Fuji Fuji X-Pro2 FF rumor thoughts

Ray Sachs

Legend
Location
Not too far from Philly
Real Name
you should be able to figure it out...
A very interesting exchange of arguments! thank you. It is too bad that Fast + Full-frame = Big lenses.

Ray: if I interpret Fuji's lens map correctly they may launch a 16mm (it's positioned between the 14mm and 18mm). So that would be a 24mm lens.

So far it equals big lenses for the most part. Maybe someday it won't. I'm the farthest thing from an expert, but my understanding is that this may have as much to do with sensor development (the ability to handle light that hits at an angle rather than straight on) as lenses. Maybe someday...

I knew that Fuji still had one wide angle prime on it's roadmap, possibly even for later this year. I didn't see that it was specifically located between the 14 and 18, though. I was sort of figuring it would be somewhere in the 16-18 range. 16 certainly makes the most sense. I hope it has a snap-focus ring like the 14 and 23. I don't care if it's the fastest or sharpest lens in the bag - I'd be satisfied with the level of optics in the 18 if it functions more like the 14... I guess we'll see, but this could end up being my most used lens depending...

-Ray
 

rbelyell

All-Pro
Location
NY Mtns
A very interesting exchange of arguments! thank you. It is too bad that Fast + Full-frame = Big lenses.

Ray: if I interpret Fuji's lens map correctly they may launch a 16mm (it's positioned between the 14mm and 18mm). So that would be a 24mm lens.

actually my point was FF really doesnt mean much bigger than apsc. the FF sony/zeiss 55/1.8 is about the same size of the equivalent FL apsc fuji 35/1.4, gives 1/2 stop less light, but has 1/2 stop less DOF. the apsc fuji 56/1.2 is the FF equivalent of 85/1.8 for DOF purposes, and its light gathering ability is 1/2 stop better than an slr 85/1.4, which might in some cases be a little bigger. however, there are FF 85/1.8s like the zeiss pancolar, which will actually be smaller than the apsc fuji. so my point was the fuji cameras arent smaller than mirrorless FF and they really dont have more than a tad size advantage over similar slr lenses. you might lose 1/2 stop light gathering ability, but gain 1/2 in the blur folks now seem to want so much.
 

romi.gilles

Top Veteran
Location
back in Crooklyn
with sony lens design vs fujinon lens design, or manual FF lens vs AF apsc fujinon lenses aside...

do you think fujinon FF lenses would be smaller (if not similar) in size than their apsc lenses?


(Sent from another Galaxy via Tapatalk.)
 

pniev

Student for life
actually my point was FF really doesnt mean much bigger than apsc. the FF sony/zeiss 55/1.8 is about the same size of the equivalent FL apsc fuji 35/1.4, gives 1/2 stop less light, but has 1/2 stop less DOF. the apsc fuji 56/1.2 is the FF equivalent of 85/1.8 for DOF purposes, and its light gathering ability is 1/2 stop better than an slr 85/1.4, which might in some cases be a little bigger. however, there are FF 85/1.8s like the zeiss pancolar, which will actually be smaller than the apsc fuji. so my point was the fuji cameras arent smaller than mirrorless FF and they really dont have more than a tad size advantage over similar slr lenses. you might lose 1/2 stop light gathering ability, but gain 1/2 in the blur folks now seem to want so much.

Thanks. I got that. But the nikon 85mm 1.8 is still significantly bigger than the fuji 56mm. The weight difference is not that much. But I agree: if you choose slower lenses, it's all manageable.
 

romi.gilles

Top Veteran
Location
back in Crooklyn
^
i didn't think so either.

i still would be interested. and maybe those who just can't quite let go of their FF dslrs could finally, fully, switch over. i'm sure there would still be a significant amount of weight difference.


