Patrik_roos

In this thread there have been arguments for calling an x 23mm lens 35mm. There was also arguments för using angle of view rather than focal lenght and even t-stop instead of f-stop. The people asking for a change in lens naming all have good arguments from their point of view. I will however play the devil's advocate and try to explain why none of these changes would be good for the art of photography. First "23mm should be called 35mm" I know a lot of photographers that use multiple formats none of them really talk about numbers when specifying angle of view. We usually use "normal", "wide normal", "tele", "long tele", "portrait lens" and so on. 35mm, however is something of an oddball since the small frame 35mm has made a name for itself as a concept. If someone would ask me about what angle of view my 60mm ga645 i would actually say "35mm equivalent". I wouldnt mind that much if lenses were sold as "potrait" and "long portrait" instead of 56 and 90mm and in that sense a "35mm equiv" name may be more appropriate than "street" but there are somany other things you can use these lenses for that i think it would be more missleading than guiding. Angle of view rahter than focal length Angle of view is very important for lots of kinds of photography since it both defines perspective and how far away from the subject the shooter has to position himself. For someone that has not yet gotten used to the photography lingo or is doing his first film size switch it may be helpfull with angle of view naming. But it is actually very easy to learn to know what angle of view your lenses have regardless of film size, you get that information every time you look in the viewfinder and is sticks fast. In contrast to angle of view, focal length tells us something else too and that is the depth of field. Regardless of format a 210 lens has the same depth of field. Knowing your depth of field is at least as crucial to getting the picture to look the way you want as angle of view and it would be a lot harder to calculate that from angle of view. T-stop rather than F-stop T-stop may be interesting to the consumer or specialist that want to know that a lens will be usefull in certain low light conditions. But if one is more interested in what look a photographer can create with a certain lens, f-stop is a lot more interesting. To sum things up. If we want to argue about low light capabilities between camera/lens combos, compare lenses across systems to see which is "best" or just figure out how far away we have to stand from the subject to fit the same subject in the frame. Then changing what we call our lenses may be a good thing. However, if we want to talk about the qualities of a photo or how a picture was created or what lens one should use to make the picture look a certain way, things are a lot better as they are. Btw, there is a lot of confusion going on about focal lengths and crop factors and depth of field. If you want to know that almost every explanation you can find on the internet is horrible simplifications, try to follow my long and confusing explanation here.

Having a considerable number of non-x lenses, i have gotten myself a few adapters and use them fairly much. Here are my findings: For landscapes i own the exceptional 10-24. When i want the camera to fit in my pocket, the voigtländer 15/4.5 is the perfect complement. I also have a sigma 14mm that i can mount on a tilt/shift adapter, its fun to play with but the opticts doesn't really cut it. For street i have gone from the bulky 23/1.4 to the tiny 27mm. I was going to use a voigtländer 40/2 on a speed booster for when i needed the large aperture. I found out that i never do on the street though, but its still a nice combo for wide portraits. I also have a beloved nikkor 24/2.8, sadly it gets so big with the adapter that there is no advantage over the 10-24. I seldom shoot normals, but when i do i use the nikon s 35/2.5 with great joy. Every lens has its own character and this one excells at night with beautiful, almost fuji like, colours and beautiful stars. It works very well with the t/s adapter when the need for that kind of control occurs. For the shirtnportrait range i want tilt. I have a ballhead tilt-adapter and a substantial collection of 55-60mm lenses. The voigtländer 58/1.4 is my default choice, but minoltas, konicas, helioses and zeisses gets used too. This is one of the things i love most with x system. The ability to choose a t/s lens for its character, not just use tge only one there is for the system. For long portraits, I think i could as well have glued my speed booster to my m-g orestor 135. The booster enhances an allready excellent portrait lens with better centre resolution, softer corners and removes the flat back lens problem. Pure love! I have some other 135mm too, but they seldom leave the shelf. A 90/2 is on the wish list as a complement when the sun is in the picture. When i need a pocketable alternative, the super light nikon s 100/2.8 is my choice. Things that dont work so well: Basically, the fuji lenses are excellent, even the zooms. If you own a 10-24 and an 18-55 there is not much you can adapt if you want better general quality. The old full frame primes can look like a cheap kit-zooms compared to modern fujis. They are made for using the hole frame and the pixel density of a dx sensor is higher than a stretched part of even a good film era prime. A speed booster fixes this, but only in the center and at the expense of softer corners. Very nice for most portraits, but horrible with landscape photography. Adapt when you have the need for something fuji doesnt provide or if you can't afford the fuji alternative or when you want the character of a certain lens. Skickat från min SM-N9005 via Tapatalk

Given fujis history of different frame sizes on film, its no surprice they are looking into mf digital. The big news would be if its for their organic sensor project. If that technology is mature enough they will have a sensor tech where price is more or less linear to the size (area). In that case, we may see a gf670-like camera or even a digital backnsize 6x8. If not, sensor price rises exponentially compared to size and a cropped 645 sensor is the most probable target. The specs would then be something like the gw645(w).

Actually, the full frame sony native glass seems even worse to me than their crop lenses so that option is out too. I also work a lot with adapted lenses and very few ff lenses resolv enough for the m43 pixel density. Apsc or maybe apsh is optimal for me. Native fujinons for panncakes and wides and small enough sensor that the image circle of my older glass covers it with quite a bit of tilt/shift. Its a match made in heaven, so ill definitely stick with fuji. I dont really mind buying a used xe2 if mine eventually gives up on me but ill stay away from larger bodies or slr form factor. I dont really need more features and the picture quality is excellent anyway. If they eventually make a 24x24 sensor, however, i will get a wee bit jealous.

Well, money is not really the issue here. Ofcourse i was happy my x-e2 was not that expensive, but id gladly pay more for a smaller camera with xp2 feature set minus ovf than for the xp2 or xt2 themselves.

Well, for my non-fuji lenses i might actually be able to live with a sony even though i much prefer the handling of the fujis. However i havnt found a single native lens for that system that i prefer to the fujinons. I also shoot a lot of film and use the fuji for previewing. The film simulations are very very handy.

I miss the voigtländer 40/2 very much. I have the 27 and tried the 23. 27 is very nice but two stops too slow for the social portraits the voigt does so well and with the 23 the camera doesnt fit in my pocket anymore. A fast pancake where size and bokeh are prioritiesat the expense of corner sharpness and fast af-motor would be very very nice. A bit like the 18, but for slightly wide normal. 25-30mm 1.4-1.8 or something would do the trick. If the corners sharpen up @ 4 or 5.6 it would be a nice bonus.

For me, x-e2 is still the most value for money. Never again will i buy a camera where my nose rubbs the screen every timei put my eye to the viewfinder. The x-pro1, and 2 i guess, are too large and heavy. Ill simply wait for a full featured, small form factor rangefinder style body with evf or ill stick with the x-e2. Not that i really need to retire my x-e2 for quite some time. It may look worn to pieces, but its still the best and most handy camera i have ever had.