CV 15 with fuji m-adapter

dan denmark · 07-21-2012

- manual settings... iso 650, f 16 @ infinity, 1/500, no EV adjustments. and no colour or pincushion adjustments for the adapter... right out of the box... image un-manipulated, right out of the camera. not too shabby.

dan denmark · 07-21-2012

and another, same settings as above. very pleased with this setup...

-dd

Pete B · 07-21-2012

What is it like at f4.5?
Pete

dan denmark · 07-21-2012

hmmm, dunno, not one of my f-stops. must try it, though...

kzphoto · 07-21-2012

Wow! Looks great in the corners. I would have expected more smearing.

Pete B · 07-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan denmark

hmmm, dunno, not one of my f-stops. must try it, though...

I'd be interested to see, especially some 66% blow-ups of the corners.
That's a beautiful blue sky in the top image.
Pete

rbelyell · 07-22-2012

i am very reluctant to post this, and i truly mean no disrespect, but on my monitor, while the colors are lovely, there is virtually no detail clarity in these photos. again, perhaps its my monitor, perhaps its the downsizing. i know there have been times ive posted what i saw as phenominal IQ photos only to receive feedback that the IQ was middling. but on blowing these up a little the detail is what i'm forced to call muddled throughout each photo.

i only post this because there has been so much contraversy regarding RF lens IQ on this camera.
tony

Kiyatkin · 07-22-2012

Nice photos but seems size too small to give any IQ comments, IMO

aleksanderpolo · 07-22-2012

f16 won't show any corner issue. But if this is the setting you will be using, it should be perfectly fine.

n2hhr · 07-22-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by aleksanderpolo

f16 won't show any corner issue. But if this is the setting you will be using, it should be perfectly fine.

I would really love to see some larger images!

willie_901 · 07-23-2012

At f 16 detail would be primarily diffraction limited. I have no problem with the choice of f 16 which gives a unique look. Some subjects benefit without a tack-sharp look... some need it.

I shot a wall using f 14 using the 35/1.4 XF and was suprised at the detail level given diffraction.

dan denmark · 07-24-2012

Hmmm, yes, detail. It isn't film, for sure. But as a grab and go camera that can be aimed and shot for tabletop album photos I do like it. For gallery display, perhaps not. These pics are downsized to 72ppi at 30cm the longest dimension for this forum. I'm off to Western Australia on the weekend to some desert coastal shooting and this will get tested again. I'll take the 15, 21 and 28/1.9 Cv lenses as well as the Fuji 35. I'll be back... And I'll do some 4.5 frames just to see. For the reord, I prefer f5.6 for these three CV lenses but I used 16 above because of the DOF for the image dynamic.

rbelyell · 07-24-2012

well dan, not to belabor the point, but $1600 for the camera plus $400 for the lens should produce clarity well beyond 'grab and go', no?

what i was really seeking with my post above was whether you see the originals on your monitor as having no clarity or if what i'm seeing is somehow a product of the uploading process. when i click on these individually i literally see no detail at all, each aspect is just muddled. is that different than your originals?

my interest in this is somewhat personal as i, like i'm sure many other members, are considering the xpro as a vehicle for our RF lenses. if this is the true result, i think that would help many of us with our decision.
tony

willie_901 · 07-24-2012

Using wider apertures could increase detail rendition. In fact it probably will. The frame corners are always the first to go though. Based on the 18/2 XF lens I would expect f 8 to work well.

Even gallery prints with minimal detail can be aesthetically pleasing to some people, especially if that was the photographer's intent.

semilog · 07-24-2012

Anyone who says they can judge the image clarity obtainable with this setup based on the two miniscule images posted in this thread is behaving foolishly. I've seen quite a bit of work with this setup (two friends are using it extensively) and it's a more than acceptable.

dan denmark · 07-24-2012

no, you're right, tony, these images are hard to read by. and as semilog said, we all have diff standards of clarity. ,y personal prob with it all is, i come from over 40 years behind the lens and i still compare digital to Pan-F and Ilford's good ol' 125... we're not even close, gentlemen...

but that said, we have what we have and the mediocrity the average consumer is prepared to put up with is frustrating. so i look for the strengths in the visual illusion... that's ,my phiolosophy.

