semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
"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
Well-known
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
curmudgeonly optimist
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.
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
Well-known
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.
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
curmudgeonly optimist
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.
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
curmudgeonly optimist
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
Mentor
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
No Get Well cards please
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