GarethO
Member
I have no experience with rangefinders, hense I am new to this forum. I have a d700 and a d300s.
manual focus is actually really nice.
it apparently is not mechanical, however it is extremely long throw compared to my AF-S G Nikon lenses. I mean you really have to crank on that thing a few turns to see it move at close focus distances. this is great for macro. bad for macro is the fact that the EVF doesn't zoom for better focussing.
the major limiting factor to manual focus in any mode is the super shallow focus ring. it was made shallow so as the lens is shallow, but it is hard to grip without bumping something.
The AF-C point is in the middle, but you can easily recompose as the depth of field of a 24mm lens on a crop sensor is what you would expect.
manual focus is actually really nice.
it apparently is not mechanical, however it is extremely long throw compared to my AF-S G Nikon lenses. I mean you really have to crank on that thing a few turns to see it move at close focus distances. this is great for macro. bad for macro is the fact that the EVF doesn't zoom for better focussing.
the major limiting factor to manual focus in any mode is the super shallow focus ring. it was made shallow so as the lens is shallow, but it is hard to grip without bumping something.
The AF-C point is in the middle, but you can easily recompose as the depth of field of a 24mm lens on a crop sensor is what you would expect.
Spyro
Well-known
First thing you should know about this forum is that colour is a very important issue, people have spent sleepless nights dreaming of black cameras, worrying if the camera they sent to Japan to have repainted will ever return and discussing what is the best method for removing chrome. So fess up, what is that black version you mentioned at the start??
special.foto
see twice, shoot once
i'm sorry, i haven't understood. Is it accurate? is it fast?. I am very concearned of the acuracy in manual focus and in autofocus if you can cycle easily through af points. From what you said, you must press AF and "left, right, up, down" to do that? (I'm sorry, i am from Romania and this camera will be on the market here only on the 1st of may, so i have to wait longer to test it)
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
You're probably lucky because many of the questions you're concerned with will be tried and posted about by early adopters elsewhere around the globe, without you having to splunk down $1200 yourself upfront.
special.foto
see twice, shoot once
True and optimistic
! I wouldn't give $1200 if i had doubts about the camera, it figures. I always test what i buy, i read, i compare, so i know what to expect from it (also i wouldn't afford to just give that money away for something that doesn't suit my needs). Of course, i will be reading owner opinions like crazy (only the pertinent ones).Assaf
Well-known
Hi GarethO,
thanks a lot for the review!
One thing I'm curious about this camera is the depth of field issue.
I like taking "environmental portraits" usually with 50mm or 40mm on film. Usually shooting from a distance of about one meter, with a wide aperture in order to blur the background. I'd like to see such shots from the X100.
Roughly, calculations show that the depth of field on the 23/2 lens is something like 35/2.8 on full frame. However, in all the test shots I saw for the X100, it looks less.
Can you try doing a favor and take such a shot? A person from about a meter away, wide open?
Thanks a lot
Assaf
thanks a lot for the review!
One thing I'm curious about this camera is the depth of field issue.
I like taking "environmental portraits" usually with 50mm or 40mm on film. Usually shooting from a distance of about one meter, with a wide aperture in order to blur the background. I'd like to see such shots from the X100.
Roughly, calculations show that the depth of field on the 23/2 lens is something like 35/2.8 on full frame. However, in all the test shots I saw for the X100, it looks less.
Can you try doing a favor and take such a shot? A person from about a meter away, wide open?
Thanks a lot
Assaf
Spyro
Well-known
Lucky me, I dont need reviews, I'm happy just with what is on the specsheet: it has a viewfinder, it has no mirror, it has 35 f2 and a leaf shutter. I cant go wrong.
GarethO
Member
if you are wanting to manually focus accurately on a moving subject i'de say you will have problems. the focus ring is hard to grip and requires a lot of turning to adjust focus, ie; it's not fast to manually focus.
the AF-C only has one point that you cannot adjust right in the middle. it does track the subject, but you cannot see the focus "star" move.
the points i referred to are for AF-S focussing only.
I imagine you will not find the camera suitable.
GarethO
Member
the lady you see is about a metre away. the depth of field is not shallow. that is a big reason why you need f/2, not slower like competing brands lenses.
think of it like this.
frame a nice headshot with a full frame camera using a 24mm at f/2.
now frame the same photograph using a 24mm lens on a crop at f/2. you will need to increase your subject to camera distance by 1.5, which increases your depth of field by 1.5.
therefore a crop sensor has less depth of field that a full frame (i know people will go on about this, but whatever)
a 24 (or 23mm lens) is a 24mm lens on all cameras.
i shoot nikon so lets think about the 24 1.4G.
if i frame a shot on my d700 at f/2 i will not get a particularly shallow depth of field. on my d700.
now, if i frame the same shot on my d300s using the same lens at f/2 I will need to step back a bit. increasing the subject to camera distance by 1.5 in order to frame the same shot will increase the depth of field by 1.5.
now if the depth of field of the 24 1.4 at f/2 is not that shallow on a full frame, it is less shallow on a crop sensor, and this is exactly what you have in the X100.
I have the 35 1.4G for environmental portraits on my d700 and it can blur the background very nicely if you don't mind a bit of barrel distortion. it is still no match for a 2 or 2.8 super tele though.
cjcm
Member
I agree on the larger DOF, but @f2/1meter, that's still not a lot if you've a capricious target
.However, the centered AF-C captor maybe a false problem.
I need to start AF-C on my picture target on the center of the frame, and then recompose. The camera will still lock focus on the target, and even if the target move afterwards. AS long as I can keep my decentered framing on the capricious subject, the subject will still be in focus
Let me know if you can confirm. That would be great
. Thanks !!!
Last edited:
GarethO
Member
I agree on the larger DOF, but @f2/1meter, that's still not a lot if you've a capricious target
However, the centered AF-C captor maybe a false problem.
I need to start AF-C on my picture target on the center of the frame, and then recompose. The camera will still lock focus on the target, and even if the target move afterwards. AS long as I can keep my decentered framing on the capricious subject, the subject will still be in focus
Let me know if you can confirm. That would be great
yes, this is how it works. how accurate it is if the target moves considerably I am not too sure.
FrankS
Registered User
Let's act like gentlemen. Posts with personal attacks were deleted.
The way I read it is that Gareth is expressing his personal opinion based on his experience with this camera.
He thinks people will have difficulty focusing on moving subjects, and he thinks the camera may not be suitable for this.
The way I read it is that Gareth is expressing his personal opinion based on his experience with this camera.
He thinks people will have difficulty focusing on moving subjects, and he thinks the camera may not be suitable for this.
Last edited:
GarethO
Member
just like an slr you cannot adjust many settings after going into movie mode. you must focus manually (or automatically and "lock" into manual, or hold AFL) and then go into the drive menu and select movie.
if you select AF-S in shooting mode movie mode is still AF-C.
if you select AF-S in shooting mode movie mode is still AF-C.
Assaf
Well-known
Thanks Gareth!
I also looked in an on line depth of field calculator, and played with it a little.
If I use this calculator
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
I see that the depth of field of 23/2 on crop 1.6 is rougly like 35/2.8 on full frame.
However, when I use 35/2.8 or mostly 40 at f4 (I use it a lot lately on Leica CL with summicron 40) I get a superb focus deparation. On the X100 examples, it doesn't look this way. Maybe because the lens is not very sharp at f2, so the focus difference is less apparent? I don't know
Anyway, I'd like to see more examples
Thanks a lot and have fun with the new camera (I envy you....)
Assaf
GarethO
Member
for some reason I cannot get that calculator to work as I think it should.
X100 w/ 23mm at f/2 and 100mm distance from subject = 14.9cm total DOF
D700 w/ 23mm at f/2 and 82mm distance from subject = 14.9 total DOF
the X100 is sharp at f/2 and this has nothing to do with the huge depth of field of crop sensors and wide lenses.
X100 w/ 23mm at f/2 and 100mm distance from subject = 14.9cm total DOF
D700 w/ 23mm at f/2 and 82mm distance from subject = 14.9 total DOF
the X100 is sharp at f/2 and this has nothing to do with the huge depth of field of crop sensors and wide lenses.
Last edited:
Ranchu
-
No the subject distance would be the same. The 'croped sensor' is compensated for by the shorter focal length lens.
Going to bed, it's late, but I think that's correct...
Going to bed, it's late, but I think that's correct...
GarethO
Member
yes, you are right. i realised when i was cooking dinner.
i will edit the post
OK, as I have never really been so anal as to actually calculate the DOF rather than just guess I have never realised that DOF is not a factor of 1.5 when comparing crop to 35mm sensors.
the formulas are here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_formulas
as any sane person is not going to use those every time they take a pic I will try to post some samples of what you are looking for.
how much of a body would you like in the shot? I generally shoot 1/3 or more at 35mm. the X100 has very little distortion and would be fine closer IMO.
i will edit the post
OK, as I have never really been so anal as to actually calculate the DOF rather than just guess I have never realised that DOF is not a factor of 1.5 when comparing crop to 35mm sensors.
the formulas are here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_formulas
as any sane person is not going to use those every time they take a pic I will try to post some samples of what you are looking for.
how much of a body would you like in the shot? I generally shoot 1/3 or more at 35mm. the X100 has very little distortion and would be fine closer IMO.
Last edited:
cjcm
Member
ChrisN
Striving
Bravo!
I've seen a few mentions of the very long throw required for manual focusing. Now I've read in the manual that when the camera is set for manual focus, you can make it auto-focus by pushing the "AFL/AEL" button to get you into approximately correct focus, then fine-tune with the manual focus ring. It sounds like the designers have decided upon an "assisted" manual focus approach. I'm not sure how this would work for me as I hate having to find a button with my thumb while I'm composing. Pentax allow a similar function with some dSLR lenses that allow a manual adjustment after the auto-focus has locked.
monochromeimages
Established
This doesn't sound good. The hybrid VF is supposed to be one of the great new features of this camera and for me (and I suspect many others) the proper optical VF is possibly the most appealing feature. How far out is it ? Is it reasonably accurate for 'normal' outdoor shots at longer distances ?
I remember years ago a friend and I both bought Fuji Finepix 6800s. The optical VFs of both were WAY out - so far that they were totally unacceptable. More worrying was that the error on both was identical. I hope Fuji have learned something since then.