CV 15 with fuji m-adapter

[Pete B]

Thanks for taking the time to do this Dan. Firstly, why are you having a cup of coffee 8 hrs ago? It would have been bed time in Europe (but perhaps you're not in Denmark). Secondly, at f4.5, as expected, there is more in the way of smearing and CA. It's this concern that stopped me getting the XPro1, but the new Fuji lens range due next year looks very interesting as you say. As it happens, I came across a very cheap (half price) Ricoh with M mount and couldn't resist getting it to scratch an itch. It seems very good in the corners with the CV15. A better EVF solution is all that is required but perhaps there will be something that ticks all the boxes on the Ricoh stand at Photokina. If not, I'll wait for the XPro1 and 18mm reviews.
Pete

[dan denmark]

cheers, pete. it's 6pm wednesday in east coast australia so that's why i drink coffee until 11 thejn red wine from 1pm... in my new retirement... ah, but from what, my friends ask. an artist never retires. anyway, it's winter here...

so yes, i'm keen to play and as soon as the 14 is released i'll be on it like jam on toast. the 18 might do but the 14 will suit me better. i'm a studio photographer but am forcing myself to do landscapes for a new book and, well, i like a challenge in my dotage.

i'll post a few more... did you see the stacking i did with the two adapters and the nikon 28? that was fun... i have a swag of nikon lenses from the 70s and a coupe of new ones, might have a good play one day..

cheese,

dj in oz

[Pete B]

Yes, I meant the 14mm. I'm looking forward to it.
Just by way of comparison the shots below are taken from my Throne. The crop is the exteme corner using the CV15f4.5 at f4.5 with the Ricoh M sensor and its micro lenses. Focusing is difficult with this lens and the Ricoh focus peaking so I guesstimated the distance at 2.5 metres.
I'm afraid the ornaments are not for sale.
Pete

R1034156web.jpg

crop.jpg

[aleksanderpolo]

Press and hold the delete button you can choose 2x 4x 8x magnification. For CV 15 if you use 8x magnification, focus assist mode 2 and magnify all (not magnify center) it is super easy to focus. The EVF of GXR is also much better than the EVF in XP1.

[fotomeow]

Appreciate the attention you've brought to this CV 15 lens, a fine and reliable performer which I've used for several years.
I have a couple comments, and would be curious what you all think.

I've been told, and read, that a higher F value won't necessarily provide better IQ in the attributes previously discussed on this thread,
e.g. detail, CA, pincushion, etc.
I have read that most lenses are optimized for the above attributes at the middle F value that the lens offers, e.g.,
a middle F will be different for a lens that is f1.4-f16 vs f4.5-f22. No? e.g., wandering why the OP is focussed on f16 instead of f 9.5-f11.0,
the middle f value for this lens.
Second, is the Fuji 18/2 a poor performer compared to the CV 15? Is this an assumption in this thread?

[aleksanderpolo]

The corner smearing/color issue of digital sensor is caused by light hitting the sensor at <90 degree angle. Stopping it down reduces this effect. At f16 all lights are essentially hitting at around 90 degree so you won't see the problem.

The 18/2 has CA that doesn't go away even stopped down. The CV 15 does not, and is sharp corner to corner when stopped down to F8 on GXR-M. it is also significantly wider, but it is not as fast, obviously. So the CV 15 is probably more suitable for landscape use, if there is no smearing problem on this camera.

[Pete B]

Originally Posted by aleksanderpolo

Press and hold the delete button you can choose 2x 4x 8x magnification. For CV 15 if you use 8x magnification, focus assist mode 2 and magnify all (not magnify center) it is super easy to focus. The EVF of GXR is also much better than the EVF in XP1.

Thanks for this. Where do I find "magnify all"
Pete

[venchka]

Originally Posted by dan denmark

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...

f/16 on this sensor will never yield optimum results.
Infinity focus is wasting quite a bit of your depth of field.
f/8 or f/11 focused at about 10' should be about right. I personally use the D.O.F. scale on lenses to get all of the depth available.
As a worst case, your way certainly works.
Enjoy.

Wayne

[aleksanderpolo]

Key customs options -> Page 2 -> set one of the fn button to enlrg all, and the other fn button to focus assist, and you are all set. Enlarge center just magnify the center portion of the focusing screen in low resolution, so it is not very helpful in focusing.

Focus assist mode is in page 4 of setup menu by the way.