(Sent from another Galaxy via Tapatalk.)
 

rbelyell

All-Pro
Location
NY Mtns
i 'finally and fully' let go of my FF dslr years ago, actually for apsc. what i didnt give up was my ability to compare weights and measures!

fuji apsc 35/1.4 (=52/2.0 for FL/DOF purposes): filter size 52mm, L 2.5", W 6.6oz

sony FF 55/1.8: filter size 49mm!, L 2.5"!, W 10oz.

again, only apsc benefit here is 1/2 stop light gathering which to many is offset by the FF 1/2 stop bokeh advantage.

fuji apsc 56/1.2 (=84/1.8): filter 62mm, L 2.75", W 14oz

nikon G 85/1.8, considered one of sharpest 85s ever: filter 67mm, L 2.9", W 12.3oz!

is there something factual or 'Laws of Physics-wise' i'm missing?

ok, lets do camera weights and measures:

X Pro 1 at 16mps: 5.5"x3.2"x1.7" at 16oz

Sony A7 at 24mps: 5.0"x3.7"x1.9" at 14.6oz!

do these results also run counter to the 'immutable' LoP's?

when i gave up my dslr for apsc there actually was a size advantage because i was trading my 5d and 17-40L lens for an X100. with the advent of mirrorless interchangeable lens FF cameras, and with zeiss devoting some expertise to compact lens production, that major size advantage just isnt there. its still there relative to m4/3, but its no longer that same striking difference, at least with fuji products.
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Location
Not too far from Philly
Real Name
you should be able to figure it out...
i 'finally and fully' let go of my FF dslr years ago, actually for apsc. what i didnt give up was my ability to compare weights and measures!

fuji apsc 35/1.4 (=52/2.0 for FL/DOF purposes): filter size 52mm, L 2.5", W 6.6oz

sony FF 55/1.8: filter size 49mm!, L 2.5"!, W 10oz.

again, only apsc benefit here is 1/2 stop light gathering which to many is offset by the FF 1/2 stop bokeh advantage.

fuji apsc 56/1.2 (=84/1.8): filter 62mm, L 2.75", W 14oz

nikon G 85/1.8, considered one of sharpest 85s ever: filter 67mm, L 2.9", W 12.3oz!

is there something factual or 'Laws of Physics-wise' i'm missing?

ok, lets do camera weights and measures:

X Pro 1 at 16mps: 5.5"x3.2"x1.7" at 16oz

Sony A7 at 24mps: 5.0"x3.7"x1.9" at 14.6oz!

do these results also run counter to the 'immutable' LoP's?

when i gave up my dslr for apsc there actually was a size advantage because i was trading my 5d and 17-40L lens for an X100. with the advent of mirrorless interchangeable lens FF cameras, and with zeiss devoting some expertise to compact lens production, that major size advantage just isnt there. its still there relative to m4/3, but its no longer that same striking difference, at least with fuji products.

Again, the general neighborhood of 50mm is where fast lenses can be built without much weight or size penalty. And your 85mm comparison with the Fuji 56 pretty much proves the point - the Fuji is a full stop faster than the Nikon and roughly the same size and weight. To go to the Nikon at f1.4 you get a lot bigger and the Canon at f1.2 bigger still. We obviously don't know what Sony will be able to do at that focal length yet.

If Sony can come out with wider and longer lenses that repeat the rough parity that they get to at 50-55mm, then we'll have more to talk about. But based on the 35, which is very small but also a full stop slower than the RX1 lens and lower end (and also fairly small) Nikon and Canon 35 f2.0 lenses, I'm dubious. The f1.4 Canikon models where you equalize light gathering and maintain the roughly one stop advantage from the FF sensors are MUCH larger and heavier - 2-3 times the weight of the cheaper slower lenses. At 35mm there are f1.8 alternatives that more or less split the difference in terms of speed and size. The Fuji 23 f1.4 is basically in line with the f2 Canikon versions, a little smaller than the Canon and a little larger than the Nikon. Again, for the same (or very nearly the same) size and weight, you're losing a stop with full frame lenses, which is the rough advantage of the full frame sensors.

Doing a quick perusal of 20, 24, 28, and 85mm focal lengths (and Fuji equivalents) the same pattern holds. Canon's budget lenses tend to be slightly larger than Nikons, but not all that different and Fuji's equivalents are pretty much in the same size weight categories but a full stop faster. Canon and Nikon (and often Sigma) provide lenses that match the speed of the Fuji lenses for the full frame bodies, but they're significantly larger and, at least in the case of Canon and Nikon, vastly more expensive (Sigma not so much).

