35mm (Equivalent) focal length issues..

[frod]

That's the part that makes me smile. Doesn't like the 27 or 18 but wants a 23 the same size with better quality.

[Nosegunner]

- johant

 

back to English school for you!...at what point did I criticise the 18mm focal length?! .. I criticised the quality of the XF18..which is pants.

 

- frod

 

I took your points and will try the 23 1.4, but it is still bigger than it needs to be. Seeing as they've just added another 35mm at F2 that is nice and small/light, is it too much to ask for a 23 F2 as well? Seems there are others that want it too..

 

I dare one of you...anyone...to say anything critical of any product in the Fuji line-up. Go on. Nope? It's a 'Fuji can do no wrong' love-in here.....

 

Come on, someone say something critical about a product and help improve the line-up so no-one need ever speak of Leica and Sony ever again....

[Marc G.]

I dare one of you...anyone...to say anything critical of any product in the Fuji line-up. Go on. Nope? It's a 'Fuji can do no wrong' love-in here.....

Why don't you just keep your polemic statements to yourself? It's totally inappropriate to talk about "Fuji can do no wrong"-love. You came here, expressed some indefensible statements and expect people to just support your crap? You obviously lack the background knowledge about optics that is required to even compare the 23 f/2 X100 lens to the XF 23 1.4 R and you didn't even handle the XF23.

 

You quoted sources you don't even name and draw your own conclusions from those "reviews". And then keep ignoring people who suggest otherwise.

 

And besides, I said enough critical things about Fuji products, in this thread and in the past. But you just bash for the sake of bashing, at least that's the impression I get from your statements. The X100 lens is something that I've used plentiful in the past and got rid of 2 times because I hated it. The XF18mm f/2 is another Fuji product that I criticize a lot, mainly because I love the 18mm FOV but the lens is not up to my standards (5% distortion, lesser resolution when compared to the 1.4 primes e.g.). The XF23 and XF27, on the other hand, are wonderful lenses that are optically quite good (27) and superb (23). 

 

So will you, for once, be sane and keep the discussion on a neutral level or will we see more polemic posts?

[Martin G]

No the 18mm isn't pants it is a fine lens. Mine works perfectly and produces excellent results:

 

http://www.mgiddings.com/lens-review/fuji-18-f2

 

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.

[Nosegunner]

Ha! Great post Marc G...plenty of 'oomph' for a change and a good polemic yourself.

 

Now despite listing 3 sites that weren't effusive about the 23 I have several times conceded the IQ is better than I had interpreted from reading websites so you can back off on that point. However I stand by the point that it could be smaller and lighter. Clearly I'm on a quest to get Fuji to produce an outstanding little 23mmF2 that I think will fill a gap for me that currently frustrates. I'm 100% sure I wouldn't be the only one to buy it!

 

As for polemic posts, I've actually been very complimentary about the Fuji system. But I'll certainly go fishing for strong opinions again...why? Because I think it's important we're honest (brutally so if reqd) with regards to the products from a company that has reinvigorated so many back into photography. Now I want to see Fuji completely clean up here with the mirrorless market because I love their ethos. Fuji are well known for reading all these forums to gauge for new products and improvements. If everyone just contributed bland posts then that's useless to them. They want us to be critical and honest. If there are products that aren't up to speed,..say it. If there's a gap in the range,..say it!

 

If you think everything in the range is perfect and there are no gaps then Fuji might as well pack up and go home as they've already succeeded. But I don't believe that's true. Now seeing that you've come from being a Leica user to a fully anointed 'Knight of the Fuji realm'...I am interested to know (seeing that you don't agree with me on the 23F2) what products you think are below standard, products you think should be improved, hardware gaps in their range...etc. Now someone's off the fence I'm genuinely interested in what you think is rubbish and what should be improved. Be brutally honest if you can

[Marc G.]

I'm not a "Knight of the Fuji realm". I'm being realistic. See, I became very technical when it comes to optics, when I switched to Leica. The philosophy of their lens design is quite interesting and I got into optical design. The result being that I like good optics and appreciate well thought-out design decisions. I switched to Fuji because of focus accuracy and thought I'd miss out on the optical perfection. Quite the opposite is true. If you ask me, some of Fujis current glass is as close to optical perfection as they can be for the price, size, weight. Now, enough with my background. You requested some criticism. I currently use/used in the past (and can therefore only comment on those items in detail): X-T1, 14mm, 23mm, 27mm, 35 1.4, 56mm, 90mm, 16-55, 50-140 / X-Pro1, 10-24, 18-55, 55-200, 16mm, 60mm. I also tested the 18mm thoroughly.

