Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    radar got a reaction from Rieke in PEOPLE AT WINDOWS   
    a day in Venezia
    Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. /uploads/emoticons/default_smile.png">
    Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.
  2. Like
    radar reacted to Martin G in 35mm (Equivalent) focal length issues..   
    No the 18mm isn't pants it is a fine lens. Mine works perfectly and produces excellent results:
    There are better wide lenses from Fuji available now but just because this one is the weakest doesn't mean its bad.
    Stand a Ferrari a Lamborghini and a Porsche next to each other, one of them will be the weakest. But it doesn't make the weakest bad.
  3. Like
    radar reacted to Jürgen Heger in 35mm (Equivalent) focal length issues..   
    I just think that all these discussions should be a litte bit more relaxed. Almost everything that is discussed here is very subjective. So everyone will have a different opinion anyway. For me there is no reason to become harsh. May be I just do not fully understand what the other really means or that what is important to him is completely unimportant to me. So I try to stay calm. With my posts I mainly try to give a new point of view. If you do not think it is of any help just ignore it.
    But I plead guilty that my comment what happens if someone critices Fuji was mockingly.
    Thanks for the link. It mainly supports my thesis that digital cameras need faster shutter speed than analog cameras.
    My calculation is not personal but based on the welknown rule of thumb that the shutter speed should be faster than 1/focal length. This rule is for 35 mm film and is based on the assumption that an infinite small dot will be considered sharp if it is smaller than 1/1400 of the diagonal of the picture. For digital cameras I made the assumption that it should be as small as a single pixel. The theoretical diagonal of the Fuji is the square root of (4896*4896 + 3264*3264) which gives 5884 which is 4.2 bigger than 1400.
    I guess, my assumption that a digital camera can capture a dot with the size of only one pixel violates the Nyquist theorem. This would be possible only if the dot happens to be at the same position as a pixel. I agree that I should have made this consideration earlier
    So if we assume the smallest dot should be 2 pixels wide than the factor becomes 2.1 multiplied with the crop factor 1.5. So the recommended shutter speed for the 23mm lens would be 1/72. Slower than from my first statement but still faster than many would expect. And it also means we cannot expect sharp borders between pixels.
    I completely agree that it is possible to take sharp pictures with a slower shutter speed than the recommended one. But if people want to use the old rule of thumb they should adjust it to the cropping factor and to the pixel number of their sensor. And with every increase in resulation, i.e. 16MP --> 24MP a new adjustment will be necessary if you want the full resolution.
    As I shoot a lot at dim light I sometime have difficulties to reach the recommended speed. And before I blame the lens or camera I assume it is because I made the fault.
  4. Like
    radar reacted to frod in 35mm (Equivalent) focal length issues..   
    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for options; smaller versions of every focal length would be nice to have... but you're vilifying a great lens here based on stuff you read in some blogs because it doesn't match requirements you've specified that it was never designed to address.
  5. Like
    radar reacted to milandro in 35mm f/2 vs. 23mm f/1.4?   
    They are two completely different lenses with totally different characteristics. I don’t see them as alternative but as complementary lenses.
    Don’t swap, buy the 35mm and keep it together with the 23mm. That’s what I would do.
  6. Like
    radar reacted to Martin G in 35mm f/2 vs. 23mm f/1.4?   
    I have just written about the 35 1.4, my conclusion is I want them both. BUT, if you have the 23 1.4 keep it for sure. As you have a 1.4 lens then I would say the f2 would be a very good choice for you.
  7. Like
    radar got a reaction from Aswald in X-Pro 1 Diopter +2 / +3 glass Nikon alternative   
    This is the one I bought recently. It is perfect for X-Pro1 camera, fits as original. As you can see it should be for old Nikon F/F2/F3 series, and you can find it on ebay,or maybe in your local store too; but I am from Croatia, so this was my only option. 
    Good luck, r

    Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.
  • Create New...