So I think the general point remains valid. For most focal lengths (other than the basically neutral lengths around 50mm), you can get Canikon lenses that are very similar size and weight to Fuji lenses at equivalent focal lengths at one stop slower, giving back most or all of the roughly one-stop advantage you get with the full frame sensor. To match the Fuji's speed with full frame and maintaining that one stop advantage, you're getting a lot bigger and heavier and, generally, more expensive. In some cases, there are manual focus alternatives that are smaller and lighter (although still generally quite expensive), and some people will be satisfied or very happy with those. But I'm talking about building a modern SYSTEM, which for most consumers needs to be built around AF lenses in almost every case.

In terms of bodies, I fully agree that full frame mirrorless bodies can probably be built about the same size as Fuji's largest APS body (the X-Pro), but Fuji, Sony, and Samsung all have APS bodies considerably smaller than the X-Pro. But clearly full frame mirrorless bodies can be built at very competitive sizes and weights.

The question still comes down to lenses. And I'm still far from convinced... Shocking, I know. :biggrin:

-Ray
 

rbelyell

All-Pro
Location
NY Mtns
its not a full stop faster because they are not equal objects they are equivalent objects, theres a difference. and that difference itself is different for DOF vs light gathering.

additionally, theres nothing i know of, and actual physicists among us please tell me where to get off, thats magical about the 50mm FL that cant be replicated at other FLs. once theres an exception to a rule, we really just have something we call a rule that has a hole in it.

so yeah, i guess if the object is to have a 56mm lens that acts like an 85, has light gathering ability of 1.2, but DOF of 1.8, we really have no other choice than fuji at this point in time. if the object is to say apsc gives a meaningful size advantage for normal people (none of whom ive ever known to require 1.2 at 85mm) shooting normal equipment in normal circumstances, i dont see it. the numbers are there. they will mean something to many and nothing to others. we can spin around on this til the cows come home.

however, my point was pretty simple: youre a photographer. you want to shoot a great 85, but want the rig to be as compact as possible. a FF A7 with a universally acclaimed FF G 85/1.8 is just as compact as the fuji alternative. on that theres no spinning around. you make your choice, but facts dictate that youre not any longer making it on comparative platform size. and for folks who believe that an 85 at 1.8 is slow, honestly, i have so little in common with them that i'd just have to smile, nod and walk away.
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Location
Not too far from Philly
Real Name
you should be able to figure it out...
its not a full stop faster because they are not equal objects they are equivalent objects, theres a difference. and that difference itself is different for DOF vs light gathering.

additionally, theres nothing i know of, and actual physicists among us please tell me where to get off, thats magical about the 50mm FL that cant be replicated at other FLs. once theres an exception to a rule, we really just have something we call a rule that has a hole in it.

so yeah, i guess if the object is to have a 56mm lens that acts like an 85, has light gathering ability of 1.2, but DOF of 1.8, we really have no other choice than fuji at this point in time. if the object is to say apsc gives a meaningful size advantage for normal people (none of whom ive ever known to require 1.2 at 85mm) shooting normal equipment in normal circumstances, i dont see it. the numbers are there. they will mean something to many and nothing to others. we can spin around on this til the cows come home.

however, my point was pretty simple: youre a photographer. you want to shoot a great 85, but want the rig to be as compact as possible. a FF A7 with a universally acclaimed FF G 85/1.8 is just as compact as the fuji alternative. on that theres no spinning around. you make your choice, but facts dictate that youre not any longer making it on comparative platform size. and for folks who believe that an 85 at 1.8 is slow, honestly, i have so little in common with them that i'd just have to smile, nod and walk away.