 

For general purpose use, I think the 14, 16, 23, 35 (1.4), 56, 90, 10-24, 16-55, 50-140 are superb. I have a personal problem with the OIS version 1 (10-24, 18-55, 55-200) and avoid it. Version 2 (18-135, 50-140) is extremely good. Coma could be improved on the 16 but I think the Samyang 12/2 is a much better astro lens. I only have the 27 for a few days so final judgement is not out on this one, yet.

 

My biggest gripe with the lens selection: there is no 18 f/1.4 R WR yet, a lens which I would buy instantly as it is my preferred wide angle (coming from a Leica 28/2 Summicron). A 33 1.0 will round out my system perfectly.

 

My biggest gripes with the X-T1 are:

- ISO 12800 RAW not available (fixed with future version I think)

- dual card slots (fixed soon)

- joystick for af point selection (fixed soon)

- better flash system (hopefully fixed soon)

- slightly bigger base grip for the X-T2 (hopefully fixed soon)

- joystick on the vertical grip, too (hopefully coming with X-T2)

 

I got more gripes with the bodies than with the lens selection. I could live with 23/56 and the 50-140 if I had to. But after a few years of analyzing the Leica M glass, I am still amazed at how good Fuji's XF lenses really are. The superb coatings, advanced optical cells (as none of those are older than 2012) and beautiful mechanics made me even forget my 50 1.4 Summilux ASPH which was my favorite lens.

 

And last, I am sorry to tell you that I don't care much for a XF 23/1.8 or 2.0 which is smaller. I see the point for those who do, but the current offering is optically SUPERB and corrected for all relevant aberrations. Add a smaller hood and it's quite a neat package. I mostly photograph people and sometimes under adverse situations where I require large apertures. Fuji got my needs covered long time ago.

[quincy]

[...]

I am interested to know what products you think are below standard, products you think should be improved, hardware gaps in their range

[...]

I guess this was not addressed to me, and I think it is slightly off-topic, but since you asked...

 

I suppose it's about lenses.

 

 

Products below standard that need to be improved:

- XF 18mm F2.0 R: cute, but optically it could be better. (and will get bigger when improved)

- XM-FL: no words... it's a toy.

- XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro: Optically good, but I'd like it to go to 1:1, and it could profit from a focus range limiter switch to increase focussing speed.

- XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS: goooood lens, just the autofocus is a little bit slow for fast action.

 

 

gaps in the Range that need to be addressed before a focal lenght that is already covered by a superb fast prime gets an addition:

 

- Fish-eye lens in the 8 mm range. (WE have the great Samyang, but Fuji themselves have none)

- Fast optically corrected rectilinear ultra-wide-angle prime lens, something like a 10 mm F/2.0

- a native tilt-shift lens, with a classic angle of view of about 83° (16 mm on APS-C)

- fast tele-primes. 200/2.8, 300/4, 400/4 or a light 400/5.6 like the canon, and a 500/4.0

- not for me, but for the mainstream: a 16-65 mm F/2.8 or F/4 standard zoom

- a prestige lens, like the rumored 33/1, but I admit this does not have high priority

[Jürgen Heger]

@Nosegunner

Now you got the point. Never criticise in a Fuji forum anything that Fuji does. Most readers put a lot of effort in finding the best camera system before they decided for Fuji. If you criticise anything of Fuji you also criticise the decision of these people.

 

It is ok to ask Fuji to do funny things, but only if you acknowledge that everything is great what they have done so far.

 

As you have noticed there are threads where others ask exactly for the same 23/2 as you did, but they did not complain about the quality of the existing one. So there was no bashing for them.

 

I personally would not mind if Fuji would release a23/2 with good quality but I would not die if they don't.

 

In fact, most of my pictures are missing some sharpness.... but I am sure it is not because the lens is poor, not even my 18/2, but because I mostly shoot hand held.

 

Most people will know the rule that we learned in analog film days that the shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length. However, I am not sure if they can translate it correctly to digital APS-C cameras. First you have to multiply the focal length with the cropping factor. This is what probably most know. However, the rule assumes that the blur should be less than 1/1400 of the picture diagonal. But if we want to pixel peep then we need much less blur. Now we have to multiply with about 4.2, so we multiply the focal length in total by 6.3. This requires a minimum shutter speed of 1/145 with a 23mm length for hand held shooting!

 

If you can not guarantee this or a tripod, you should not complain about the quality of you lens☺

 

This is also the reason, why I prefer the 18-55 with IOS over the 16-55 without IOS or why I want higher ISO instead of more pixels for the next Fuji.

