Fuji X-Pro 1: Viable host for rangefinder glass ?

[adanac]

Like many I have high hopes for this camera as a host for M lenses given it has a different sensor implementation and no anti-alias filter. Samples are starting to emerge.

Here's a thread to discuss RF lens performance on this camera.

 

[adanac]

A series of shots taken with the CV15 and CV12.

CV_15mm_F8B | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[adanac]

Copied from the X Pro 1 images thread to here:

Here's a series of images taken with the CV15mm f/4.5 M LTM converted to M mount lens.

Fuji X-Pro 1 with Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 | picabroad.com

Hate to say it, but this is yet another photographer posting wide angle images with noticeable detail smearing away from the centre. The CV15 should perform far better than this even wide open, and clearly does perform miles better on the NEX-5N and GXR M Mount.

This story is reminding me of the trickle of first images taken with M glass on the NEX-7 which doesn't do nearly as well with the CV15 and many wide angle rangefinder lenses. Hope not, but fear so.

 

[adanac]

Copied from the X Pro 1 images thread to here, hope you don't mind Dan but it seemed better than polluting that thread with rangefinder lens chit chat.

I see what you mean, but frankly I am not put off by that. Overall the images are more than passable. It will be interesting to see further examples with longer lenses. Perhaps I am just too accustomed to seeing loss of edge detail in wide angle shots.

 

[adanac]

It might be passable for me if the problem were were only the edges, but I wonder if it's worse than that, for this lens at least. Even at web viewing size you can see in images three and four that there is something wrong. Looking closer it's not just the edges but the outer third of the image on the horizontal axis is progressively more affected.

It is true that the CV15 can be a challenging lens on some cameras, but on APS-C cameras not to the extent we see here. On the NEX-5N it is a great (and for the price, stellar) performer. The biggest challenge for NEX-7 users is the colour shift you get with this combo but that can be fixed in post, even if it is an additional step to do so, and you can semi-automate the repair. Detail that was never captured in the first place can't be repaired.

Even if this problem affects a broad range of lenses or focal lengths I'm not suggesting it won't be useable, but for some purposes the camera might not be my first choice if that proves to be the case.

Like you I'm keen to see examples made by rangefinder lenses in the 20 - 50mm focal length.

 

[Country Parson]

Here is one with a 12mm voigtlander. Looks good to me. Am I missing something?

Pro1_Volt_12mmF5.6_ISO3200_Tv30 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[Country Parson]

Here is one with a Leica Noct. 50mm F1. I have already pre-ordered the M adapter for the Xpro. While I don't have Leica glass I do have Voigtlander and perhaps will get more. On the other hand, the Cartier-Bresson interview brought out that he used the 50mm almost exclusively.

leica_noct_50mm_F1_1600_50mmTv30 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[Armanius]

The XP1 seems to handle the wide lenses w/o any cyan edges. But those photos look so blah. I suppose it might just be the subject and drewery sky. Photos that I am seeing from the native Fuji XF lenses seem to look nicer than the sample M ones from this particular Flickr photostream.

There was another photostream from some guy's website that I think was already linked to (in a different thread). His photos using a SLR Hyperprime 50/0.95 looked much better.

 

[Country Parson]

I agree that the Xf lens pics look better, in fact some have an almost 3-D appearance to me. But the point of those examples was to show that the Xpro can use such lenses effectively.

 

[Jun]

The XP1 seems to handle the wide lenses w/o any cyan edges. But those photos look so blah. I suppose it might just be the subject and drewery sky. Photos that I am seeing from the native Fuji XF lenses seem to look nicer than the sample M ones from this particular Flickr photostream.

There was another photostream from some guy's website that I think was already linked to (in a different thread). His photos using a SLR Hyperprime 50/0.95 looked much better.

EXCLUSIVE: SLR Magic Hyperprime 50mm 0.95 on Fuji XPro1 & Leica M9

This is the link you mentioned.

 

[adanac]

Here is one with a 12mm voigtlander. Looks good to me. Am I missing something?

Pro1_Volt_12mmF5.6_ISO3200_Tv30 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Yup. Close in focus of "problematic" wide angle lenses will tend to look better. The exit pupil of the lens is farther away from the sensor the closer in you focus. Some dispute this... they may be correct, but others don't. Certainly I see more problems with difficult lenses as they are focused towards the infinity stop. For an ultra wide angle lens, that's not very far out at all.

It could be a bigger factor in influencing our perceptions is that for nearby subjects depth of field is reduced at any given aperture, and this tends to mask some of the edge problems. You can see smearing in the image linked but it just doesn't matter as much.

 

[adanac]

EXCLUSIVE: SLR Magic Hyperprime 50mm 0.95 on Fuji XPro1 & Leica M9

This is the link you mentioned.

Those are great images but the very shallow depth of field intentionally used would definitely hide the issue I'm referring to. Nothing wrong with that.

If the SLR Magic Hyperprime happens to be a retrofocal design, it may be more immune to the problem in the first place.

 

[Armanius]

Yup. Close in focus of "problematic" wide angle lenses will tend to look better. The exit pupil of the lens is farther away from the sensor the closer in you focus. Some dispute this... they may be correct, but others don't. Certainly I see more problems with difficult lenses as they are focused towards the infinity stop. For an ultra wide angle lens, that's not very far out at all.

It could be a bigger factor in influencing our perceptions is that for nearby subjects depth of field is reduced at any given aperture, and this tends to mask some of the edge problems. You can see smearing in the image linked but it just doesn't matter as much.

Mike, you are a much better (and smarter) man than me!!

 

[adanac]

Nah, just trying to understand these things myself. I may have learned a thing or two while living with the NEX-5N and a bunch of rangefinder lenses, while at the same time hoping the NEX-7 would treat RF lenses even better (no simple answer there), and then using the GXR which while it has its issues, treating the lenses well is not one of them. I'm not aware of a bad lens-camera matchup on the GXR which is saying something.

The X-Pro 1 with the new colour filter and no anti-alias filter on paper sounded like it could be wonderful with all manner of problematic M lenses but in the first look it seems that hope might have been a stop or two... too optimistic?

Anyway, if the NEX-7 experience means anything, the camera -- from a rangefinder lens user's perspective only -- should not be condemned outright even if some lenses don't work well. We'll probably find that some work really well in every situation, and a great many more will work perfectly well for certain photographers and the way they work. And some folks of course just won't care if they love using a camera for other reasons. Nothing wrong with that!

 

[Country Parson]

Nah, just trying to understand these things myself. I may have learned a thing or two while living with the NEX-5N and a bunch of rangefinder lenses, while at the same time hoping the NEX-7 would treat RF lenses even better (no simple answer there), and then using the GXR which while it has its issues, treating the lenses well is not one of them. I'm not aware of a bad lens-camera matchup on the GXR which is saying something.

The X-Pro 1 with the new colour filter and no anti-alias filter on paper sounded like it could be wonderful with all manner of problematic M lenses but in the first look it seems that hope might have been a stop or two... too optimistic?

Anyway, if the NEX-7 experience means anything, the camera -- from a rangefinder lens user's perspective only -- should not be condemned outright even if some lenses don't work well. We'll probably find that some work really well in every situation, and a great many more will work perfectly well for certain photographers and the way they work. And some folks of course just won't care if they love using a camera for other reasons. Nothing wrong with that!

Well said.

 

[adanac]

Member Pelao has posted link to a series of images shot open and stopped down with various M mount lenses. this thread.

http://picabroad.com/2012/03/24/fuji-x-pro-1-grand-test-with-leica-m-mount-lenses/

The picabroad.com site has another post showing the CV15mm lens shot on the X-Pro 1; that post has recently been updated to include images produced with the same lens but mounted on a Leica M8, M9, and a Ricoh GXR.

Fuji X-Pro 1 with Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 | picabroad.com

 

[Armanius]

What happens to the DOF scale on M lenses when used on a cropped sensor camera like the XP1? Do we need to convert the figures, or is it still exactly the same?

Thanks!

 

[flysurfer]

Lenses never change.

 

[Armanius]

Thanks Fly!!

 

[Luckypenguin]

The depth of field for any given lens will be less when used on an APS-C camera than it will on a full-frame camera. To print the final image at the same size, the image projected onto a smaller sensor has to be magnified more, so the circles of confusion that appear distinct on an image from a full-frame sensor may appear less distinct on an image from an APS-C sensor. A good approximation will be to use the DOF markings one stop wider than the actual aperture you are using i.e. use the f/5.6 markings when shooting at f/8 (assuming that the markings are accurate to begin with...).