Official Fuji M adapter

[gdi]

Are you guys seeing a big difference over something like a Rainbow adapter - other than frame lines? I am close to pulling the trigger on the Fuji adapter.

[rbelyell]

yes, this is THE question, no? besides metadata info, i think we are all interested in the IQ difference this adapter provides, if any, over the others.
tony

[gdi]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

yes, this is THE question, no? besides metadata info, i think we are all interested in the IQ difference this adapter provides, if any, over the others.
tony

Maybe some comparison shots exist somewhere.

[semilog]

Not a big difference.

Depends on whether you want in-camera compensation for geometry, shading, vignetting. The Fuji adaptor supports that.

The Fuji is of much better build quality than the cheap third party adaptors. It's made to the standards of a (German) Novoflex adaptor and priced accordingly. It is a good bet that the lens is more likely to be precisely centered and parallel to the sensor plane with the Fuji than with the cheaper adaptors. Whether that leads to a visible difference in IQ... well, in most cases probably not.

It's also got a hardware button on the adaptor that instantly brings up the lens menu, so that if you are using multiple M-mount lenses you get directly to the menu for setting FL. That's a very nice touch.

For basic use I'd get the Rainbow. For more intensive use, the Fuji.

Stay away from the Kipon. The one I got had absolutely awful machining tolerances, so bad that M-mount lenses rattled when mounted.

[rbelyell]

well heres what i dont get: there was so much complaining about RF lens 'smearing', lack of depth and character on the xpro, and yet folks seem to be focused on non IQ features of this adapter. if RF lenses dont produce properly on this camera, why does anyone care about adapter 'build quality' or metadata ability?
tony

[Griffin]

But it seems that third party dumb adapters will not. limit which lenses can and cannot be used due to the lack of electronics getting in the way, no? You'll have to make your own lens corrections in pp then.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Griffin

But it seems that third party dumb adapters will not. limit which lenses can and cannot be used due to the lack of electronics getting in the way, no? You'll have to make your own lens corrections in pp then.

Only a few lenses don't work with the Fuji adaptor. If you don't need to use those lenses it's not an issue. If you do need to use them, it is.

This isn't rocket science, folks.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

well heres what i dont get: there was so much complaining about RF lens 'smearing',

Some lenses show some smearing, some don't. Same as on, say, an NEX-7. For shooting landscape or architecture this might matter. For general pictorial photography, it hardly ever does.

lack of depth and character on the xpro,

I'm not going to pull punches on this one. This is asinine.

and yet folks seem to be focused on non IQ features of this adapter. if RF lenses dont produce properly on this camera, why does anyone care about adapter 'build quality' or metadata ability?
tony

Depends on one's requirements. You seem to want a simple general answer. There is NOT a simple, general answer. You need to think for yourself.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by semilog

Not a big difference.

Depends on whether you want in-camera compensation for geometry, shading, vignetting. The Fuji adaptor supports that.

The Fuji is of much better build quality than the cheap third party adaptors. It's made to the standards of a (German) Novoflex adaptor and priced accordingly. It is a good bet that the lens is more likely to be precisely centered and parallel to the sensor plane with the Fuji than with the cheaper adaptors. Whether that leads to a visible difference in IQ... well, in most cases probably not.

It's also got a hardware button on the adaptor that instantly brings up the lens menu, so that if you are using multiple M-mount lenses you get directly to the menu for setting FL. That's a very nice touch.

For basic use I'd get the Rainbow. For more intensive use, the Fuji.

Stay away from the Kipon. The one I got had absolutely awful machining tolerances, so bad that M-mount lenses rattled when mounted.

That helps - I was just thinking about one for very wide use. I have seen some shots that look pretty good from the CV 12mm. I think I'll get the Rainbow and go from there....

[digitalintrigue]

Here is a photo of the Hawk M adapter with the close focusing helical.

[rbelyell]

Originally Posted by semilog

'lack of character on the xpro'

I'm not going to pull punches on this one. This is asinine.

'if RF lenses do not produce properly on the xpro why does anyone care about the adapters build quality and metadata ability'

Depends on one's requirements. You seem to want a simple general answer. There is NOT a simple, general answer. You need to think for yourself.

what a gratuitously nasty response. characterizing the fairly widespread comments on the poor performance of RF lenses on the xpro as 'asinine' does nothing to shed any light on the widespread criticism of RF lens IQ on the xpro, which foreshadows the basic misunderstanding inherent in your second point, that i shoud 'think for myself'. one of the main purposes of a forum like this is the flow of INFORMATION. we can all 'think' for ourselves without need of a camera forum. the point of my post was in essence seeking information on the effect of this adapter on the IQ of RF lenses on the xpro, which implicates a discussion on the validity of the aforesaid widespread criiticism. information flow is helpful, boorish replies not so much.

[noimmunity]

Sonnar lenses, of which I have a ZM C Sonnar, a Rollei Sonnar LTM, and a Nikkor 85/2, all do very very well on the X-Pro1. The small amount of smearing at the edges just plays naturally into the characteristic sonnar fade from bitingly high resolution on center to sluggish resolution in the corners.

On the wide end, I've especially enjoyed using the Leica Elmar 24 with the X-Pro1 EVF. Results from the ZM 18 are almost as good, but the ergonomics on the smaller lenses like the Elmar is better.
It is easy to focus using the EVF, and relatively easy to focus and recompose toggling between the OVF and magnified EVF view. The Fuji M adapter has been a worthwhile addition to my X-Pro1 kit, and I'm glad I waited for it. Just too bad that I can't use the Nokton 35/1.2 on it.

Semilog gets it right when he says that for most pictures, the corner smearing isn't a big deal. I'm taking the X-Pro1 backpacking next week just to see how I feel about using it for landscape.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by noimmunity

Sonnar lenses, of which I have a ZM C Sonnar, a Rollei Sonnar LTM, and a Nikkor 85/2, all do very very well on the X-Pro1. The small amount of smearing at the edges just plays naturally into the characteristic sonnar fade from bitingly high resolution on center to sluggish resolution in the corners.

On the wide end, I've especially enjoyed using the Leica Elmar 24 with the X-Pro1 EVF. Results from the ZM 18 are almost as good, but the ergonomics on the smaller lenses like the Elmar is better.
It is easy to focus using the EVF, and relatively easy to focus and recompose toggling between the OVF and magnified EVF view. The Fuji M adapter has been a worthwhile addition to my X-Pro1 kit, and I'm glad I waited for it. Just too bad that I can't use the Nokton 35/1.2 on it.

Semilog gets it right when he says that for most pictures, the corner smearing isn't a big deal. I'm taking the X-Pro1 backpacking next week just to see how I feel about using it for landscape.

I thought using the CV 12 would show more smearing than the shots I have seen do. Looks acceptable to me for sure, it simply won't be very noticeable at such a wide FOV. Maybe sometime I'll try my 90mm, but I don't think there will be any problems with that...

[semilog]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

characterizing the fairly widespread comments on the poor performance of RF lenses on the xpro as 'asinine'

Let us be precise.

I said that claims of the X-Pro's purported "lack of depth and character" were asinine, and structured my reply so that it was quite clear exactly which text I was referring to. I did not attempt to indicate whether those claims were yours or you were simply referring to claims by others. In either case, those are meaningless descriptors, ambiguous, without precision or utility. "Asinine" is indeed harsh but that's what I think.

Other claims, such as corner smearing with certain lenses, are accurate and were noted with the NEX-5 and NEX-7 long before the X-Pro1 was released. It's usually not a problem in real photos, depending on the subject, the composition, and the intended use of the files.

Your comment, "'if RF lenses do not produce properly on the xpro why does anyone care about the adapters build quality and metadata ability'" depends on a variety of assumptions about what it means to "produce properly" -- this will mean different things for different people. As I indicated you'll have to define your own specific needs and requirements and think for yourself about what equipment serves those needs. I use native lenses and adapted lenses on my X-Pro for versatility, and because many photographs (even many quite good ones) don't depend on perfect corner sharpness.

Again, as I said, the answers are not simple. I know a number of highly experienced M & digital shooters who are doing superb work with X-Pro's and adapted M lenses (e.g. CV 15/4.5; Leica 24/2.8 ASPH), and others who have bought and sold X-Pro outfits because they were not a good fit to the photographers' styles of work.

Nothing gratuitous about it. No one's going to decide for you.

[rbelyell]

thank you the clarification, much appreciated.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

Here is a photo of the Hawk M adapter with the close focusing helical.

That really looks interesting, thanks.

[semilog]

So I've been playing with the 35/2.8 C-Biogon on the Fuji adaptor. Fuji claims that it's not a compatible lens and the gauge that comes with the lens indicates that the back elements are too large in diameter to fit. But it does in fact fit without any mechanical interference. Or, at least, my particular C-Biogon fits my particular Fuji adaptor without interference.

Your mileage may vary, please proceed with caution!

The results: absolutely stellar! Sharp to the edges even at 100% crop. I also have the XF 35/1.4; the baby Biogon is at least as good, and it's easy to manually focus, too. I am VERY happy with this setup. So much so that it means the XF is now a specialist lens for shallow DoF, lower light, or closer focus. I may sell the XF.

I still need to do a little work to see if the baby Biogon has any color shift in the corners that requires compensation. If there is, it's subtle. A truly winning combinationl

As an aside, looking closely at this adaptor it has some *very* striking similarities to the Novoflex adaptors, so much so that I'm starting to wonder if Novoflex manufactured all or part of the assembly. If they did (and if you look at the prices of other Novoflex adapters, $200 for the Fuji adaptor starts to look like a bargain.

[kuujinbo]

Originally Posted by semilog

Not a big difference.
For basic use I'd get the Rainbow. For more intensive use, the Fuji.

Stay away from the Kipon. The one I got had absolutely awful machining tolerances, so bad that M-mount lenses rattled when mounted.

+1. Had their M42 adapter - so much play it got returned. The M mount adapter has a small amount of play, but was the only adapter available when I got the body, so returning it wasn't an option. My $21 rainbowimaging LTM adapter fits better, seems to be made just as well, and is adjustable (the Kipon LTM isn't).

[kuujinbo]

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

Here is a photo of the Hawk M adapter with the close focusing helical.

Very nice! The helicoid looks to decrease the inner diameter of the adapter like Fuji's with electronic contacts. Have problems with any lenses? For example, read somewhere that the CV 28mm/f2 will physically not work with the Fuji adapter.

Thanks!