 

But that's just me.

[adzman808]

I'm just going to chip in here that I really like my XF18!

I've never had the 23, but I've had the X100s

Fuji have made plenty of errors over the years... Most of them are mentioned here!

The original X cameras had strap lugs that eat themselves, the AF was pants, there were missing features like auto ISO with min shutter speed.

The thing is... Fuji tend to fix their problems... Either via FW updates or new products.

Perhaps an A7x is a better choice for the OP.... Get the Zeiss glass, not the Zeiss branded Sony glass (not saying these are bad products, just that the OEM Zeiss at 3-4x the price is probably a bit better)

Sony have by contrast, only just realised that users want uncompressed raw, perhaps soon they will realise that users would like an external battery charger too!!!

I am just joking!! EVERY camera system has it's limitations, there is no perfection.

It's a lot like love.... You cannot find the perfect person... Perhaps you can find the perfect partner for you.... But most likely your 'perfect' partner who is the one is closest to your imagined ideal.

You accept this reality when you see that perfection is a fantasy.

So learn to love your camera for what it is, rather than what it doesn't have compared to other cameras.... Or accept that it's not love and move on!!

[cug]

Sorry to be very blunt, Jürgen, but I think your post is full of sh** regarding the reaction here. I apologize for the language right here, but that's the only adequate description I have.

 

People generally get agitated when someone stomps in the door, proclaims something as bad that has proven itself over and over as not bad in every single real life comparison that I have ever seen (and I saw a lot of them and can make my own here at home as well). There are so many comparisons around between XF23 and X100 series it's hard to count them and the result ALWAYS was "the XF23 is optically far superior, faster and better overall quality but it is just so frigging HUGE and it doesn't come with the other qualities of the X100 series". 

 

And just a quick disclaimer: I dislike the X100 series as well as the XF23 - but for much different reasons. I'd also like a 23 f/2 in smaller and digitally corrected, just like the XF35 f/2 - for my personal taste in small camera gear. 

 

The uproar has nothing to do with someone questioning the decisions made by the people here. It has everything to do with statements that are proven over and over to be false.

 

Regarding your non-sharp photos, here's an interesting read for you (German):

 

http://gwegner.de/know-how/schaerfe-unschaerfe/

 

Your "math" seems kind of personal to me as I don't need speeds this high to get 1:1 pixel sharpness, but that might be because I (luckily) have a very stable posture and no shake at all even after a coffee or two. Most people need to adjust their shutter speeds by something like "2x FL x Crop x Cups of Coffee" to get to sharp results. 

 

My personal opinion is that if you can't get a critically sharp shot of a typical slow or non-moving subject with an X-Pro1 + 18mm in decent light it's a problem of the photographer, not the camera/lens combination. As soon as things moves, either the photographer, trying to quickly grab a moment or the subject or the light is very low - all bets are off with ANY system in the world. The more pixel density you have the worse it will look at 1:1 magnification. Fact of life. 1:1 magnification is the bane of any reasonable discussion because it is mainly unnecessary.

[johant]

- johant

 

back to English school for you!...at what point did I criticise the 18mm focal length?! .. I criticised the quality of the XF18..which is pants.

 

- frod

 

I took your points and will try the 23 1.4, but it is still bigger than it needs to be. Seeing as they've just added another 35mm at F2 that is nice and small/light, is it too much to ask for a 23 F2 as well? Seems there are others that want it too..

 

I dare one of you...anyone...to say anything critical of any product in the Fuji line-up. Go on. Nope? It's a 'Fuji can do no wrong' love-in here.....

 

Come on, someone say something critical about a product and help improve the line-up so no-one need ever speak of Leica and Sony ever again....

You think such language gives you credits?

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[cug]

I took your points and will try the 23 1.4, but it is still bigger than it needs to be.

 

I think you are again mixing facts and fiction - something that didn't get you much love here in the first place. The "bigger than it needs to be" is your, probably very amateurish, assumption of a complex optical design. 

 

I would like to have a smaller 23 f/2 WR XF lens as well, but that doesn't mean that the XF23 f/1.4 is bigger than it needs to be or has optical characteristics it doesn't need and that there could be a lot of weight/size savings on this particular lens given the design decisions that were made for this particular lens: near perfect optical correction and very wide aperture. That comes with concessions in other areas, mainly size and cost. 

 

Something being bigger or different from what you like it to be doesn't mean that it can be engineered differently while still satisfying the original requirements where the design team dared not to ask your opinion.

[Jürgen Heger]

@cug

 

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.

[quincy]

I think you are pretty spot on with the shutter speed thing. When the D800 (and increasingly so 800e, 810) came out, we could watch exactly what you said: the rule of 1/focal lenght did not work anymore. And with the new 5DS ( R ), it's even worse.

[adzman808]

 

 

 Most people need to adjust their shutter speeds by something like "2x FL x Crop x Cups of Coffee" to get to sharp results. 

 

 

 

Damn there's where I go wrong

 

I shouldn't ever be using speeds of less than about 1/1000 with my XF35

[cug]

The D800 has roughly the same pixel density as a 16MP APS-C camera, so this has absolutely nothing to do with the high MP count - that only comes into play when you again go to 1:1 magnification, which is kind of ridiculous because if you do this on a typical large screen nowadays, it would mean you also look at a 2m wide print from a 50cm viewing distance, which of course is completely ridiculous. 

 

In the real world pixel peeping and 1:1 magnification has only one real use case: gauging the sharpening/masking/de-noise settings in your raw converter. Just think about the campaign Apple has going on where iPhone photos are printed on huge billboards and look absolutely stunning there:

 

http://time.com/3726913/apple-iphone-photo-campaign/

 

 

@cug

I just think that all these discussions should be a litte bit more relaxed.

 

I am fully relaxed.

 

It's always a matter of how something comes across, but your post might have been considered offensive to people here, that's what I wanted to make really clear.

 

Regarding the rules for shutter speeds: all of these are basically estimates. Rule of thumb type helpers. If I recall correctly, the typical resolution of a very high res film is considered in the 16 to 20MP range (for 35mm film), therefore, today's sensors already surpass this by quite a margin (42MP on the A7R II, 50MP on a 5DS). 

 

The thing is, my monitor has a pixel pitch of roughly 100 pixel/inch. That means that a 1:1 magnification view of a photo from 16MP Fuji sensor would be 49 inches on the long end when printed to show the same 1:1 magnification and 100dpi. I have a faded memory that the typical viewing distance of photos is normally never less than the diagonal, so the typical viewing distance of 70cm to my cinema display is less than half of the typical viewing distance of the said print. And people  are obsessing whether a 16MP photo can be printed on 8x12" (20x30cm) size. I find this quite amusing.

 

Coming back to lens quality, I am the first to admit that I'm a sucker for sharpness. I love lenses that produce crisp results on the sensor at hand. I love lenses that basically out-resolve a 16MP sensor like the 23 (center) and 90mm (most of the frame) XF lenses. But in all reality, I can produce shots with an iPhone 4 that can be printed in 20x30 inches with satisfying quality for most people. Because most of people aren't pixel peeping.

 

Hell, I add grain to many of my photos, reducing the resolution and sharpness significantly. 

[darknj]

To get back to the "gap" in the Fuji lenses releases. I would like to remind that Fuji XF series came into existence only 3 years ago, almost 4, granted, but the mount is still considered by many as in its infancy when compared to Canikon who have been making lenses for the Nikon F mount over 50 years and a bit above 30 years for Canon's EF mount.

 

So of course those two will have a lot more choices, m43 has 2 manufacturer behind the mount and Sony E mount... Well let's not talk about Sony lenses, it's a bit miserable over there... Let's just say that I feel sorry for them.

 

That being said, there are indeed gaps in the current Fuji line up, we are still missing a wide angle zoom at F2.8 to complete the "Pro" line triumvirate and the long range over 200mm is depressingly empty.

True, most of us that like long range shooting already have the gear from other manufacturers but yeah. Here is the hope toward that 100-400mm.

 

As for lenses themselves, the 18mm is only soft at the edges, which by itself wouldn't be that bad but because of that silly good 18-55 being sharper at 18mm F2.8 than the prime at the edges held some buyers off and are waiting for the next iteration of it.

So if that "kit" lens of 18-55 wasn't that damn good to begin with, we would all be super happy about the prime and it would already be sitting in my daily bag closely nested against my X-T1 along the 27mm.

 

As for the 23mm being big, well yeah it's almost as big as the 10-24mm F4 but let's put things into perspective for a moment shall we ?

 

XF 23 F1.4: 63mm long and 296g (without hood)

XF 14 F2.8: 58mm long and 234g (without hood)

XF 18-55 : 70mm - 98mm long and 308g (without hood)

XF 10-24 : 87mm long and 404g (without hood)

 

It doesn't really look that big nor that heavy to me.

 

Does it look big on a X-T1 ? Of course it does, that thing is almost the size of the zoom kit ! Does it annoy anyone who wants that focal length ? Not that much. I have seen colleagues doing portraits shots with that a Nikkor 105mm Macro on a D800, was it practical ? Not one bit ! But was it good ? Heck yeah it was, one of his best portrait I would say.

