the lack of red bloodlines

Then there's the outdoor shot at 1/2500 with the same combo. Far more detail in the eye-lashes, eyebrows, fine hairs of the skin, blood vessels, soft, subtle pink tones and transition of the nasolacrimal duct. I don't see this on the Fuji.

again look at the hair Miranda one pixel wide with baggies The eye could simply be at that point slight point of shorter dof Doesn’t change what I said about the lens

How are you measuring this “one pixel” hair width? lol. I don’t see separation in lashes, skin surface imperfections, subtle pink tones in the corners of the eye with the Fuji photo.  I do see those things in the outdoor shot I posted with the 25/1.4.

but it to be fair if that was shot on the em5 there’s also the higher resolitiin of the xe3 to account in that case - which still makes a case for the Fuji as a system but not as much individually for the lens

Resolution on the 12MP EPL1 for the PL25/1.4 @ 1.4 is ~ 1500 lph

Resolution on the 16MP XE1 for the XF35/2 @ f/2 is ~ 1850 lph

Wide open the Fuji should show an advantage but I fear this is masked by the x-trans demosaicing. At f/2 the PL25 also produces ~ 1850 lph like the Fuji. Who knows if more detail is resolved on the 16 and 20mp mFT sensors without an AA filter. I would guess yes, but to what extent, who knows.

mft without AA def shows more detail than those with bayer as for the lines above not sure where you are comparing but hard to compare different models sensors

Simple math really.  Both lenses were tested by Lenstip.

at any rate I think I proved it’s sharp enough at a minimum I sold my xe3 to my brother so don’t have it anymore though still have an old xe1 that maybe I can try

A closer shot, focused on the eye so we can see the detail would help. Maybe with CaptureOne or whatever works best on x-trans. Would be interesting to compare to the same lens on the Bayer 24MP Fuji models (XA3 or whatever it's called).

the ideal world we would have the same composed and distance shot to compare that said as I said the hair tells the story on how sharp the lens is wide open because if the lens wasn’t as sharp we wouldn’t get jaggies and one pixel width this means the eye of the girl is actually a notch outmof the DOF Easy to solve tomcompare if I had shot at f2.8+

Is the “hair” the subject in this photo?  I’m looking at a candid portrait of a girl.  The hair has high contrast because it is blonde and in the sun.  I don’t think that lens lacks sharpness.  I think it’s the xtrans muddying detail in the facial features and skin texture.  The forehead has a smooth plastic look to it.