XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Started Jan 6, 2014 | Discussions
Bernie Ess Veteran Member • Posts: 7,017
Re: Aperture ring

Martin Datzinger wrote:

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 use the X-E1 since a year or so, and I like the lenses I currently have (27/35/18-55/55-200), but I really think I'd easily switch to aperture via thumb wheel (camera backside, upper left side) if Fuji made it available via firmware to control the aperture in both ways.

I do it on my tiny and extremely sharp 27mm pancake, I did it for years on my DSLRs, in my opinion it requires less effort and concentration than turning an aperture ring. I never had an issue with the operation of any of the rings (easy, medium, hard), except for the fact that it always is less automatic than turning that small thumb wheel.

As for the system question: You say the Fuji system is better around what you'd expect from prime lens shooting: There is of course the weight of the kit that is much lower than the Nikon/ Sigma. However the FF kit gives you better DOF control with all of the classic primes (35mm, 50mm - annonced - 85mm) and the quality of all recent Sigma Art lenses has apparently been breathtaking. More than anything anybody thought Sigma could do even 1-2 years ago. Add a 135, a 85mm/ Mk II  and maybe a 24mm and Sigma may have the highest quality set of all manufactuers.

For me the main issues are weight and the Fuji look that I really like. Although not quite up to the old Fuji DSLRs, I still think Fujis have better colours than Canon and Nikon. I never came to like the ook of the Nikon files, regardless of profiles and Raw converter.

I am also hesitating to buy those expensive Fuji lenses rather than going dual with Fuji (for lightweight shooting) and Canon FF for the rest. I may wait for the 50mm Art lens, the Sigma 35/1,4 already looks stellar.

Bernhard

-- hide signature --

'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)

malcolml1 Regular Member • Posts: 236
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Yes - exactly - that's what I believe too. but some others argue differently.....and I am trying to understand why!

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

malcolml1 wrote:

Yes - exactly - that's what I believe too. but some others argue differently.....and I am trying to understand why!

They are either misinformed or making an necessary conversion from actual ISO to some hypothetical equivalent ISO.

Light meters have no input for sensor size or film size. I can shoot ISO 100 35mm film or an 8x10 sheet of ISO 100 film and if the same aperture is used then the same shutter speed will be required for an equivalent exposure.

Will more "total light" reach the 8x10 film sheet, of course. But it is irrelevant to the exposure (tone). Will more detail be captured by the 8x10 sheet, of course. But it will have the same exposure (tone).

 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
Ross Kennedy Regular Member • Posts: 300
Re: Aperture ring

Martin Datzinger wrote:

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

I've had the 14/18/35/60 for a long time and loose aperture rings really aren't a problem in real-life use. I always check the aperure dial setting as I raise the camera to my eye and you can constantly check the setting in the OVF/EVF while you take pictures, so I rarely mess up a photo due to an incorrect aperture setting.

Bernie Ess Veteran Member • Posts: 7,017
Aperture is electronically coupled anyway...

I forgot that as far as I know, the aperture ring is a pure "mockup", it just controls the aperture electronically, not mechanically. Just like the Manual focus on these cameras is not direct, but focus by wire. I hardly ever used it.

As aperture is electronically coupled, control via thumb wouldbe the more logic choice anyway.

At least in my opinion. The lens ring is pure nostalgia without necessity, inlike on the older lenses where the ring really changed something.

-- hide signature --

'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)

brandagnostickk
brandagnostickk Junior Member • Posts: 30
any more info on the lens?

any links somewhere?

Krich13 Contributing Member • Posts: 708
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

malcolml1 wrote:

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).

At the same ISO, yes. But why would you select the same ISO in the first place?If your shot requires (for your artistic or technical purposes) certain DOF, or certain shutter speed, or certain noise level -- you are free to play with remaining parameters at will.

In case of equivalent apertures (say f/1.2 on APS-C and f/1.8 on FF) selecting ISO 1 1/3 stops higher for an FF would result in the _same_ DOF, noise and shutter speed. The only reason to avoid raising the ISO are either noise concerns (not a concern, the noise is the same in both  cases) or shutter speed (say if you want to avoid to fast a shutter to allow some motion blur) -- again not a concern for the shutter speed is the same in both cases.

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).

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Let's consider the example of the same pixel count again. FF photosites 2.25 times bigger. Apertures 1.2 and 1.8 for APS-C and FF respectively. Same illumination of the scene, same shutter speed.

Result: Same number of electron-hole pairs in both cases -- ergo the same signal and shot noise levels. The same amplifier gain is required (though the ISO convention would assign 1 1/3 stop higher ISO rating to the FF case -- but the amplifier and analog-to-digital converters do not know anything about ISO convention -- nor would they care if they did).

