cug
-
Posts
255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by cug
-
-
It was within the photos department of a very large tech company. So, they did have quite some interest.
We did tests to determine which pixel dimensions are okay to use for a certain product and printed in 24x36 about half the people couldn't tell between a print from a 3MP JPEG and a 12MP JPEG. Then we had a few shots that were iPhone vs. 5D. About 80% couldn't tell the difference again, given that the photo was not using any of the advantages the 5D has - like shallow depth of field or low light abilities.
The photos were mainly environmental and people outdoors in great light and then a bunch of studio shots. All were set up professionally, the main reason to do this comparison wasn't to show whether people could tell between phone and camera, it was to find out what the pixel dimensions need to get image quality that exceeds the typical viewers ability to see quality differences in typical photos for the target group.
3MP is what you can easily get away with for smaller prints, from 12MP onwards nobody could tell reliably which photo was actually a better quality print/resolution/camera at typical viewing distances for a photo like that – and a little closer as everybody was eager to show that they can tell the difference. Some people could in some prints, but mostly it was impossible to tell on professionally done prints.
Higher resolutions really only make sense when you do something other than direct printing with it. Like excessive cropping (think wildlife, birds, ...), multi-media presentations with extreme zooms, prints that go REALLY big but you get close to to view details.
Classic printing, the difference between 16 and 24MP is 136 vs. 166 dpi, completely irrelevant at a viewing distance typical for a shot. Our eyes don't resolve the difference beyond a viewing distance of 25 inches (16MP) or 21 inches (24MP). To start obsessing over that is ridiculous. You gain 4 inches of viewing distance at something you wouldn't normally look at from anything closer than 40 or 50 inches.
- flysurfer, CRAusmus and EyesUnclouded
-
3
-
Yeah, sure. I think you should consider what you're asking. Go rent the darn camera when it's out, do a print test yourself. From all I've read you don't believe other peoples opinion anyways. At least you never have here ...
-
Maybe we can put this to rest: 80% of the people we showed prints in 24x36 inches couldn't tell whether a photo was shot with a 5MP iPhone or a ~12MP Canon 5D. I think it's totally ridiculous to assume they could tell the difference between a 16 and a 24MP x-trans sensor.
So, stop bothering. It's nor worth it.
- gdanmitchell, CRAusmus and dct
-
3
-
I shot the XF23 exclusively today and I believe I know now why I don't like that focal length: I find it plain boring. It's too wide for the people shots I'd like to take and too long to be a fun wide angle. I love the XF14 and XF35 btw.
It was a good idea that I sold the X100T, it's just not my thing.
Therefore, I agree with the point made above: if you really want another lens, I'd add something wider or longer. Not a focal length you already have. I'm eyeing the 16 now as I know that I loved shooting the 14mm in Chicago. It took me forever to get used to that lens, but after two days I started "getting it". That really never happened with the XF23. I can use it as much as I want, I still find using it and the results from it just boring. Total mainstream. Great if that's your job (documentary style) but if I like to have fun shooting, the XF23 will stay off the camera for now.
-
For my taste, the bokeh wide open is excessive, resulting in rather artificial / surreal-like images. When stopping down it does sharpen up, but at that point I prefer using the Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH.
I hope you aren't forgetting that a f/1.4 on a FF sensor renders roughly the same out of focus blur as an f/1.0 on an APS-C sensor. That is one of the reasons why I like the really fast Fuji glass.
From a rendering perspetive you can compare the XF23 and XF35 f/1.4 with Summicron 35 and 50 lenses. Not with Summilux lenses. From an exposure perspective on the other hand they are Summilux speed.
That's the downside (and sometimes upside) of a smaller sensor: a deeper depth of field. For me it is mostly advantageous as I find f/1.0 or f/1.2 or even some f/1.4, depending on the focal length, nearly impossible to focus properly at shorter distances – typical people shots in low light. There I appreciate the lens speed while enabling me to focus a little bit easier.
Personally, I'd love an XF35 f/1.0 lens as long as the quality wide open is more Summilux than Noctilux.
-
I think it's a good size for the camera weight, especially if you want to use it with the XF90, which will make the whole thing quite front heavy. You don't need the RRS ball head of course, but I'd say something in that size is a good idea.
-
I have the BH30 from Really Right Stuff. Pretty much perfect in combination with my Gitzo GT2542T. Very happy with the combination overall.
-
-
Regarding glasses: If I wear my Silhouette glasses, the X100T EVF/OVF is total crap compared to X-T1. If I wear more standard wire rim glasses, the X100T is just bearable. Still tiny, distorted and that gimmick picture in picture thingie is totally useless for me. I'm now impatiently waiting for the X-T2.
-
Actually, the answer should be "Hell, no!". For those who want it, there is the option to add a battery grip, but most people never need or want this.
If Fuji wants to bring out a body with a massive battery area for people who'd otherwise use a battery gripped DSLR or a D4 or D1 sized camera, sure, go ahead, be my guest and sell about 5 of them worldwide. But don't f up the X-T2 with something like this.
-
Quick question: does the viewfinder have the same field distortion (pin cushion) as the X100T?
I had created an order yesterday, then I decided to take another hard look at the viewfinders of my cameras (X-E2, X-T1, Canon D40, and I had an X100T until the beginning of the week) and it took me about three seconds to go to the computer and cancel the order.
There is no way in hell I'm giving up the EVF of the X-T1 for this little view hole ...
-
This annoys me as well. I'd love to be able to set the view mode independent for menu (even Q menu) and shooting.
On the X-E1 that was never a problem as the View Mode button was nicely accessible, I think the same will be true for the X-Pro2. For the X-T1 the View Mode button is in a totally stupid location and hard to press. The X-E2 doesn't have a View Mode button, but at least you can program one of the Fn buttons to it. The X100T has a View Mode button again.
I got really used to using the View Mode button for exactly this purpose. I learned the sequence of settings and am now pretty fast going back and forth between "EVF with Eye Sensor" and "LCD Only". The only camera where I really dislike it is the X-T1 due to the impractical location of the View Mode button.
-
Thanks so much for doing this XP2 AMA!
I did a quick calculation using PS that showed the X-T1 viewfinder is about 11% bigger than the X-Pro2.
The actual magnification difference is about 30% when you trust the numbers from Fuji.
-
I understand the appeal of the dial – I like it myself on my X-T1, but it certainly is slower, less fluid when in a quick changing environment and the frigging lock button is just a pain in the rear.
So, while I applaud the idea, the implementation falls far short of what it could have been. Let's hope for the best on the X-T2. Although I believe it'll just get a re-org and might work in the same slow and awkward way of the X-Pro2. Which is also super cool, but again, slow to use compared to "button + general purpose dial".
-
Might be coming as Fuji gave the X-Pro2 three Auto-ISO settings. Not as crazy as the multiple combinations you can have with custom settings and Auto-ISO on the X100T, but that one really makes no sense anyway.
I'd love if they gave a chance for an "advanced Auto ISO" on the X-T1, where, if the dial is set to Auto, you could program an Fn button and a dial for quick adjustment.
-
I don't get it. Putting ISO on an Fn button and changing it with the thumbwheel is much faster and more direct than the hardware controls, especially the weird ones Fuji comes up with ...
-
Overall, I would like the bag to be as close to 11"x9"x4" deep. Although weight is always a consideration (not a factor
), it needs to look equally good while wearing a casual outfit or a suit and tie.I'd say a Billingham Hadley Small could fit.
-
One of potentially significant difference is rarely ever mentioned: the eyepoint distance. The X-T1 and X-E2 have 23mm, the X-Pro2 and X100T have 16mm. This is a massive difference for people with glasses, making the X-T1 and X-E2 much more suited for these folks. Depending on the style of your glasses that's actually a make or break thing. For example, if I wear my glasses, I have a hard time using the X100T. I basically have to use contacts for shooting, which is okay, but can be inconvenient.
The other is that the X-T1 is a better fit for left eye dominant shooters, while the X-Pro/X-E line fits well for right eye dominant shooters.
Next is the difference in viewfinder size. The X-T1 is HUGE compared to the X-Pro1/2 or X100T or any other Fuji actually. It's like comparing a 37" TV to 50" TV.
Other than that, look at the rear and top plates: the X-E and X-Pro lines have a much cleaner layout with more things accessible via (programmable) buttons. The X-T1 has drive mode, metering mode on dials that can get easily bumped when changing ISO or shutter speed.
