rbelyell
Well-known
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
No Get Well cards please
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...
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
Mentor
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
1. F/16
2. Inf focus.
Why bother?
Wayne
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
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/danieljenkinsstudios/7641446806/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...
anyway, here's another one to throw a monkey into the spanner works..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danieljenkinsstudios/7641446806/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
No Get Well cards please
and... http://www.flickr.com/photos/danieljenkinsstudios/7641484090/in/photostream
same settings as the post above.
same settings as the post above.
Pete B
Well-known
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
Pete
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
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
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
Well-known
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
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
aleksanderpolo
Established
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
name under my name
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?
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
Established
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.
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
Well-known
venchka
Mentor
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
Established
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.
Focus assist mode is in page 4 of setup menu by the way.
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
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
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
No Get Well cards please
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
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
just curious
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.
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
No Get Well cards please
here here...
rbelyell
Well-known
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'.
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
curmudgeonly optimist
Again, and seriously: what does the word "depth" mean in this context? Because I seriously don't know what you mean.