At what point of recording, reading or digitization process would the results (signal, noise, bit resolution, dynamic range -- whatever comes to your mind) become any different in these two cases?

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.

I really don't understand this passage. Electronics knows nothing about ISO, and any sane manufacturer would squeeze as much signal-to-noise ratio as possible at every setting, whether it is base ISO, elevated or however it's defined. ISO is an empty number assigned to real settings (such as amplifier gain) afterwards.

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...),

Great. If you work with statistics you know what Shot noise is, and why it's the same in both cases.

a l b e r t OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,480
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

malcolml1 wrote:

Yes - exactly - that's what I believe too. but some others argue differently.....and I am trying to understand why!

As bigpigpig has stated, the shutter speed would be the same, assuming they have the same metering.  Personally, I found that Fuji's metering is different than Canon, it tends to expose the scene brighter, perhaps due to having more DR in the sensor.

As a side note: people said Fuji's ISO is inflated.  But that is due to the metering.  Fuji exposes brighter, so higher ISO is used.  They should check the histogram before they declare Fuji having inflated ISO.

People are confused by the FF lens gathering more light because it covers a larger image circle.  Yes it gathers more light, BUT the light also needs to be spread out in a larger surface area.  So the amount of light intensity per unit area on FF is the same as APS-C.  This is why the same aperture on FF = APS-C = camera phone.

However, lens FOV is different with different sensor size.  This is why manufacturers use 85mm on FF, but 56mm on APS-C.  This conversion is correct.  But you don't see them converting f-stop from a FF lens to a different value on an APS-C lens, right?  This already tells you f-stop is the same (exposure OR light intensity per unit area), regardless of sensor size.

 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 X-T2 +10 more
Martin Datzinger Senior Member • Posts: 2,244
Re: Aperture ring

Well and exactly that is absolutely against my shooting habbits and my idea of something being "manual". I already hate all of my Nikons' back wheels for that reason: They are far too easily turned by accident because they are too close to the tumb. Camera orientation change -> wheel barely touched -> camera went from x-synch to Bulb -> shot ruined. Happend all too often to me. So I do want dedication and a little bit of concentration necessary to change aperture. I don't know anyone who changes aperture between each and every shot and the choice of the aperture alone is something that requires a thought process, so why make accoding dial that easy to operate (note: I still believe this is the more intuitive place to do it, rather than a thumb wheel).

I'm certain they changed the force needed to turn the aperture because of feedback, they are known to take user opinions seriously. Hence my hope they retrofit the older ones (quietly).

Best regards,
Martin

-- hide signature --

www.datzinger.net

malcolml1 Regular Member • Posts: 236
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs

Totally agree. Some people extend the idea of equivalence to include the noise characteristics of the resultant image. FF has a slight advantage here, so similar noise characteristics are achieved by increasing the ISO (which means you need to stop the lens down accordingly).

However, I personally believe that this argument more theoretical than practical with modern sensors, since noise levels are so low. I'd be surprised if anyone can tell the difference between two properly exposed prints - one shot at 200 and one at 800 or even 1600 ISO.

So for all practical purposes I would say that the new Fuji 56/1.2 on APS is 'equivalent' to an 85/1.8 on FF as far as DoF and angle of view are concerned, and equivalent to an 85/1.2 on FF as far as shutter speed at a fixed ISO are concerned. As the end user that's all I care about.

Within reason, I do not care about noise now - different story 10 years ago. I remember accidentally leaving my Canon 10D set on ISO 800 whilst shooting a car blaze in the middle of a busy London street. In broad daylight and the images were horrible. With my Xe-2 or X-Pro1 it doesn't matter (to me).

Cheers,

Malcolm

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 18,227
Re: XF56 f1.2 released and specs
2

Bernie Ess wrote:

I shoot only RAW and without a single doubt Nikon is the better system for this IMO with the Fuji being the worst, skin tones are inconsistant and often horrid from the Fuji X, now if Fuji dropped the X sensor then things might well be different.

Then you may do something wrong. Do you have some "horrid samples" from the Fuji X online somewhere? I'd be curious to see them.

Colour engine of the d800 is a bit less unpleasant than older Nikon models, but still not up to Canon or Fuji.

-- hide signature --

'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)

Bernie....he just trolls the Fuji forums complaining Bout color, bokeh, etc.  Just ignore him....he's looking for an audience to support his bitter pill.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
dotborg Veteran Member • Posts: 8,251
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? ISO must remain the same for the the comparison.

Raw files from my 5D Mark II produce less total noise than the raw files from my Fujifilm X-E1 and X-E2, and the 5D Mark II is more than 5 years old.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads