Maurice

You guys have seen this side by side? https://ivanjoshualoh.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/please-to-meet-you-mr-bokeh/

Just a personal preference. It's not all black and white logic, just a preference. But if you must know, for a wide-angle i find anything bigger than the 14mm questionable, it just doesn't feel right. The 16/1.4 might be an exception, but of course it's F1.4. But beyond that, it also makes a big difference on the street in appearance. Believe me just the shape of the lens alone like the 10-24mm has is enough that people will perceive you differently, and i don't like to look like the pro photographer, but try and blend in comfortably with the people. Saves a lot of comments like 'am i going in the newspapers?', and just makes everybody feel more at ease and myself as well which is something that can make a difference in images, with less runaways or shocked faces. Maybe it's also about proportion to the camera. With the X100, or the 27mm, the size is more about fitting it into your bag (or jacket pocket) no matter how little room you have left. But for appearance it doesn't really matter to be THAT small. But when you compare the 35/1.4 with the 56/1.2 for example, the 35mm is a perfect fit, while the 56mm again is a much more serious look. But it's also the application. The 90mm for example, huge chunk of glass, but it's what i personally expect of a 135mm equivalent and even if it could be more compact, it doesn't really match the medium long tele focal length. And as for the look, the things i would shoot with it are mostly far away, and certainly wouldn't put it into peoples faces on the street (without asking). But that's all just my own logic, and i'm the one who has to feel at ease with what i'm doing, so to each their own of course. To get back to the original 'issue' i brought up earlier about focal length not being a practical necessity, but a creative choice. This article here on Japancamerahunter explains it nicely: http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2014/11/storytellers-kit-daniel-schaefer/

Indeed indeed, nothing's ever simple with optics.

It's important, provided that system lets you achieve it in a way that you are comfortable with and possibly even inspires to keep going. Hence the choice for Fuji's. Probably even the other way around since IQ is more like a given on cameras these days, you start to see the value in the actual activity more, or notice tiny details that don't really matter in the final result. As again (101 times now), only referring to pixel level fine detail, the "IQ" in general is not a problem in the slightest with Fuji, its lenses are a huge part of the appeal obviously, and everything else IQ wise such as the dynamic range etc. are great. I have nothing but praise for fuji apart from this one thing, but you can't see it through the rage against somebody that simply doesn't like xtrans. That is all it is, i don't like it. It doesn't mean anyone's pictures will all be bad, it doesn't mean the system is shit, it doesn't mean i don't respect your opinion or anyone else that likes it, and it doesn't make anything into a disaster, it simply means that i would prefer it all without xtrans. I have no other ways to say it. Nevertheless, an admirable attempt at something different. Bayer wasn't all that either in the beginning, who knows what this will turn in to eventually. No, You're kidding !

Well let's see. Less moire is traded by less true detail and more other artifacts, and less color noise is also traded by less color accuracy and color detail in general. Both of these things i would rather do with my own processing if i wanted to. And the bokeh looking softer, if that is actually a real thing, it would be because the 'random' pixel layout renders less noise with a softer initial result, and since there is no fine detail in bokeh, it stays that way even after extreme sharpening on the rest of the image. Whatever 'look' you feel that xtrans has, i don't think anything about it makes it worthwhile to implement on a hardware level. These things could be achieved with the same effort that it takes to get good results out of xtrans in the first place (none at all in my case and yours), but at least you'd have the choice not to have these effects. I don't know why you keep saying to move on from Fuji. I have said a 100 times now it is a tiny factor, even for the final IQ, and there are much more important things to a camera system. How difficult is it to understand that i am simply saying that 'i would prefer' the traditional bayer, for reasons as previously mentioned. Nothing is perfect, especially no camera system, but the Fuji's are as close as it gets for me.

I'm sorry i meant anything beneficial. As in it doesn't ADD anything worthwhile to what would 'normally' be the same 16MP sensor with bayer pattern. I direct you to the fifth wheel analogy.

What are you on about? I am saying none of that with such intent, and never did i say it was of the world importance. I simply remark on the fact that they have implemented something that does not achieve anything worthwhile beneficial. I can work with it fine and so can anybody else, what's puzzeling is why we are not allowed to say anything bad about it or you are on the defense. I agree completely that you should defend the fact that we can get perfectly fine results from it and beyond. But so can a car with 5 wheels drive perfectly fine, that doesn't mean it was a good idea! It is just the fine detail we are discussing here, literally the tiniest aspect of what makes photography interesting to do or look at. That doesn't mean we should pretend that xtrans doesn't have a negative effect on it, because it does, but we go on with our lives and photography. But when we're here, should we not talk about the topic at hand? Most people should be smart enough value its importance for themselves, without a disclaimer to every post.

Nor did i. Don't think you've understood my meaning. With the performance of the 10-24 i don't think we should consider the IQ as a factor at all, and indeed the OIS compensates for that one stop op light. Would probably even prefer to be able to shoot F4 with OIS, than F2.8 without if i could for maximum DoF and corner performance, or likely even F5.6 or higher because the OIS is better than 1 stop. But i simply do not like the size of that lens, and while 10mm is fun to play around with, i think photos look better with a 14mm (21mm equivalent) focal length, that is all that i was referring to.

Yes you are taking offense. They are not personal attacks, it only becomes as such to you because you are taking offense. I am simply stating things as they are, indeed without sugarcoating it, and if that is too harsh for your feelings then probably that is because there is some truth to it. Nothing is going wrong with my workflow, it simply would be better without xtrans - for everybody. And you know as well as anybody that a sensor does not make the system. Now you're just grasping. Nevertheless, the sensor is 'fine' as we have previously established.

Super great man. Good thing babies don't seem to mind when you use a "HUGE telephoto lens".

Guys really, are we going to be stuck on the word He here. I was replying to x-tc so i said He, big deal. if you want to be called Rico then don't hide behind 'flysurfer'. Now i try not to use Rico in fact so that other people who are not aware of His greatness don't have to start looking for who the heck i'm referring to. And again. Is it just impossible to have an opinion that is different from yours .. Rico, without you taking offense? Nothing wrong with your view, just isn't mine. This is what we do in forums, discuss our differences in taste and workflow. There is not ONE right way, though there are facts, but we deal with them in different ways. Exactly, hence my earlier comment.

For those who are interested, i skillfully ripped the full image from the PDF and you can get all (slightly upscaled) 24MP here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pv63zat81l9slp8/lenses_accessories_catalogue_2015_05_full.png?dl=0 The pdf compression is terrible, but it's the best i could get and you can read all the labels, and see the 100-400mm in all its detail. Seems to have a focus limiter switch for either 5m to infinity, or its full range. But i guess that was probably no secret.

That's exactly why i got one of those expensive ones (match technical) that is made to fit one specific body, with rubber pads on the back (also made to fit). Meaning no wiggle at all, thus no tension on the hot-shoe. 'Whacking it' would push the thing up against the body, before it would actually pull on the hot-shoe at all, if ever. Thanks to the proper force displacement. But man, that is some bad luck. Good though that you brought it up to warn others. Hope you're not into flash photography.

Maybe, but in my opinion it is not limiting to stick with a certain focal length to view the world. A shot is not better because it gets every corner of a whole church in one image. That would be true if you did commercial product photography, you don't want half a product apart from some additional detail shots. But i assume this is photography as an art form we are speaking of here. And then the focal length is a creative choice, not a functional necessity.

How is that going to help. He doesn't have some kind of all powerful X-pertise. It is only his opinion that Lightroom is perfectly 'fine'. And i agree that for most people it can be, but i'm not looking for something that's 'usable', i want it to be better than usable, i want it to be great. And this is not some kind of unreasonable request, everybody else is already doing it with regular Bayer. With sharpening you cannot get out what isn't there, you're stuck with the processors demosaicing engine. So when it doesn't 'understand' the file correctly then you can push and pull on it to hide that fact as best you can, and that will be fine in most cases. But you cannot fix what is out of your control, the sensor, and software's demosaicing engine. Imagine being a cook that has to make a dish where one of the ingredients is just past its expiration date. I'm sure a good cook can make something of it to hide that fact, but it's never going to be perfect and there's nothing you can do about it but use something else! Personally in my opinion it is xtrans itself that is at fault. It was supposed to make a OLPF redundant to maximize detail and remove moire by its color filter layout. But instead it only creates its own artifacts with either false detail and color or loss of it, and as many tests have proven the true iso values don't match other camera systems. Even compensated there appears to be less noise, but indeed it only appears as such because the actual noise is obscured by the irregular detail retention. While some converters manage to deal with that better than others, it never actually looks better than a equivalent photo in the same converter. Even from the X-A1 that seems to have the same old sensor underneath a standard bayer filter. While some of all this can actually be beneficial for JPGs, for Raw shooters there are only problems and not one single benefit. So if you ask me i wish they would just quit this nonsense already.

The amount (and quality) of what is available in such a short time is impressive indeed. Just wish this was a picture of my own collection.

I think yours is good enough. Here's one with the 35mm F2 and 27mm F2.8

Indeed indeed. But Danny dude, why on earth would a 35/2 make the 35/1.4 price go DOWN?

I don't think bloggers are (necessarily) any more professional than forum users. We are one people, some just happen to know how to use Wordpress. From what i hear, you get what you pay for, but gaining one stop at 55mm only, and a bit more wideangle at 16mm, is not worth the increase in size and weight over the 18-55 F2.8-4. End quote. You even lose the OIS. But of course there's WR, and stellar corner performance, probably. Don't take my word for it.

And the 35mm 'beats' the 90mm below <1m for some reason. Interesting indeed. I have a Minolta Rokkor 85mm F1.7, and it sits right in between the 90 and 56mm. Even beats the 56mm at above >15 meters eventually. Of course its fairly soft wide open, but that's character.

Who doesn't like the 27mm ? It is an awesome little thing. And sure, some day in the distant future i could see a compact 16/2.8 happening. But probably wouldn't be much or any smaller than the 14/2.8. Wide angles on digital are problematic, and the 27 or 35mm are not wide, they are 'normal' lenses.

I agree with you man, but you want it all and you want it 'for small money'. It doesn't work like that. Most of the voigtlanders are terrible on digital, not nearly the 'huge IQ' that Fujinons are known for, they will need to be bigger, optically corrected. Then by 'removing' the AF motor it won't be ANY less expensive, in fact it's probably the opposite. A modern damped and smooth manual focus system is probably more expensive than a common focus motor, and everything would of course be in much smaller quantities than the 'regular' Fujinons, also adding costs. Believe me i wish they would like Zeiss did with the LOXIA line, but we have to stay realistic and prepare for some big money instead, and no 'ultra compact' either. Don't want to say it's not going to happen, although it probably isn't, it's just a matter of enough people asking for it really.

Amazing, are these all the contradictions you could fit in one post?

The one that's also on the product page you mean? It is indeed awesome. And i managed to identify every lens myself.

It is indeed NO.