These are less pronounced differences than for example with Canon cameras, but that's also because Fuji basically has been using a single sensor across the lines while Canon uses a variety of sensors also in a variety of body styles and sizes. At this point the capability differences have basically been "the newer the better", but I'd expect that to change over time a little with the X-T2 and X-Pro2 lines getting the latest and greatest and the smaller ones not getting some of the features that make the other ones more expensive like WR, possibly better sensors or faster CPUs and bigger buffers and higher res or more sophisticated viewfinders.
Over time the line might diversify a little but so far it hasn't apart from the "the newer the better" and rangefinder vs. SRL body style.
-
It would probably make the body the same size as an X-Pro2 then as there might not be enough space in the X100T given that it is a lot smaller than the X-Pro. Also, asking for redundancy for street photography is kind of silly – this is my very personal opinion. It's like buying a $10k safe to protect a $10 fake pearl necklace for 99.9999% of the cases.
Sorry, it's just my personal opinion that this 99.9999% of street photography are shots where someone holds a camera at a random street scene and to make it look hip puts a b&w, high contrast and high detail filter on it. Oh, and that includes my own.
-
I really want a 33mmF1.
I really want one, too. But as I don't know how large it needs to be, I'd rather have someone make a more educated decision. I don't want a super slow focusing behemoth with super soft corners, incredible vignetting and all kinds of other optical issues. If they could make one in a size below the 56, maybe even around the size of the 23, that would be outstanding. I know that entry pupil size plays a role, so just saying ...
And I'd be willing to pay a fair price for it. But I'm not willing to pay Noctilux price/quality ratio which is absolutely abysmal.
-
The only thing these tiny screws need to do is to hold the tripod attachment block in place when there is no tripod plate attached and when there are absolutely no external forces working. When the plate is attached, the clamping force between the part inside the camera and the plate is created only by the much larger bolt that attaches the tripod plate and this force is directly applied to the camera body.
Therefore, these little screws are okay as long as they don't loosen up and fall out.
-
It's not about only owning one lens. It's about selecting one and shooting it that makes this work for me. I own a ton of lenses, but I never carry more than three primes or two zooms + a prime. Never. Mostly I carry one or two primes and very content with that. But I do like to switch around what I carry.
I wonder why do they make and why do we buy so many lenses
oh well...get out the rat race, ZEN power, buy one, do it all! It is so that people like you don't miss shots. It's just a fact that people are different. Accepting that will make your life a lot easier and less controversial.
-
That's a really useful comparison, thank you. That f2 certainly is nice and sharp.
Be aware that he seems to have a crappy sample of the f/1.4 in terms of edge/corner performance. Mine are much closer together just from the fact that my 1.4 is much better than his from the examples I see on that page. So, while it might be a useful comparison, it looks like the old 1.4 lenses had quite some differences between copies which might explain the different results in some tests.
-
Its as simple as that. That doesn’t mean that one cannot take pictures but it means that one would walk away from a shot with the idea that if he had had another camera he could have made a better shot.
Again, that might be you. For me, this takes about 10 minutes or so, after that I see in the focal length I'm using and don't have the "if I had" moments anymore. I am very happy with that. It has nothing to do with Zen like experience. Per definition there will always be shots you are going to miss. Zoom or no zoom, multiple primes or single prime, doesn't matter. You will ALWAYS miss shots of you are a person who misses shots.
I plain don't miss shots. There is no such thing for me. There are shots I'm not making, but that isn't "missed".
It's a different approach for sure and I would never tell you that your approach is wrong, but I also like to suggest that you consider your approach not as the only one that "doesn't miss shots" because that would be quite incorrect.
), it needs to look equally good while wearing a casual outfit or a suit and tie.
oh well...get out the rat race, ZEN power, buy one, do it all! 
Request: X100S/T Crop mode framelines (42,50,65)
in Fuji X100VI / X100 / X100S / X100T / X100F / X100V / Fuji X70
Posted
Oh my. That happens when people who have no clue what they are talking about technically take a statement of context and interpret it. "Digital zoom" will always be "take central pixel area, scale up" whether that is with better algorithms or not, it can't produce details that weren't there before. So, whether you crop later and use a good upscaling algorithm back to 16MP or whether you do the "digital zoom" in the X70, the results are still less detail than you'd get with a 35mm lens lighting the same sensor from the same distance.
You can't get around physics.