Tony, I'm not saying Fuji is BETTER than full frame with those smaller slower (or let's just call them "less fast") lenses - I'm just saying it's roughly the same in terms of both low light capability and narrow DOF (for those who care - I'm fine with m43 for DOF personally). Not that there's an advantage, but there's little DIS-advantage. At which point things like cost and overall size and, up until there are a few good mirrorless FF options, just the basic mirrorless shooting experience become the basis for deciding. I wasn't choosing between the Fuji gear and the A7 because the lenses aren't there for the A7 yet and probably won't be for a while. I was choosing basically between the Fuji and the Df. And for me, the tradeoffs favored the Fuji despite the ridiculously amazing sensor in the Df. Which I didn't feel like was all that more amazing once you took the lens choices into account. And I prefer having a good useable live view setup and I didn't really like having to clean the sensor so damn often on the Df (although I loved the battery life!).

I was more or less deciding that a DSLR wasn't for me. Once there are viable full frame mirrorless systems out there with a compliment of lenses, I reserve the right to change my mind. But if the same tradeoffs remain in terms of lens size and weight and cost, I may well sit tight with APS, lacking a compelling reason to switch...

-Ray
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Location
Not too far from Philly
Real Name
you should be able to figure it out...
Oh, and as for the 50-55 neighborhood, it does seem to be an exception. I can't say why exactly but it's probably related to the reason that in the early days of film SLR's, fast 50's were a dime a dozen and fast anything else was damn near impossible to find or prohibitively expensive. I think there's something about a relatively "neutral" focal length that just doesn't require as much glass or as much bending of light or whatever. I obviously don't know what I'm talking about here, but I think the history of these lenses must tell us something. Perhaps someone with more optical expertise can shed more light on this, no pun intended....

-Ray
 

Landshark

PhotoDog
Location
SoCal
Real Name
Bob
Oh, and as for the 50-55 neighborhood, it does seem to be an exception. I can't say why exactly but it's probably related to the reason that in the early days of film SLR's, fast 50's were a dime a dozen and fast anything else was damn near impossible to find or prohibitively expensive. I think there's something about a relatively "neutral" focal length that just doesn't require as much glass or as much bending of light or whatever. I obviously don't know what I'm talking about here, but I think the history of these lenses must tell us something. Perhaps someone with more optical expertise can shed more light on this, no pun intended....

-Ray

That would be my guess
 

Landshark

PhotoDog
Location
SoCal
Real Name
Bob
its not a full stop faster because they are not equal objects they are equivalent objects, theres a difference. and that difference itself is different for DOF vs light gathering.

additionally, theres nothing i know of, and actual physicists among us please tell me where to get off, thats magical about the 50mm FL that cant be replicated at other FLs. once theres an exception to a rule, we really just have something we call a rule that has a hole in it.

so yeah, i guess if the object is to have a 56mm lens that acts like an 85, has light gathering ability of 1.2, but DOF of 1.8, we really have no other choice than fuji at this point in time. if the object is to say apsc gives a meaningful size advantage for normal people (none of whom ive ever known to require 1.2 at 85mm) shooting normal equipment in normal circumstances, i dont see it. the numbers are there. they will mean something to many and nothing to others. we can spin around on this til the cows come home.

however, my point was pretty simple: youre a photographer. you want to shoot a great 85, but want the rig to be as compact as possible. a FF A7 with a universally acclaimed FF G 85/1.8 is just as compact as the fuji alternative. on that theres no spinning around. you make your choice, but facts dictate that youre not any longer making it on comparative platform size. and for folks who believe that an 85 at 1.8 is slow, honestly, i have so little in common with them that i'd just have to smile, nod and walk away.
F1.2 is one stop faster that 1.8, dof equivalent does not mater when talking about speed (light gathering), in reality F stops are just mathematic estimates of the light gathering ability of lenses, t stops are the only true measurement of light gathering ability. If you are in to cars, its like when the manufacturer says the car has 300hp they usually mean at the crank, not a real world number; true HP of the car is what it puts out to the wheels which usably is much less.

Also one might not want to shoot wide open but most lenses are at there best two stops down, which would mead the F1.2 lens is best at Ff2.5 where as the F1.8 is now going to F3.5 still a stop slower.

Also many of us like should wide open not for the over used term background bokeh but for the sharp falloff right at the plane of focus
 

pniev

Student for life
I would not dare to add something to this discussion :), just that spec sheets can/may/might be misleading sometimes. Can't say much about other lenses mentioned but I've used the Nikon 85mm 1.8G and it's diameter is much bigger than the Fuji 56mm. Nikon has done a great job with the 1.8G lens lineup in keeping weight down.

Don't really know why I am adding this to the thread. Probably because I wanted to justify my earlier remark. :)
 

Landshark

PhotoDog
Location
SoCal
Real Name
Bob
Canon 85mm F1.2
Filter Thread Front:72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.6 x 3.3" (9.14 x 8.38 cm)
Weight 36.16 oz (1025 g)

Nikon 85mmF1.4
Filter Thread 77 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.1 x 5.7" (7.87 x 14.48 cm)
Weight 19.4 oz (550 g)

Fuji 56 mm F1.2
Filter Thread Front:62 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 2.88 x 2.74" (73.2 x 69.7 mm)
Weight 14.29 oz (405 g)
 

rbelyell

All-Pro
Location
NY Mtns
Tony, I'm not saying Fuji is BETTER than full frame with those smaller slower (or let's just call them "less fast") lenses - I'm just saying it's roughly the same in terms of both low light capability and narrow DOF (for those who care - I'm fine with m43 for DOF personally). Not that there's an advantage, but there's little DIS-advantage. At which point things like cost and overall size and, up until there are a few good mirrorless FF options, just the basic mirrorless shooting experience become the basis for deciding. I wasn't choosing between the Fuji gear and the A7 because the lenses aren't there for the A7 yet and probably won't be for a while. I was choosing basically between the Fuji and the Df. And for me, the tradeoffs favored the Fuji despite the ridiculously amazing sensor in the Df. Which I didn't feel like was all that more amazing once you took the lens choices into account. And I prefer having a good useable live view setup and I didn't really like having to clean the sensor so damn often on the Df (although I loved the battery life!).

I was more or less deciding that a DSLR wasn't for me. Once there are viable full frame mirrorless systems out there with a compliment of lenses, I reserve the right to change my mind. But if the same tradeoffs remain in terms of lens size and weight and cost, I may well sit tight with APS, lacking a compelling reason to switch...

-Ray

ray i'm not personalizing this re your decision. the issue was put in several posts, not yours, that fuji in particular or apsc in general offered a comparative size advantage to FF. my reply was 'it used to, but it doesnt anymore'. if one wants to shoot FF, or if one cares greatly about rig compactness and is choosing a platform, FF is competitively in the equation. it can no longer be summarily dismissed based on size like it could just a few years ago. my point was the numbers bear that out. to me as a photographer and not a physicist, a comparative size comparison between rigs does not center around F stops. that is just not the photographic equivalent of a 'singularity' or theory of everything. i'm just talking about putting together two roughly equivalent rigs in FF and apsc and running size/weight numbers. and the numbers i put together say to me apsc has lost its once competitive size advantage over FF--technology, not me, took that away.

as far as stops go, getting 'extra' from a camera or from a lens are not the same thing. at some point getting them from a lens is illusory because it comes at a great price: area in focus. at 1.2 for an 85 the area in focus is so thin that the 'extra stop' is not an advantage, its an illusion of an advantage.

getting an extra stop from a camera however is always a price-less advantage. if you like the look of camera A up to iso 3200 and camera B allows you to achive that same look at the same settings with the same or similar lens at 6400, theres nothing illusory about that, its a real advantage because it increases the aperture/SS choices you can make.

this is my problem with devolving all of photography to 'stops', and is my problem with the 'i only shoot wide open' crowd. imo burning for the fastest lens has nothing to do with photography--in fact, because theres no understanding of alternatives, it is the exact opposite of photography. i'm not at all saying thats what you do. you know what youre doing, ive seen your work. but the emphasis on 'stops' and 'advantages' makes it easy for the 90% who dont know what theyre doing to justify this 'super fast' shoot wide open' obsession that has led to several years of some of the worst pictures ive ever seen.