Originally Posted by Pete B

Thanks for this. Where do I find "magnify all"
Pete

[dan denmark]

wayne, must be a (former) texas thang. ex=pat san antonio'n here living in Oz. and when i said infinity i referred to the max range on the barrel using DOF from .8m to Inf with the max capacity of the lens in use for all regions of the image.

yes, there is loss at the greatest distance, one would expect that. my next move when i am back from my desert sojourn to western australia, where the desert meets the ocean, i will print from the xpro1 to A1 size, which is like, huge. while it is a working trip (for a book) i will also be playing with the lenses i take with me. and yes, will report here, fyi (all of you, btw).

natter is fun, dialogue is productive. good to be back in the saddle after months of nothing but writing.

cheese, y'all

dd

[dan denmark]

and gary, pete, et al, re the 'sweet spots' of many lenses, the answer is sort of yes. middle is good. diff makers focus (sorry) on somewhere around f5.6 and f8 as the best overall balance of sharpness in a lens composition. sometimes (waiting for the predictable RFFers' barrage). this varies greatly by the groups in which the elements are configured which has a lot to do with image distortion correction and flare and other glassy stuff. this, of course, is argumentative amongst many who see different returns for their apertures. i'm generally not a fan of f16 unless the client is on a low budget. i charge more for 5.6 jobs... means i have to think more.

having been trained in technical jargon and sensitive field work from the 1950s through the 70s by my father and grandfather, both pro shooters of large format, i learned two important lessons... 5.6 is your friend and a slow shutter speed (on slow film) provides 'rounder' light because a wide-ish aperture has more time to let the light wrap itself around your subject. this works especially well in flash studio work. i use a wide aperture, low iso (or asa with film) on a static subject or composition and a low flash setting with a slow shutter speed to give what gramps called 'round light.'

have a play.

as for the thronal elements in your pics, pete... i have them already... cheers!

-dd

[irq506]

I use a 15, 24 Elmarit asph 35 'lux asph and to my vastly experienced eye I have zero complaints with my 15. Ive shot with just about every camera and lens imaginable, both under film and digital, controlled, experimental & "grab & go" environments. For myself, I primarily shoot wide open.
For these postage stamp sized images here I can tell perfectly well that there is sufficient detail enough to produce an exhibition grade print, far better then would have been produceable on film at iso's of 400 or above.

Like I say I have vast experience in these matters -and I dont say that lightly either, I "know" these lenses and what they are capable of both by looking and by interpolation based on experience and deduction. These cameras are capable of competing -in the middle ranges of ISO Speeds and Apertures- with a 500 C/M and 80 Planar or a S/K Rolleiflex using 400 speed film, and they by nature are considerably more telecentric in nature and thus easier to produce a more attractive focal separative aesthetic and edge specificity.

The CV15mm lens has time and time again proved to me that despite a lack of contrast (which is a good thing on a digital camera because lack of contrast is redeemable with countermeasures), this lens is far and away capable of meeting the visual acuity rendered by lenses which were designed to do an easier job of bending and condensing light than a lens like this which is designed to collect, condense light and redistribute it at such an extreme field of angles to cover the image circle of a 35mm negative in such a small form factor. Yes there is some edge "smear" (a dreadfully inappropriate term now in common usage for a highly complex formation of light, but Im forced to use it because despite all of your complaints about your equipment none of you really know how it works, by the sounds of it), which if the lens is used creatively and with aesthetic specificity knowing its strengths these issues would never arise in the first place because nobody would see them.

As for that ridiculously idiotic comment regarding how these images appear to have no detail or clarity, at web resolution and down-sized for a forum, im curious to know with minuscule exactitude what detail are we missing here exactly, and what in this persons mind is the definition of clarity based on the actuality of what these 72dpi, down-sized actually means? Just curious.

[dan denmark]

here here...

[rbelyell]

again it is totally beyond my comprehension why people cannot disagree without being nasty and caustic. IRQ, your entire post is about the quality of the cv15 as a lens and your bona fides as a commentator. i dont doubt either, but neither is relevent to the discussion of whether the xpro1 with fuji M adapter produces images that, on a comparative basis with other competitive systems, lack clarity, depth and sharpness. this is not a lens question, it is a question of which systems perform best with which lenses. seems to me that is a constantly recurring topic on ALL forums like this and of tremendous interest to those members who are considering the xpro as a digital vehicle for their RF lenses.

as for the idea that 'commenting' on the IQ of posted images is ridiculous, unless i dont understand english, the OP was something like 'heres a couple of photos with the xpro+fuji adapter+cv15--not bad?'. that post ASKS for judgement, and mine was very respectfully given that indeed what i saw WAS bad. and my judgement was made not only on the look of these photos, but on their look compared to other similarly downsized images ive seen from this lens used on other digital systems including my own--apples to apples. now you have every right to disagree with that judgement, but you do not have the right to do so in a disrespectful way.

and to the others out there who cant control their 'id', please remember being nasty says more about you than those whom you are insulting.

hope i satisfied your 'curiosity'.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

lack clarity, depth and sharpness.

