XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Started Jan 6, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Birse Boy Regular Member • Posts: 356
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

I'm sure it will be a great lens but heck...£1000 is pretty eye watering.

I took this pic with a 30 odd year old manual Rokkor 50mm f1.4 that i recently picked up for £50, it will do me nicely thank you

I also have a 58mm f1.4 Rokkor and a bunch of otherRokkors with adaptors, all for less than the cost of the XF35mm. It's a funny old world !

dark13star
dark13star Senior Member • Posts: 1,604
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Krich13 wrote:

What is so damn important about number _per_unit_area_? I really don't get it. For all image quality purposes it's an irrelevant parameter.

Because that is an essential part of exposure. You can use a faster shutter speed.

-- hide signature --

"I would be an historian as Herodotus was." -Charles Olson
http://herodot.us

 dark13star's gear list:dark13star's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 +12 more
Asylum Photo
Asylum Photo Senior Member • Posts: 1,277
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Krich13 wrote:

Asylum Photo wrote:

La Roque has a preview up:

http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/2014/1/6/the-razors-edge-fujinon-xf-56mm-f12r

Probably won't satisfy critics, but I'm liking the results so far. Can't wait to shoot portraits with it.

-- hide signature --

Not bad, but highlights outlines are pretty rough. Impossible to evaluate sharpness at this image size.

Yeah, I have a feeling people will take note of that. I wonder how much is the lens, and how much of that is the result of post production (clarity sliders will cause outlines like that, for example).

Me? I couldn't care less. I don't sit and stare at out of focus lights.

-- hide signature --
 Asylum Photo's gear list:Asylum Photo's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Krich13 Contributing Member • Posts: 680
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

dark13star wrote:

Krich13 wrote:

What is so damn important about number _per_unit_area_? I really don't get it. For all image quality purposes it's an irrelevant parameter.

Because that is an essential part of exposure. You can use a faster shutter speed.

No, you can use the same shutter speed, adjusting ISO accordingly for the same Image quality results.

malcolml1 Regular Member • Posts: 230
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Krich13 wrote:

malcolml1 wrote:

Yes, I follow your argument apart from one step which actually represents my original question:

>

For semiconductor sensors what matters is the total number of photons per photosite, pretty much regardless of the site area. Make two sensors: say an APS-S and FF ones both of say 16 megapixels. Expose them using the same scene for the same duration using 56/1.2 and 85/1.8 lenses respectively. Each photosite will receive the same NUMBER of photons (the number per unit area is 2.25 times larger in the first case, but the area itself is smaller by the same factor).

I agree with the area and scaling factor part, but my original question was whether it is true that the 56/1.2 will deliver the same number of photons per unit area on the APS sensor as the 85/1.8 lens on a FF sensor.

No, it will receive 2.25 times more photons PER UNIT AREA.

Totally agree that the 56/1/2 will deliver more photons per unit area than the 85/1.8 - and this is my question - if this is the case, how is the 56/1.2 equivalent to the 85/1.8 in terms of the light delivered per unit area - your statement above says they are:

"Make two sensors: say an APS-S and FF ones both of say 16 megapixels. Expose them using the same scene for the same duration using 56/1.2 and 85/1.8 lenses respectively. Each photosite will receive the same NUMBER of photons (the number per.."

Seems to be a contradiction.....

Krich13 Contributing Member • Posts: 680
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

malcolml1 wrote:

Krich13 wrote:

malcolml1 wrote:

Yes, I follow your argument apart from one step which actually represents my original question:

>

For semiconductor sensors what matters is the total number of photons per photosite, pretty much regardless of the site area. Make two sensors: say an APS-S and FF ones both of say 16 megapixels. Expose them using the same scene for the same duration using 56/1.2 and 85/1.8 lenses respectively. Each photosite will receive the same NUMBER of photons (the number per unit area is 2.25 times larger in the first case, but the area itself is smaller by the same factor).

I agree with the area and scaling factor part, but my original question was whether it is true that the 56/1.2 will deliver the same number of photons per unit area on the APS sensor as the 85/1.8 lens on a FF sensor.

No, it will receive 2.25 times more photons PER UNIT AREA.

