View Full Version : X-100 Lens Flare
Here is a discussion and samples of really bad lens flare when shooting lights at night with the X100. There seems to be a real problem and one that has me wondering about my purchase. You might want to take a looks and see what you think.
Lens Flare Thread on DPreview (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1020&thread=37957772)
or are we just looking at photos taken at night with 98% humidity?
Brian Legge
03-12-2011, 18:44
Any chance the photographer was using a filter in these shots?
Have multiple people confirm this behavior with their cameras?
I thought about this, but I think that the adapter is in short supply. I was hoping that those with the camera could shoot a few shots with lighting in the image.
Dan States
03-12-2011, 18:58
Thats a bother....lots of spherical aberration in those images.
Brian Sweeney
03-12-2011, 19:01
It looks more like reflections, perhaps coming off the sensor, hitting the lens, and coming back as an out of focus circle.
If a filter was used in front of the lens- would also cause this.
Yeah I hate that type of flare. Seems to happen with small sensor cameras. It's much worse on m4/3 - sometimes shots taken with my 17mm pancake on my e-p1 were unusable because of it.
Look through images on Flickr. It seems to be a greater problem in the peripheral areas vs. central areas of the image. It isn't subtle and it has to be influencing off center contrast regardless of the lighting conditions. Perhaps this has something to do with the lens and sensor's peripheral micro lenses. /???
Brian Sweeney
03-12-2011, 19:17
Hard to say what it is without shooting some kind of standardized tests.
Shooting night scenes of oncoming headlights is a worst-case type of image. Very high-contrast, blown highlights, and lost shadows.
Here is a shot with a Canon 50/1.2 on the Leica M8, using a Hot Mirror Filter.
Lens has some coating damage on the surface behind the aperture. Wide-open at F1.2.
http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=209&pictureid=2057
http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=209&pictureid=2054
NOW: 1939 Zeiss Sonnar "T" 5cm f1.5 on the Canon P.
http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=14&pictureid=97
Just popping out, but to test this I pointed my X100 directly at a set of house lights, which now means everything I see has a purple dot in it - I suffer for you lot - and I cannot see this effect at all.
EDIT: Tying shoes laces with no vision is hard...
M2 and Tri-X can do it with more feeling:-) cheaper:-) but not faster:-(
Interesting the Chicken Little reaction on dpreview. Wouldn't bother me much, if it is intrinsic, but of course, we'll have people moaning about this for months if not years.
It's ghosting rather than flare, and it's most likely due to light reflecting off the lens elements or sensor (as Brian said).
eh, so the lens shows coma wide open, big deal.
Very few lenses dont have it, just ask anybody who shoots starry skies.
Roger Hicks
03-13-2011, 03:54
Gosh! The X100 turns out to be a camera, not the Second Coming! What a surprise!
Looks like a good camera, with faults. Quite unlike any other good camera, then.
Cheers,
R.
tom.w.bn
03-13-2011, 04:08
Looked through all of the links in the dpreview article and could not find a photo with disturbing lens flare. There are night shots that show a more than good performance for my needs.
sepiareverb
03-13-2011, 04:30
Gosh! The X100 turns out to be a camera, not the Second Coming! What a surprise!
Looks like a good camera, with faults. Quite unlike any other good camera, then.
Cheers,
R.
+1 Roger. I've been anticipating threads like this almost as much as some have been anticipating the X100.
geez, don't panic. looks like a build flaw in one camera. I'd wait until confirmed by others.
Sometimes I think the web is populated by solely by lemmings and equities traders.
.
That's supposed to be there. It's the "Fuji Glow".
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1773/nooddness.jpg
Nothing here, as far as I can see. The double cone on the ceiling is actually there, unless the light is reflecting off my eye sensor also ;)
Pickett Wilson
03-13-2011, 07:53
I see it off to the left of the light source. If the background were black, like outdoors at night, it would be obvious.
I see it off to the left of the light source. If the background were black, like outdoors at night, it would be obvious.
Ah, good old skadeglädje
Also, it happens more peripherally.
I disagree with many that say this is a non-event/unimportant. All lenses have aberrations. It is simply a matter of degree and I question if this is solely a lens issue. I, like many others, intentionally waited to place an order for the X100 in recognition that this is just another camera. We wanted others to evaluate and post.
The posting of these very very early findings based on so few images is simply a plea for those with the cameras to investigate this phenomena.