i have made two 20x20cm cuts (about 8 inches) at 180ppi rom the orig 300ppi file to see if you see what you all are looking for. i'm not sure how high a res i can post here, i'm not a regular poster. but i'll try. perhaps i can post a higher res image onto a folder in dropbox that you can access. i'm happy to do that if you're really curious. i don't do flicker or the others... might could, though. so i'll see what happens now... or someone can tell me how to upload a 17meg file...?

let me know and i will experiment for you, happy to.. -dd

dan denmark · 07-24-2012

ok, gentlebeans... i apparently did have a flickr account... so here is the image full frame A4 at 300ppi. http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielj...in/photostream

btw, all the other pics on this page were taken with the RD1S and 40/1.4 CV and the Leica Digilux-3 with the kit lens. still love those two boxes...

hope this helps a bit in you analysis. i'm not too fussed, it is a good little camera and maybe i just have diff outlooks. but we all do, i'm sure.

i must say, the fuji 14mm lens looks like it might be a good purchase when it hits Oz... wonder what our price will be...?

enjoy

-dd

dan denmark · 07-24-2012

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danieljenkinsstudios/ for the RD and DL-3 pics from a few years back...

dan denmark · 07-24-2012

ok, someone asked about f4.5... here is one i prepared earlier... well, just now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielj...in/photostream

can i have my coffee now?

-dd

rbelyell · 07-24-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by semilog

Anyone who says they can judge the image clarity obtainable with this setup based on the two miniscule images posted in this thread is behaving foolishly.

you obviously did not actually read nor understand my full comments before calling them foolish. i repeatedly referrred to the upload process as a possible factor in the total lack of clarity here. if you are going to use insulting terms you should at least know what the heck youre talking about before doing so. and then, when you do know what youre talking about, you still shouldnt use insulting words in this kind of a forum.

rbelyell · 07-24-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan denmark

no, you're right, tony, these images are hard to read by. and as semilog said, we all have diff standards of clarity. ,y personal prob with it all is, i come from over 40 years behind the lens and i still compare digital to Pan-F and Ilford's good ol' 125... we're not even close, gentlemen...

but that said, we have what we have and the mediocrity the average consumer is prepared to put up with is frustrating. so i look for the strengths in the visual illusion... that's ,my phiolosophy.

i have made two 20x20cm cuts (about 8 inches) at 180ppi rom the orig 300ppi file to see if you see what you all are looking for. i'm not sure how high a res i can post here, i'm not a regular poster. but i'll try. perhaps i can post a higher res image onto a folder in dropbox that you can access. i'm happy to do that if you're really curious. i don't do flicker or the others... might could, though. so i'll see what happens now... or someone can tell me how to upload a 17meg file...?

let me know and i will experiment for you, happy to.. -dd

thanks a lot dan, very kind of you. glad youre happy with the rig. the xpro looks like a great camera, especially when paired with the native fuji lenses. i'm just not sure about it as a vehicle for M mount lenses though...
tony

dan denmark · 07-24-2012

yes, tony, i agree. i feel the camera would have been better if it had been native M... but, with the lineup of fuji lenses i'm sure there will be a suitable array. i think the 14 will be a good lens. i have to sy, the sharpest of the CV lenses i have here and used with the XP1/M is the 28 1.9 i obught a few years back. i will do some pics with that while i'm away and post when i am back in a fortnight. unless i get a second wind today...

cheers,

dd

might i add, i am still hopeful that epson will upgrade the RD to a 24 MP in its current mount for the Ms... that would do me nicely... my ex-wife is besties with the owner of the Leica importers here in Oz but when i asked for a mate's rates deal i was, well, looked at in 'that' way...

venchka · 07-24-2012

I am reading and looking on my Blacberry. Obviously I can't address image quality other than the verbal cliues:
1. F/16
2. Inf focus.

Why bother?

Wayne

dan denmark · 07-24-2012

dear wayne... why not..? i'm not sure i understand your seeming disapproval... not that i care much. i'm just experimenting the way photography is meant to be. conformity is for sleepers. well, i think so anyway.

anyway, here's another one to throw a monkey into the spanner works..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielj...in/photostream

i put the M adapter on the xp1 and then an M to Nikkor adapter into that then a nikkor (from the 70s) 28mm f2.8 and shot this as DOF focus at f8...

dan denmark · 07-24-2012

and... http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielj...in/photostream

same settings as the post above.