Totally agree that the 56/1/2 will deliver more photons per unit area than the 85/1.8 - and this is my question - if this is the case, how is the 56/1.2 equivalent to the 85/1.8 in terms of the light delivered per unit area - your statement above says they are:

"Make two sensors: say an APS-S and FF ones both of say 16 megapixels. Expose them using the same scene for the same duration using 56/1.2 and 85/1.8 lenses respectively. Each photosite will receive the same NUMBER of photons (the number per.."

Seems to be a contradiction.....

Where is the contradiction? Each photosite of the full frame sensor would have 2.25 times larger area (the same number (not density) of megapixels), number of photons _per_unit_area_ 2.25 times smaller, the TOTAL NUMBER of photons is the same. What is so difficult?

Absolutic
Absolutic Veteran Member • Posts: 5,169
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Asylum Photo wrote:

La Roque has a preview up:

http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/2014/1/6/the-razors-edge-fujinon-xf-56mm-f12r

Probably won't satisfy critics, but I'm liking the results so far. Can't wait to shoot portraits with it.

-- hide signature --

I read the review before Laroque removed it.   What I can see already from his shots is that 56/1.2 has a certain character and sure to become one of the famous lenses around.  I can see the character and it reminds me of another lens but I can't put my finger on what.    Perhaps something Leica-like in just how the lens is rendering?

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Olympus E-M1 Sony Alpha 7 II Nikon D500 +17 more
malcolml1 Regular Member • Posts: 230
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Understand that fine...I was not really thinking about the pixel size. That is the bit I was missing. Just curious - do FF pixels typically have 2.25 times the area of APS ones?

I assume that if the FF pixels were the same size as the APS ones, then my argument would be correct (just so I can be sure I understand correctly).

dark13star
dark13star Senior Member • Posts: 1,604
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Krich13 wrote:

No, you can use the same shutter speed, adjusting ISO accordingly for the same Image quality results.

Maybe on a Nikon FF, but have you seen how many Canon shooters here say they get better high-ISO results out of their Fujis? ISO must remain the same for the the comparison.

Now, if you had said that cameras with base ISO of 100 will get the same shutter speed as Fuji at 200, there would be some merit to the argument.

-- hide signature --

"I would be an historian as Herodotus was." -Charles Olson
http://herodot.us

 dark13star's gear list:dark13star's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 +12 more
Krich13 Contributing Member • Posts: 680
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
1

malcolml1 wrote:

Understand that fine...I was not really thinking about the pixel size. That is the bit I was missing. Just curious - do FF pixels typically have 2.25 times the area of APS ones?

Some do, some don't. Nikon's DF and D4 have 16 MP, just like the APS-C Fuji. Others, (D610, Sony A7, Canons) are around 20-24 MP, two others (Nikon D800E, Sony A7R) have 36 MP. On the other hand, recent Nikon APS-C cameras also have 24 MP, Samsung -- 20 MP -- so yes, pretty similar pixel count and hence the photosite area. Factor 2-2.5 area advantage for most FF pixels. Additional advantage of fatter picels that there is less of an area loss at the pixel edges.

I assume that if the FF pixels were the same size as the APS ones, then my argument would be correct (just so I can be sure I understand correctly).

No, it wouldn't, but for a different reason. Yes, in this case every pixel of an FF sensor would be noisier than that of an APS-C sensor, but the total number of pixel would be greater. Once you scale the larger image down (downsample) to the same size as an APS-C one, the noise of the final image would be similar again.

Krich13 Contributing Member • Posts: 680
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

dark13star wrote:

Krich13 wrote:

No, you can use the same shutter speed, adjusting ISO accordingly for the same Image quality results.

Maybe on a Nikon FF, but have you seen how many Canon shooters here say they get better high-ISO results out of their Fujis?

One of the reasons I switched to Nikon was its (well, Sony's) better sensors. I heard the latest Canons (6D, 5DIII) are very good in low light, but I have no first-hand experience.

ISO must remain the same for the the comparison.

Huh? Why is that? For proper comparison ISO of the FF should be icnreased (compared to APS-C) by a stop and a little, and aperture set to its DOF-equivalent value. Shutter speed the same.

Now, if you had said that cameras with base ISO of 100 will get the same shutter speed as Fuji at 200, there would be some merit to the argument.

The other way around. What you can get on Fuji at ISO 200, you can get on Nikon at ISO 450. What you can get on Nikon at ISO 100... you can't get on Fuji at all (base ISO is 200).

nalax Contributing Member • Posts: 500
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Let us know how much to change for our 4x5 or 8x10 cameras. Would a banquet camera require more of your "proper" exposure? How about one of Maxwell Smart's spy cameras? Exposure is exposure, buddy.

I hope to see more of the 56mm, hopefully soon!

Krich13 wrote:


ISO must remain the same for the the comparison.

Huh? Why is that? For proper comparison ISO of the FF should be icnreased (compared to APS-C) by a stop and a little, and aperture set to its DOF-equivalent value. Shutter speed the same.

 nalax's gear list:nalax's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +8 more
Erik Magnuson Forum Pro • Posts: 12,247
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

nalax wrote:

Let us know how much to change for our 4x5 or 8x10 cameras.

You can use tri-x w/o fear of grain - 35mm cannot.

How about one of Maxwell Smart's spy cameras?

Needs slow microfilm for decent grain when enlarged.

Exposure is exposure, buddy.

Yes, it is - and one of the constraints has always been noise vs. enlargement.

-- hide signature --

Erik

brandagnostickk
brandagnostickk Junior Member • Posts: 30
envy is what comes to my mind for this lens

I own several brand DSLRs but I have to say this lens looks good enough to entice me (more) to think about a mirroless venture.

Krich13 Contributing Member • Posts: 680
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

nalax wrote:

Let us know how much to change for our 4x5 or 8x10 cameras. Would a banquet camera require more of your "proper" exposure? How about one of Maxwell Smart's spy cameras? Exposure is exposure, buddy.

I hope to see more of the 56mm, hopefully soon!

Krich13 wrote:

ISO must remain the same for the the comparison.

Huh? Why is that? For proper comparison ISO of the FF should be icnreased (compared to APS-C) by a stop and a little, and aperture set to its DOF-equivalent value. Shutter speed the same.

You really don't understand. For film, yes, you need exposure per unit area. For semiconductor sensors the relevant parameter is total amount of light captured by the entire sensor.

Especially for you, I copy my post over again:

________________________________________________________________________

Depends how you define "exposure". In the old film days, it was indeed "exposure PER UNIT AREA" regardless of frame size. Deliver too few photons, and the film is underexposed, milky what not. Deliver too many, chemical changes facilitate turning the entire frame black.

For semiconductor sensors what matters is the total number of photons per photosite, pretty much regardless of the site area. Make two sensors: say an APS-S and FF ones both of say 16 megapixels. Expose them using the same scene for the same duration using 56/1.2 and 85/1.8 lenses respectively. Each photosite will receive the same NUMBER of photons (the number per unit area is 2.25 times larger in the first case, but the area itself is smaller by the same factor). Each photosite (given equal quantum efficiency) will produce the same number of electron-hole pairs (photocurrrent) ergo the same signal and the same shot noise. If you read each sensor with the same preamplifier, equal Read noise will be introduced in both cases, as would be required amplifier gain!

However, a Photomertist would assign the first case say ISO 100, and the second -- ISO 225 based on exposure PER UNIT AREA, even though the physical amplifier gain is exactly the same in both cases.

The origin of your confusion is extrapolation of ISO sensitivity concept to modern sensors -- irrelevant one for digital sensors, the proper metric would be "light delivered to the whole sensor")

Martin Datzinger Senior Member • Posts: 2,244
Aperture ring

I'm pretty much on a decission here because I'd like to invest in a kit prime lenses and I have yet to decide which system. I have a D600 with the 2.8 zooms as workhorses. From the primes I want to have a decidedly different shooting experience. So it may very well become the Fuji with 23/1.4, 35/1.4 and a 90/2 they'll hopefully release someday (but sadly not before 2016, according to the roadmap - why they'll rather stick to big tele zooms I don't know).

Or I chicken and invest on Sigma, the 35 already being excellent, the 50 was announced yesterday and a 135 is very much on the horizon.

But honestly the Fuji route is somehow more tempting, a system more around what I'd expect from prime lens shooting. Aperture rings and stuff. But there is the issue, the XF primes' aperture rings until now looked very floppy to me. So I very much welcome that the 56's announcement states "The aperture ring is designed to ensure it’s easy to detect ‘clicks’ between f-stops"

I guess that stems from user feedback, a thing Fuji is very much known to take serious. So do you think they'll facelift the existing lenses for a stiffer aperture ring? IMO they could go from 1/3 to 1/2 stop detents at the same time, but a ring that can't be turned by the tip of the small finger or by accident would be nice enough for me.

Best regards,

Martin

-- hide signature --

www.datzinger.net

malcolml1 Regular Member • Posts: 230
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Ok - in the second question I actually forgot to say that I meant the same number of pixels (though I realize this would result in a lot of dead space on the sensor - it was a hypothetical question).

Now I've thought a bit more, I think there is another source of confusion....I have convinced myself again that, whilst I accept that noise levels would be different, if I took a photo with my Fuji and the 56/1.2 at ISO200 and did the same with my (now sold) 5D mk2 with the 85/1.2 at ISO 200, both in aperture priority mode, they would both select much the same shutter speed (I assumed that both Canon and Fuji agree on definition of ISO).

To you (I think) equivalence also includes achieving equivalent noise levels. Pixels are buckets for collecting photons and converting them into electron-hole pairs (as you said). Obviously a bigger bucked can collect more photons (and generate more electron hole pairs). But then the actual number of electron-hole pairs is not used to form the image - rather the signal is digitized when it is read. If both the APS and FF sensor are 14 bit, then in underlying analog signal is converted into one of 2 ** 14 levels. Further, I assume that the levels (at base ISO or amplification) are spread (non-linearly, I know) between 0 and 'full' (max electron-hole pair capacity for that pixel).

To me, a given exposure would result in of the same output level regardless of sensor format - I think this is because the supposedly common definition of ISO.

The advantage of a larger pixel size is the confidence level you have in the level you measure after conversion. More exactly (I work with statistics...), you would be confident that if you repeated the measurement with 10 different pixels they would report the same level for that actual exposure. For example, a uniform area of blue sky - with bigger pixels, you have much more confidence that adjacent pixels would measure the same level after conversion to digital. You have less confidence with smaller pixels - and in fact this lower confidence manifests itself in adjacent pixels reporting more variation in the level they measure. We see this as noise.

Even simpler example - if the read error (I think this is what it is called) is + or - 10 electron-hole pairs for both APS and FF sized pixels, and the APS pixel has a maximum capacity of 100 vs the FF pixel of 1,000 (making the numbers up for illustration), then the likelihood of the analog signal being converted to exactly the same level in the blue sky example is lower for the APS sensor (+ or - 10 out of a total number of 100 is a much bigger error than + - 10 out of 100).

a l b e r t OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,451
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

malcolml1 wrote:

Ok - in the second question I actually forgot to say that I meant the same number of pixels (though I realize this would result in a lot of dead space on the sensor - it was a hypothetical question).

Now I've thought a bit more, I think there is another source of confusion....I have convinced myself again that, whilst I accept that noise levels would be different, if I took a photo with my Fuji and the 56/1.2 at ISO200 and did the same with my (now sold) 5D mk2 with the 85/1.2 at ISO 200, both in aperture priority mode, they would both select much the same shutter speed (I assumed that both Canon and Fuji agree on definition of ISO).

To you (I think) equivalence also includes achieving equivalent noise levels. Pixels are buckets for collecting photons and converting them into electron-hole pairs (as you said). Obviously a bigger bucked can collect more photons (and generate more electron hole pairs). But then the actual number of electron-hole pairs is not used to form the image - rather the signal is digitized when it is read. If both the APS and FF sensor are 14 bit, then in underlying analog signal is converted into one of 2 ** 14 levels. Further, I assume that the levels (at base ISO or amplification) are spread (non-linearly, I know) between 0 and 'full' (max electron-hole pair capacity for that pixel).

To me, a given exposure would result in of the same output level regardless of sensor format - I think this is because the supposedly common definition of ISO.

The advantage of a larger pixel size is the confidence level you have in the level you measure after conversion. More exactly (I work with statistics...), you would be confident that if you repeated the measurement with 10 different pixels they would report the same level for that actual exposure. For example, a uniform area of blue sky - with bigger pixels, you have much more confidence that adjacent pixels would measure the same level after conversion to digital. You have less confidence with smaller pixels - and in fact this lower confidence manifests itself in adjacent pixels reporting more variation in the level they measure. We see this as noise.

Even simpler example - if the read error (I think this is what it is called) is + or - 10 electron-hole pairs for both APS and FF sized pixels, and the APS pixel has a maximum capacity of 100 vs the FF pixel of 1,000 (making the numbers up for illustration), then the likelihood of the analog signal being converted to exactly the same level in the blue sky example is lower for the APS sensor (+ or - 10 out of a total number of 100 is a much bigger error than + - 10 out of 100).

The comparison of APS-C sensor and FF sensor is a complicated one. It is because the sensor performance from one generation to the next can be very different.

For example, the high ISO performance of the X-Trans CMOS I sensor is on the same level of the FF sensor in 5D2, even though the sensor is 2.25x larger.

Moving along to the sensor in 5D3, high ISO noise is much lower. So when one has to compare, the comparison needs to be made to roughly the same generation sensor.

Then there is the number of pixels on the sensor. If you have a 36MPix sensor such as the one in D800, the pixel size is the same as the pixel size of a 16MPix sensor. It is because 36 / 2.25 = 16. So the number of pixels within an APS-C crop of D800 sensor is the same of that of a X-Trans sensor.

Since pixel size is the same, and the D800 sensor is roughly the same generation as X-Trans I, the quantum efficiency of the two sensors should roughly be the same.

Yet if you examine at the pixel level, you'll see that the noise of a 36MPix D800 sensor is actually noisier than the X-Trans I even at ISO 1600. I believe having two extra green pixels in a 6x6 grid helps lower the luminance noise.

Now if you compare to the next generation 36MPix sensor in A7r, you'll see that the high ISO noise is comparable to the X-Trans CMOS II.

Another reason why full frame sensor appears to have lower noise when viewed on the screen is due to pixel binning. You scaled down a 36MPix sensor to fit in your 3MPix screen. It is going to look better than a 16MPix sensor scaled down to 3MPix, both in terms of noise and details.

So all it boils down to is how large of a print are you going to make. It is not going to make a whole lot of difference even if you print it as 16x20.

 a l b e r t's gear list:a l b e r t's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X10 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +7 more
malcolml1 Regular Member • Posts: 230
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Hi Albert,

I totally agree that things are complicated when comparing noise capabilities across different generations of sensor. And also that up to a certain size print no one really cares (I even remember shooting 1600 ISO film that looks noisier than my X-Pro or XE-2 at 6400 even on a 7 x 5 print!).

So my question to you is.....assuming I am not making huge prints and don't care about the small amount of noise difference, if I set the 5d mk3 to ISO 200, with the 85/1.2 lens, and take the identical image with the XE-2 and 56/1.2 also at ISO 200 (position adjusted to give the same image), how would the exposure time differ between the two (assuming that Canon and Fuji have the same definition of ISO - i know that isn't the case, but I want to understand the ideal case before the more complicated reality)

Malcolm

bigpigbig Senior Member • Posts: 1,721
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

malcolml1 wrote:

Hi Albert,

I totally agree that things are complicated when comparing noise capabilities across different generations of sensor. And also that up to a certain size print no one really cares (I even remember shooting 1600 ISO film that looks noisier than my X-Pro or XE-2 at 6400 even on a 7 x 5 print!).

So my question to you is.....assuming I am not making huge prints and don't care about the small amount of noise difference, if I set the 5d mk3 to ISO 200, with the 85/1.2 lens, and take the identical image with the XE-2 and 56/1.2 also at ISO 200 (position adjusted to give the same image), how would the exposure time differ between the two (assuming that Canon and Fuji have the same definition of ISO - i know that isn't the case, but I want to understand the ideal case before the more complicated reality)

Malcolm

Why make it so complicated.

Same Aperture + Same ISO = Same Shutter speed. PERIOD.

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +12 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads