full-sized tif samples

bruceh · 02-16-2012

http://www.lenstip.com/1969-news-Fuj...le_images.html

celluloidprop · 02-16-2012

Those 18mm samples do not impress me with sharpness.

Gid · 02-16-2012

None of the samples are particularly sharp.

jippiejee · 02-16-2012

I see white orbs again on that first picture, in the car's reflections. Looks like Fuji really has a problem with its exr engine.

gavinlg · 02-16-2012

lenstip samples are always done with 0 sharpening, so they always look soft, with every camera they test.
Those 18mm shots are strange though - looks like a dodgy sample of the lens to me.

celluloidprop · 02-16-2012

http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php...image-samples/

not sure if he's the guy behind the lenstip photos or not, but same railway setting.
The 35mm and 60mm look like absolutely killer lenses. Even at f/1.8 (I don't see any f/1.4 samples yet), the 35mm is as sharp as I could ever see myself needing.

He has one 18mm @ f/5.6 that looks better than the lenstip samples at similar apertures, so hopefully it's closer to the norm with that lens.

I've been wavering on OM-D vs X Pro-1, but I'm getting pretty set on the latter given the quality 35mm and OVF.

gavinlg · 02-16-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by celluloidprop

http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php...image-samples/

not sure if he's the guy behind the lenstip photos or not, but same railway setting.
The 35mm and 60mm look like absolutely killer lenses. Even at f/1.8 (I don't see any f/1.4 samples yet), the 35mm is as sharp as I could ever see myself needing.

He has one 18mm @ f/5.6 that looks better than the lenstip samples at similar apertures, so hopefully it's closer to the norm with that lens.

Definitely a different guy. Those samples are SO much better. Looks good to me, as well as the 18mm shot.
It's pretty mind blowing to think the 35mm f1.4 is $600 - looks like it's going to be the best 50mm equiv for ANY system!

jsrockit · 02-17-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by celluloidprop

Those 18mm samples do not impress me with sharpness.

Yeah, something is wrong in those samples... it can't be that bad. The 35mm looks good though... if that isn't sharp enough for people, you need to abstain from pixel peeping for awhile.

kanzlr · 02-17-2012

the Fuji has no AA filter, thus no sharpening should be required as much as with a regular camera.

The 18mm samples are very weak, the 35/1.4 samples at f1.4 are not good either. There are even photos where the focus is off a bit.

jsrockit · 02-17-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanzlr

There are even photos where the focus is off a bit.

Exactly...so, you can judge lenses based on that. You can make any lens look bad that way.

RealXenuis · 02-17-2012

The 35 and 60 look great. Most pics benefit from a little sharpening, even w/o AA filters. I agree about the 18, I've always thought it's much weaker than the other two lenses from the samples available, but it's not awful, just not impressive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanzlr

the Fuji has no AA filter, thus no sharpening should be required as much as with a regular camera.

The 18mm samples are very weak, the 35/1.4 samples at f1.4 are not good either. There are even photos where the focus is off a bit.

RealXenuis · 02-17-2012

Where, exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jippiejee

I see white orbs again on that first picture, in the car's reflections. Looks like Fuji really has a problem with its exr engine.

PhotoMat · 02-17-2012

I'm pretty sure it was a tongue in cheek comment regarding the shot where the firing strobe and its reflection is in the frame.

jippiejee · 02-17-2012

No, go to the first image and zoom in on the car. The same white disks as those that are so problematic with the X10. Zoom in on the car and look at the reflections. Blooming. The same white disks or orbs that the X10 suffers from and Fuji kept trying to disregard or ignore. Then they said it was 'within tolerances'. Then they said it was only a certain batch. Then they admitted they all did this. Then they denied it was a problem. Then they promised an firmware fix. But there's a deeper problem to it all probably and goes all the way to the core of the camera: its sensor and imaging engine. Did they learn from it? No, they're launching a new camera now with exactly the same problem.

Luke_Y · 02-17-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by gavinlg

Definitely a different guy. Those samples are SO much better. Looks good to me, as well as the 18mm shot.
It's pretty mind blowing to think the 35mm f1.4 is $600 - looks like it's going to be the best 50mm equiv for ANY system!

Huh? I think it is the same guy. Same location, same models, same subjects...

jippiejee · 02-17-2012

White orb phenomenon revisited...

RealXenuis · 02-17-2012

I don't believe those are the orbs that have been lamented in the X10. You could be right, but it seems the examples i've seen are much larger (relatively) and consistent in shape. I have no opinion about their claims to fix and failure to do so, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jippiejee

No, go to the first image and zoom in on the car. The same white disks as those that are so problematic with the X10. Zoom in on the car and look at the reflections. Blooming. The same white disks or orbs that the X10 suffers from and Fuji kept trying to disregard or ignore. Then they said it was 'within tolerances'. Then they said it was only a certain batch. Then they admitted they all did this. Then they denied it was a problem. Then they promised an firmware fix. But there's a deeper problem to it all probably and goes all the way to the core of the camera: its sensor and imaging engine. Did they learn from it? No, they're launching a new camera now with exactly the same problem.

jippiejee · 02-17-2012

I'm pretty sure we're going to be seeing it much worse when properly tested, like here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/12...mplansfirmware

RealXenuis · 02-17-2012

I agree, once the x10 is properly tested they will probably show up everywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jippiejee

I'm pretty sure we're going to be seeing it much worse when properly tested, like here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/12...mplansfirmware

jippiejee · 02-17-2012

No, I mean when the x-pro1 is tested under similar lighting situations, it'll probably perform no different from the X10, given the reflections in that first shot.

RealXenuis · 02-17-2012

I knew what you meant...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jippiejee

No, I mean when the x-pro1 is tested under similar lighting situations, it'll probably perform no different from the X10, given the reflections in that first shot.

jippiejee · 02-17-2012

If this were only just a point-n-shoot camera, you might be more forgiving. But this is in the end quite a lot of money spent on something you want to be as good as it gets. And now it looks like it does have a major imaging problem really.

celluloidprop · 02-17-2012

Doesn't look like the white blob issue to me - these don't appear to be perfectly round or white, you have a very powerful monolight hitting a shiny surface from a few feet away.

PhotoMat · 02-17-2012

The "white orbs" in the first shot are nothing more than blown specular highlights from the studio strobe. They are not going to show any structure like the point light source of a streetlight as shown on dpreview.

jsrockit · 02-17-2012

How do people who don't know how to "test" a camera get there hands on a pre-production unit? I'd like one...if that's the case. I can go out and miss focus and stuff too.