Not interested, but X-T30 shows the way.

Raist3d wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

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.

What I mean is the hair goes with jaggies/pixelation. It's pretty much capturing to the resolution. When a lens is not as sharp, you see it but it is smoother. Which can also be a good thing but that's besides the point.

I don't think the high contrast hair is the issue, nor do I think that lens lacks sharpness. What strikes me immediately in this photo is the way the skin, eyes, lashes, brows reveal poor detail - it's smeared together in your 1:1 view. It's not the lens, it's the demosaicing I suspect. I would LOVE to see this lens on an XA3 or whatever the Bayer array is called.

But perhaps let me know you how big proportionally the eye is in size to the photo and compare to the shot of the girl you shot.

Here's how that eye fits in proportion to the photo, so it should be no wonder you see red line sin the eye in yours. I just saw another shot I took with my X-e3 with the eye being bigger in the shot and effectively you can see a bit of red lines.

You were definitely farther away - 10ft perhaps? Which means the DOF was 2ft deep. So the hair stands AND face was in focus. Only the high-contrast hair strands reveal fine detail. The face (skin, eyes, brows, lashes) is lower contrast and gets mushed together in the demosaicing process. That's unfortunate - I hope other processors can preserve the details there.

In any case, nice shot!

As for the review sites of lenses- they warn you shouldn't compare across systems just like that.

Without accounting for sensor size differences...which I did.

I think lens-tip themselves explains too. But anyhow, all I can say is I do find by experience the XF35 F2.0 sharper than the Panasonic wide open.

The Fuji is sharper wide open. Lenstip shows this. But the Panasonic wide open captures more light and offers more subject separation. At f/2 they offer the same vertical resolution. The PL is simply doing this on a smaller sensor. The mZD 25/1.2 captures even more light than the PL and the detail is even better wide open, especially micro-contrast.

The Panasonic becomes pretty good once you stop down.

Across the frame yes. But no one would consider it's center performance unacceptable even wide open.

And the original PL 25 mm F1.4 m43rds is better than both.

And extinct.

And honestly I am sorry, but I see your eye sample that you pointed out of the girl in the bath pretty soft, with some CA's even on the specular part o the eye to light.

I don't see CA in that shot but yes, CA is an issue with the PL just like coma and CA is on the Fuji.  One of the reasons I moved to the mZD 25/1.2 for video.  The CA and flare control is much improved.

Thank you for posting the shots, I think at this point I am going to agree to differ, but if you ever get a chance to try for yourself if you are curious go for it. Also if you ever get hold of the Panny Leica 4/3rds original, check it out. It's kinda big but it's great.

You must have missed the part where I mentioned I shot with the original PL on the E1 and E30. It was a fine lens.

I don't think we are disagreeing! I said the XF35/2 is plenty sharp. It must be the demosaicing of the x-trans array that is muddying detail in the face.