Pickett Wilson
03-13-2011, 08:28
Actually, the flare is not really an issue for me. The camera seems to have good image quality overall. I would consider buying one if it weren't so small. Even the Leica M's are too small to be really comfortable for my big hands without a grip. But, of course, small is one of the selling points! If we could just each custom design our own camera! :)
OK, I'll wait for night time and re-shoot this. But if I go blind, I'll wave my hands and make grumpy sounds...
Perhaps, night, tripod, various apertures and lighting in various areas of the image. Smaller, bright light sources might be more productive. For example LED Christmas tree lights.
Many thanks.... You are like the first men on the moon. A real pioneer.
I can do Christmas lights. Let me go dig. I don't own a tripod, I refuse, so I'll make a column of books...
antiquark
03-13-2011, 09:55
That type of flare isn't unique to the Fuji. Here's a shot with a Nikkor 35/2.0, it displays the same effect. (this is a 100% crop). Apparently it's caused by the light reflecting off the cover glass in front of the sensor.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3346/3208555418_661376fe97_z.jpg?zz=1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antiquark/3208555418/)
Flare Example: Nikkor 35/2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antiquark/3208555418/) by derek@antiquark (http://www.flickr.com/people/antiquark/), on Flickr
I'll remove my cover glass and post results ;)
Yes, I was joking.
Here are some Christmas lights Bronica RF645 on the new Portra 400. We should be able to compare many lenses and cameras with Chrismas lights.... No time now to look... this was just a quick view of my Flickr shots....
Large file so will link and not directly post (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5167/5281270529_3cbf5be090_o.jpg)
Brian Sweeney
03-13-2011, 10:13
I'll remove my cover glass and post results ;)
Yes, I was joking.
I've done that before. The Sensor itself is reflective.
antiquark
03-13-2011, 10:15
I'll remove my cover glass and post results ;)
Yes, I was joking.
You can get someone to do it for you. They call it "hot rodding" your sensor (see link). No joke! :)
http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm
Brian Sweeney
03-13-2011, 10:28
The cover glass is part of the optical path. If you remove it, must replace it with something as thick and with the same index of refraction. OR- could change the lens registration to compensate.
Soothsayerman
03-13-2011, 11:13
So it basically performs as a normal lens shot at light when wide open. Right.
willie_901
03-13-2011, 11:34
Digital cameras are truly amazing devices. Unfortunately all of them produce artifacts whenever extreme over exposure is present. Some lens/sensor combinations perform differently than others. I have seen smaller, similar and worse artifacts with my LUMIX G1, D200, 300 and 700 bodies. The artifacts are highly situational. You can find thousands of photographs from every make of digital camera with similar and worse artifacts on Flickr.
The X100 lens does seem to present flare at F 2. The flare seems to reduce as it's stopped down. But the X100 is like all other digital cameras, it doe not perform well when extreme over exposure is present. More attention to exposure will minimize the flaws in the X100 sensor/lens combination, but this is always the case.
Pickett Wilson
03-13-2011, 11:40
Well, maybe the next digital camera will really be the "Jesus Camera." :)
All's well. We can continue to seek the Holy Grail of photography. Hopefully while shooting whatever it is we already have!
There was this really funny article called the Apple Product Cycle (http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/) which makes fun of the "hype cycle" surrounding every new Apple product. I've referred to this every now and then, in the case of the X100 it does seem quite appropriate.
Any day now I expect that we'll enter the phase where the Apple Product Cycle says that "a minor, rarely occurring flaw in the device begins to be discussed in the Apple support forums. Whiny, artistic types post lengthy diatribes about how this terrible design flaw has made the device unusable and scarred them emotionally. Electronic petitions are created demanding that Apple replace the devices for free, plus pay for counseling to help traumatized users overcome their emotional distress."
Just so we have all the shock and horror on one thread:
In the german DSlr-forum are many photos shown wit a lot of flares, examples here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/jefftanys/X100#5585439559388971426
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redxjs/5495146028/sizes/l/in/pool-1224925@N21/
There are nuch more at all ISO-settings, maybe Fuji made a copy of the pre-asph 35 Summilux :cool:
Yogi
and they look really good....
http://www.x100forum.com/index.php?/topic/222-full-sxsw-set-up-on-flickr/
Digital cameras are truly amazing devices. Unfortunately all of them produce artifacts whenever extreme over exposure is present. Some lens/sensor combinations perform differently than others. I have seen smaller, similar and worse artifacts with my LUMIX G1, D200, 300 and 700 bodies. The artifacts are highly situational. You can find thousands of photographs from every make of digital camera with similar and worse artifacts on Flickr.
The X100 lens does seem to present flare at F 2. The flare seems to reduce as it's stopped down. But the X100 is like all other digital cameras, it doe not perform well when extreme over exposure is present. More attention to exposure will minimize the flaws in the X100 sensor/lens combination, but this is always the case.
So what we're really in need of is, rather than smarter cameras, smarter photographers.
~Joe
Digital cameras are truly amazing devices. Unfortunately all of them produce artifacts whenever extreme over exposure is present. Some lens/sensor combinations perform differently than others. I have seen smaller, similar and worse artifacts with my LUMIX G1, D200, 300 and 700 bodies. The artifacts are highly situational. You can find thousands of photographs from every make of digital camera with similar and worse artifacts on Flickr.
The X100 lens does seem to present flare at F 2. The flare seems to reduce as it's stopped down. But the X100 is like all other digital cameras, it doe not perform well when extreme over exposure is present. More attention to exposure will minimize the flaws in the X100 sensor/lens combination, but this is always the case
Digital Cameras IE Crap...................... Now Seriously- are photographic recording devices with limited capabilities and SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!!!!!!!!! Some folks are just starting to figure this out!! I am not surprised about the issues with the X100, I have seen these issues with every digital camera I have used and I have used many in my work. That why I still prefer to shoot all stuff I really care about with film cameras and wide latitude negative film. Never have any problems with blowout highs or artifacts on neg film - Kievman
tom.w.bn
03-27-2011, 01:00
Digital Cameras IE Crap...................... Now Seriously- are photographic recording devices with limited capabilities and SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!!!!!!!!! Some folks are just starting to figure this out!! I am not surprised about the issues with the X100, I have seen these issues with every digital camera I have used and I have used many in my work. That why I still prefer to shoot all stuff I really care about with film cameras and wide latitude negative film. Never have any problems with blowout highs or artifacts on neg film - Kievman
Please read this
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102866
willie_901
03-27-2011, 09:19
So what we're really in need of is, rather than smarter cameras, smarter photographers.
~Joe
We certainly don't need smarter cameras. It seems to me Nikon's automated 3D color matrix exposure is plenty smart. Yet I know from personal experience 3D matrix exposure does not always compute the optimum exposure.
"The 3D Color Matrix Meter II takes into account the scene's contrast and brightness, the subject's distance (via a D- or G-type NIKKOR lens), the color of the subject within the scene and RGB color values in every section of the scene. 3D Color Matrix Metering II also uses special exposure-evaluation algorithms, optimized for digital imaging, that detect highlight areas. The meter then accesses a database of over 30,000 actual images to determine the best exposure for the scene. Once the camera receives the scene data, its powerful microcomputer and the database work together to provide the finest automatic exposure control available."
No doubt Canon and others provide equally sophisticated methods.
Certainly the photographers are smart enough too. I do think the photographers should be aware that automated exposure is like any other automated process. The humans who wrote the automation function specification, who designed and implemented the automation could not possibly cover 100% of the lighting situations encountered over the life of the camera.
Because automated exposure does enjoy a very high success rate, it is easy for the photographer (especially myself) to neglect their responsibility to think about the lighting when they are in situations where automated metering could be in error.
It appears the X100 is prone to produce artifacts from over-exposed point-source light. I hope I can adjust to this situation and over ride the automated exposure calculation as needed. After all, the reason I pre-ordered the X100 is because it is designed with manual operation in mind.
lolmannz
03-31-2011, 23:54
Here are some of tests with the X100 with hood, no filters. I say it is indeed a problem, but I still love this camera nonetheless.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mklnz/sets/72157626377985020/
jsrockit
04-01-2011, 04:30
Well, maybe the next digital camera will really be the "Jesus Camera." :)
Why do you keep bringing up this mexican guy?
viramati
04-01-2011, 13:38
Here are some of tests with the X100 with hood, no filters. I say it is indeed a problem, but I still love this camera nonetheless.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mklnz/sets/72157626377985020/
I agree maybe we could turn this into some art effect
Just out of interest does the X1 do the same thing
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.