 

As for the rest of the line up, focal length wise, we are pretty good from 10 to 135-200ish, bit of quirky here and there but in overall, we have a good line up and a lot of them are downright very good if not excellent and some are purely superbe (looking at you 90mm F2).

[johant]

@Nosegunner

Now you got the point. Never criticise in a Fuji forum anything that Fuji does. Most readers put a lot of effort in finding the best camera system before they decided for Fuji. If you criticise anything of Fuji you also criticise the decision of these people.

 

 

I think the point is more that many people like politeness, and are put off by the rude way the OP states his points.

 

There are many discussions here about strenghts and weaknesses of the Fuji X-series (e.g. the slow AF, or the soft corners of the 18mm lens), but "c'est le ton qui fait la musique" ... and the OP clearly struck the wrong chords, in my opinion.

[cug]

I think the point is more that many people like politeness, and are put off by the rude way the OP states his points.

 

I have much less problems with actual facts in a rude tone than total fiction in a nice package. 

[johant]

I have much less problems with actual facts in a rude tone than total fiction in a nice package. 

 

Being nice costs nothing, in my opinion. So the best thing is probably actual facts without a big ego.

 

Many people won't read the facts if they are not presented with some respect for the reader.

 

All my opinion, of course.

[cug]

Respect and "being nice" are two different things. I don't need the typical American shit sandwich to convey a message. I'd rather get the facts, straight and blunt. That means neutral packaging, facts only. Many people might consider that as not being nice. Sorry, but if they need everything packaged nicely they shouldn't have left the bed in the morning.

[Jürgen Heger]

The introduction of my first post in this thread was like pouring oil into the fire. Probably this was not very wise, even more as this was not the worst bashing of Fuji critics in this forum. I'm sorry, I just could't resist.

But in general I prefer if people stay relaxed and don't get personal, whatever funny statements others make.

 

But back to the original idea of the OP. The more I think about it the more I like the idea that Fuji should make a 23/2 with better quality, less size and weight, at a lower price than the 23/1.4, as they have done with the 35/2. Imagine, if the quality would be like the 90/2.

[cug]

I don't think there is a way to make a better quality 23 at a much lower price and size. You are asking to get physics out-smarted. You can have optical correction or smaller size, you can have optical correction or lower price. 

 

You just can't get all the stuff you want in a single package. The 35/2 is optically the inferior lens to the 35/14. I own both and have done extensive comparisons now, as nice as the new XF35 is, the old one is optically the better lens. The 90 is much more expensive. 

[quincy]

@Jürgen Heger: You know... the thing is:

Nosegunner came here, boldly stating things that were clearly wrong. That the XF 23mm F/1.4 R was optically bad and slow focusing (which he revoked already), and that a lens like the 23 F/1.4 could be built smaller without compromising image quality, which is just wrong. Making it smaller or lighter will increase vignetting, distortion, abberations or astigmatism. Or the maximum aperture needs to be decreased.

The first answers he received were informative and friendly (not mine), informing him about the lens in question and his misinformation. But as he got more and more agressive and stubborn about the lens being too big and fujifilm needing to make a smaller one no matter what, so were the answers from the community.

 

And then came you, attacking everyone on a personal level by writing stuff like "Never criticise in a Fuji forum anything that Fuji does", implying that everyone here is unobjective and just wants to silence critique. Just look around the forum, it's full of critique and suggestions for improvement! And here you are again, calling this a "bashing of Fuji critics". It's not what this is about. Had the OP started a thread themed "Who wants a little 23/2 to accompany the 35/2", the response would have certainly been different.

 

 

On a side note:

 

[...]

that only comes into play when you again go to 1:1 magnification, which is kind of ridiculous because if you do this on a typical large screen nowadays, it would mean you also look at a 2m wide print from a 50cm viewing distance, which of course is completely ridiculous. 

[...]

In the real world pixel peeping and 1:1 magnification has only one real use case: gauging the sharpening/masking/de-noise settings in your raw converter.

[...]

I guess we can agree that there is use for higher resolution sensors in different kinds of photography ("street" may not be one of them), like huge prints of product shots or my favorite: cropping. And if I'd buy a camera with higher resolution, I'd want my images to be sharp at pixel level (and thus have to adapt my shooting style), because if I would not, I'd not need the extra resolution...

[cug]

There are use cases, of course. Cropping is also one of mine, mainly because I use shorter focal lengths most of the time (longest I own for the Fuji system is 90mm).