Again, and seriously: what does the word "depth" mean in this context? Because I seriously don't know what you mean.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

this is not a lens question, it is a question of which systems perform best with which lenses.

"Best" is a qualitative descriptor. The only interesting question, in my view, is whether a given system can, in the hands of a given user, provide results that are satisfactory within a given application. That's the only "performance" that matters. Without knowing the specifics of the user and the application there can be no "best" system.

Even in the blandest technical terms, specific technical attributes might be "best" but the problem of imaging system performance is multidimensional. There's flare, color rendition, astigmatism, coma, spherical aberration and field curvature, geometric distortion, focus shift, decentering, vignetting, lens size and weight, ease of focus, color shifts, out-of-focus rendering etc., etc. These are all terms that have widely agreed-upon meanings and they all describe important aspects of an optical system's function.

In many applications sharpness, and especially sharpness in the corners, is least among these parameters in importance. Sharpness is relatively easy to measure (at least in the center of the field) and for whatever reasons, in the eyes of many enthusiasts it takes on an outsized importance. In most applications, corner sharpness simply is not going to be the sole -- or even most important -- determinant of what's "best." To take just one example, for me resistance to flare is often much more important in a wide angle lens than corner sharpness.

So, if you genuinely have questions about using the X-Pro with adapted lenses, why don't you tell us what sort of subjects you shoot, or what you want to shoot, and under what conditions? Sports aren't portraits and portraits aren't street and street isn't architectural interiors and architectural interiors aren't landscapes. Do you use a tripod and shoot at ISO 100, or do you shoot handheld at ISO 6400 or even (as I was doing last night) ISO 20,000? Are you more interested in color, or monochrome? What do you intend to do with the files? Which lenses are potentially important to you? What mode of composition do you prefer, and hence which sorts of finders appeal? How important is system weight, and size? How important is weather resistance? Do you have an established digital workflow that new equipment needs to be compatible with, or are you willing to adapt your workflow to accommodate new gear? Do you have really strong opinions about how a camera should feel in the hand, or is that less important than other parameters? Do you want or need to impose financial constraints that will limit your gear options, or is price less of an issue for you?

Once you've answered most or all of those questions, a particular lens and camera might be "best." But until then...

[rbelyell]

Originally Posted by semilog

"Best" is a qualitative descriptor. The only interesting question, in my view, is whether a given system can, in the hands of a given user, provide results that are satisfactory within a given application. Without knowing the specifics of the user and the application there can be no "best" system.

i totally understand your point of view, but it is not my point of view. thats ok, as on subjective matters there is seldom a one fits all answer. without being drawn into a long boring technical debate, certainly there are some cameras which are 'optimized' for, or by dumb luck, bring out more fully than others the characteristics of certain lenses. this is not only my opinion, the webosphere is replete with examples. since its introduction many--pro and amatuer, leica nut and non leica nut--have been debating the xpros ability to do so on IQ par with the M8, M9 or even the GXR (or m4/3!). i didnt create that debate, but my point is as published, the pictures on this thread lead me to believe that my OMD renders with more clarity throughout the frame than does the xpro.

now this may be correct or not. there may be reasons for this. appearances may be decieving you personally may have no use for the debate. all of that is fine. just trying to get the facts because alot of folks are interested in them. if youre not i question why you want to partake of the discussion at all. please dont feel you need to convince me not to engage in the discussion, becsause i find it interesting to do so.

[semilog]

OK, so you want to use sparse and inadequate data to resolve a complicated, multi-dimensional question in favor of your purchase decision. Let me help you: you bought a great camera, one of the nicest ones currently available. Now may I suggest that you'd have more fun if you focused on photography rather than on whether your camera is "better" or "worse" than another camera that in the end has highly similar performance?

By the way, I'll mention that I use both the X-Pro and 4/3 DSLRs. The 12-60 SWD, and the 50 macro for the 4/3 system -- in pure resolution terms -- both crush nearly any native lens for micro 4/3. Especially in the corners. If you really care about corner sharpness you'll get the Olympus adaptors and run those or other top-end 4/3 lenses on your OM-D. And use a tripod.

[rbelyell]

ya know, this has nothing to do with my camera vs another, i was just using that as an example. i listed four other freaking cameras in my reply that you ignored. as a matter of fact, i'm not altogether happy with how my OMD works with RF lenses and am considering replacing the omd with the xpro which is why this thread was interesting to me. so youre, typically, way off base on this point.

i stated very clearly that the difference in OMD/xpro RF lens performance i saw 'may be correct or not. there may be reasons for this. appearances may be deceiving...just trying to get the facts'.

that belies your entire post. it seems youre more interested in a fight than advancing any discussion, which seems to be your peculiar wont. for my money youre a one trick pony, pick a sentence here or there out of context and belittle it. youre a perfect example of what is wrong with the internet, people hiding behind a computer to speak to others in ways that if done in person would earn them a face full of beer or worse. not advancing anything, just being a general nuisance. well, thats not my prediliction, so i will not further indulge yours.

[semilog]

Yes, yes. I represent everything wrong with the world.

I do not pretend to be a gentle commentator. But you should consider carefully re-reading what you've posted, and ask yourself seriously whether you yourself might have contributed to the friction here.

You came onto this thread (and another) with negative comments on a camera that you don't appear to have used and a lens that you don't appear to have used on the camera, basing what you say on some 600-pixel-wide JPEGs. You say the OP was asking for comments when the OP was in fact happy with the combination's output and wanted to share his enthusiasm. When it's pointed out in blunt terms that your criticisms are based on, well, not much, you get snippy.

Pot, kettle, etc.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by fotomeow

Second, is the Fuji 18/2 a poor performer compared to the CV 15? Is this an assumption in this thread?

I'm thinking about selling my 35/1.4 which is supposedly the "it" lens for the X-Pro, and instead just using my ZM 35/2.8 C-Biogon which works beautifully on the camera. I am NOT selling the 18/2. For the things it was made to do, the 18 is an absolutely wonderful lens.

The 15 is a bit wider (21.5 vs. 28 mm EFL), it's manual focus (nice for scale work, though the 18 is ok for scale focus, too), it has the nifty built-in hood, and it can be used on both M and X-Pro, which is an advantage if you're fielding both systems. I went with the 18, a couple of friends went with the 15, and we're all happy. I could use either setup and be stoked about it.

The 18 is not a poor performer at all. It is optimized for small size and light weight, and it is f/TWO. So it is a very small fast wide angle lens optimized for good performance wide open. Last night I was taking pictures outside after dark at f/2 and an effective ISO of 20,000 (6400+1.7 stop push), shooting at 1/500 (1/500 sec! At night! Whoa!) and getting (all things considered) amazingly usable results.

For critical landscape work enlarged to very big print sizes, the 18's performance is good but not equivalent, say, to the 28 Elmarit ASPH or Summicron ASPH. It could be improved on at medium apertures. But we're talking about a lens that is $600 new, and for general work, especially hand-held and low light work, the 18 is tremendous. It is enormously resistant to flare and it focuses rapidly compared to the other native XF lenses. Moreover, it has beautiful rendering of image areas that are not in critical focus.

(As you can see, I really like it.)

One caveat: note that the 18/2 (similar to the Panasonic 20/1.7) has a ton of first-order geometrical distortion (>4%, barrel) that is corrected in-camera or automatically by Lightroom or ACR (though not by RPP64). Several of the "professional" reviewers missed this fact, which provides some information about how careful they are. Anyway, because the distortion is first-order (not "wave" type), it's easy to correct in post if you're using RPP64 or another converter that doesn't handle it automatically.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by dan denmark

wayne, must be a (former) texas thang. ex=pat san antonio'n here living in Oz. and when i said infinity i referred to the max range on the barrel using DOF from .8m to Inf with the max capacity of the lens in use for all regions of the image.

yes, there is loss at the greatest distance, one would expect that. my next move when i am back from my desert sojourn to western australia, where the desert meets the ocean, i will print from the xpro1 to A1 size, which is like, huge. while it is a working trip (for a book) i will also be playing with the lenses i take with me. and yes, will report here, fyi (all of you, btw).

natter is fun, dialogue is productive. good to be back in the saddle after months of nothing but writing.

cheese, y'all

dd

No worries. I'm just jealous because I'm stuck in Houston working. Can't go anywhere for fun.
Have a great trip!

Wayne

[dan denmark]

well, the bad news is, i was being driven around the coastal bush of western australia by a posteriorly retentive local who had no patience for the pause necessary to compose a truly award winning landscape image of desert to sea and was not given the opportunity to switch from one camera to the other, the dslr having a fairly fast zoom attached and the xp1 with its lovely M-adapter... so that said, a passengerless moving car is indication that one picture from one camera should be enough for a picture of dirt and salty indian ocean water. so i only got one pull from the xp1 to show for that day... will give it another shot when i pretend to get lost in Fremantle today at the shipyards. or maybe just stow away and go to singapore. with the xp1, i mean. might try the CV21 today... but will report back next week as indicated previously. -dd