one of my favorite photos in the last 5 years was one i took in a room lit by birthday cake candles as they were just blown out. it was taken at iso 3200 f2 with my x100. the subject was in perfect focus, spot metered perfectly, background blurred perfectly. what 'advantage' would i have gotten with a 1.4 lens? thr fact is it would have yielded a lower iso higher SS photo where the subject would not have been in perfect focus. if i could nail that picture in those conditions with f2 what more advantage do i need? technology has afforded us the opportunity to deemphasize seeking extra 'stops' -- its giving them to us--and thus allows us to concentrate more on the other aspects of photography.
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Location
Not too far from Philly
Real Name
you should be able to figure it out...
ray i'm not personalizing this re your decision. the issue was put in several posts, not yours, that fuji in particular or apsc in general offered a comparative size advantage to FF. my reply was 'it used to, but it doesnt anymore'. if one wants to shoot FF, or if one cares greatly about rig compactness and is choosing a platform, FF is competitively in the equation. it can no longer be summarily dismissed based on size like it could just a few years ago. my point was the numbers bear that out. to me as a photographer and not a physicist, a comparative size comparison between rigs does not center around F stops. that is just not the photographic equivalent of a 'singularity' or theory of everything. i'm just talking about putting together two roughly equivalent rigs in FF and apsc and running size/weight numbers. and the numbers i put together say to me apsc has lost its once competitive size advantage over FF--technology, not me, took that away.

as far as stops go, getting 'extra' from a camera or from a lens are not the same thing. at some point getting them from a lens is illusory because it comes at a great price: area in focus. at 1.2 for an 85 the area in focus is so thin that the 'extra stop' is not an advantage, its an illusion of an advantage.

getting an extra stop from a camera however is always a price-less advantage. if you like the look of camera A up to iso 3200 and camera B allows you to achive that same look at the same settings with the same or similar lens at 6400, theres nothing illusory about that, its a real advantage.

this is my problem with devolving all of photography to 'stops', and is my problem with the 'i only shoot wide open' crowd. imo burning for the fastest lens has nothing to do with photography--in fact, because theres no understanding of alternatives, it has nothing at all to do with photography. i'm not at all saying thats what you do. you know what youre doing, ive seen your work. but the emphasis on 'stops' and 'advantages' makes it easy for the 90% who dont know what theyre doing to justify this 'super fast' shoot wide open' obsession that has led to several years of some of the worst pictures ive ever seen.

Well, then after all of this I think we're largely in agreement. I still think APS has a size advantage today only because most of the good full frame gear is still in the DSLR environment. I pretty much made the decision when comparing the XT1 to the Df that I could get similar size/weight lenses (again, slower on the Df but compensated for by the sensor) but the Df is still a much larger camera than the XT1. I didn't MIND that size mind you, but I was cognizant of it. So it was close to a break even proposition but with a larger body on the Df side. When and if the Sony lens lineup matures to the point that Canon and Nikon are at today with both faster and slower options, it'll be worth another look to see how the tradeoffs fall out because the Sony bodies are right in line with other mirrorless cameras.

I'm still not in total agreement on the relative advantages in lens speed vs camera speed. Again, the Fuji 56 f1.2 is going to be very similar in terms of DOF to the Nikon 85 f1.8 - BOTH are similarly thin wide open and I'd rarely shoot either of them there for something like a portrait where I want more than an eyelash in focus. But as you close them down at the same rate, the DOF will stay similar and Fuji will always gather a stop more light than the Nikon, more or less compensating for the one stop better sensor in they hypothetical full frame DSLR (probably a bit more than a stop in the Df). At the 35mm equivalent length, I did shoot the Nikon 35 f2.0 and RX1 35 f2.0 wide open quite a lot in low light and I do shoot the Fuji 23 f1.4 wide open and they're similar in terms of DOF, the Fuji pulls a stop more light, and the Fuji and the RX1 are both amazingly sharp wide open while that particular Nikon isn't. So I think these are compensating factors rather than a higher ISO sensor always being better than a faster lens. I shot stuff with the RX1 at 6400 last summer with the lens wide open at f2.0 that I'd have shot the Fuji with at f1.4 with the lens wide open at 3200 and the real world results would have been pretty similar other than in terms of resolution. I fully believe that to realize the advantage of a better high ISO sensor you do need similarly fast lenses (and those ARE bigger/heavier) - otherwise you're just trading one off for the other. But, again, I'm not saying this gives APS an advantage over full frame - I'm just saying the tradeoffs allow it to pull more or less even if you're using similar size/weight glass.

-Ray
 

Landshark

PhotoDog
Location
SoCal
Real Name
Bob
First off I agree with the basic premise that most photo hobbyist are many times consumed with the supposed theoretical capabilities of the equipment than we the creative process. How fast, the camera or lens is, how quick the autofocus is, how big the camera is, what the dials feel like or where the dials are located, face detection accuracy, histogram dof scale, iso accuracy, flip out screens, filter size, case type, neck straps, auto bracketing, time lapse time, shutter speed extremes, body or lens color, etc.; all are interesting discussions but at the end of the day have little to do with the actual end product in most cases. For me I just have to think of my small electric guitar and custom Uke collections, they al are amazing beautiful, professional instruments that are so far better than I will ever be at playing them, knowing that still does not make me want them or talk about them on some guitar or uke forum.

That being the case it still does not make an F1.8 have the equivalent light gather ability as a F1.2 lens and if you look at the specs of the FF lens form Canon and Nikon in the closest F stop to the Fuji you can see how much bigger they are. Now fill a bag up with 4 of those lenses and add a couple of bodies and the size and weight adds up to a lot more.

Also too only pick on shooting wide open as mistake of the moment is a little short sided the list of what is being done technically foolish in most hobbyist photography is very long
 

rbelyell

All-Pro
Location
NY Mtns
good points bob, and i mostly agree. i do specifically refer to light gathering ability as a slight plus in this specific situation. in real life however, if one can get great files at 6400 or even 12,800, the 'advantage' of superfast lenses is illusory, and unlike getting the extra stops from a camera, they come at a steep price--crappy focus. unless youre shooting black cats in a room without light there is simply no real life non professional need for a 1.2 lens. we used to call these 'specialty' lenses, used for very narrow particular purposes that i, much like you and musical instruments, have neither the vision nor capability of using properly. problem is 99% of those using them now are unknowingly in the same boat as i.

i also agree there is a lot going on with consumer camera trends that are disturbing in terms of the photographic process as we understand it. i pick on the 'fastest lens wide open' trend in particular because, at least to my eyes, this mindless obsession directly leads to crappy images, and a lot of 'em.

overall point to those seeking compact rigs that yield great IQ, investigate all your options, starting with m4/3, including apsc, but also now FF as well. and while youre investigating, consider spending more time learning about how the equipment youre investigating can be properly used to your advantage and less time trying to be the fastest gun in the west. your family will thank you when more than the tip of their noses come out in focus!
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Location
Not too far from Philly
Real Name
you should be able to figure it out...
thanks ray and i see your point, i just dont agree that we're just trading off a stop on the lens with a stop on the sensor. in the example i gave of my birthday cake photo the real life advantage i wouldve had with the rx1 over the fuji i used was that i could have shot the scene at 2.8 at 6400 and gotten the same IQ but deeper area in focus. it wouldve given me another choice--a real decision to make. a faster lens wouldve made no difference at all. a faster lens only makes a difference if its so dark you cannot otherwise get the shot given sensor iso restrictions. getting your extra stops from the camera gives you extra DOF and SS options, faster lenses only gives you decreased areas in focus.

Except that a 23mm lens at f2.0 on APS gives you about the same DOF as a full frame with a 35mm lens at f2.8. So while f1.2 is razor thin on the Fuji 56, it's about the same razor thin as f1.8 on the Nikon or Canon 85mm. So you pretty much equalize both depth of field AND low light capability by having a one stop faster lens on a sensor that requires a much wider lens to achieve the same field of view. If you'd shot that birthday cake with the Fuji at f2.0 (with a lens with the same field of view), you'd have had the same basic DOF. There are still advantages to the full frame sensor in terms of DR and the nearly unbreakable quality of the raw files. But if you expose the shot properly and don't need to go too crazy with the processing, a full frame shot with a 35mm lens at f2.8 at ISO 6400 will basically equate to an APS shot taken with a 23mm lens at f2.0 at ISO 3200 BOTH in terms of low light quality AND depth of field.

-Ray
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom