- Click magazine photography swirl bokeh lens full#
- Click magazine photography swirl bokeh lens series#
On Canon EOS M its focal length is 80mm with a depth of field of f/1.75, while on Micro Four Thirds it's 100mm and f/2.2 (in all instances, light transmission remains f/1.1, so no performance is lost in low light). On Sony and Fuji APS-C bodies it has a focal length of 75mm, with equivalent depth of field of f/1.65.
Click magazine photography swirl bokeh lens full#
Hmm.Kamlan 50mm f/1.1 II 1/6400 sec, f/1.1, ISO200 (Click top-right to view full size) (Image credit: Future) Kamlan 50mm f/1.1 II: Performanceįirst things first: while it's billed as a 50mm f/1.1, remember that this is affected by the crop of your sensor. These have the same sensor and the X100T lens is extremely good at f/5.6 as shoot. I noticed the same on the X100S, yet the X-T1 looks sharper. Anyway, something seems to be out of balance in the comparison. For example, the E-M5 RAW seems to have significantly more sharpening applied to it than the X100T RAW on this site. I think something may be a little off in the comparison process somewhere. Still not sure why the E-M5 should ever look better. Then I downloaded your RAW file for the the studio test shot with the X100T and when I opened it in LR with Camera Standard profile it looked better than the E-M5 (jpeg) except in the corners.
This surprised me because I own the X100T and the Nikon D7100 and I find the X100T's images are about equal in IQ when viewed at the same size, so I know the X100T performs better than these samples suggest. When I compared the test images of the X100T with the E-M5 and a few others I was disappointed at first because the X100T images looked soft. I'm very happy Fuji took a chance on this series! The quality is outstanding, in any light! Also, the whole machine is optimized for just that one lens. It's less expensive that the Leica lens alone, and more technologically advanced than the overpriced, bulky Leica digital bodies.
Click magazine photography swirl bokeh lens series#
The x100 series has for many become the "Leica with 35 Summicron" of the current era. Also, the feeling of a particular camera, which as Cartier Bresson noted, becomes an extension of your hand and your eye, gives a certain satisfaction. It can be a very direct and engaged way of working. One learns instinctively what the frame will be, and doesn't fiddle with zooming, changing lenses, etc. I've made many of my best photos with this combination. There are those, photographers, rather than camera-review buffs, who realize that any given picture is made with one camera and one lens, and have developed a way of moving in the world and shooting that works with a small, quiet rangefinder and 35mm lens. If I want to print this size then both of these sensors are fairly limiting.
And yes, I want to be able to see more and more detail the closer I get to the surface. I personally am interested in printing images as large as 8 feet across so resolution is an important factor for me. If you aren't going to print 24 x 16 inches or larger then you don't necessarily need the higher resolution. This sensor will produce a print that is 24.48 x 16.32 inches at the same 300 dpi. The 24mp aps-c sensor produces an image that is 1.5x greater resolution than the 16mp sensor.
Sure you can upscale that file but it WILL lower the IQ of the image. The 16mp sensor of the fuji aps-c cameras has a max raw file resolution of 16.32 x 10.88 inches at 300 dpi.
Whether something is higher or lower resolution is completely relative to what you're comparing it to. Who ever said 16mp was low resolution? The way I see resolution discussed on these forums often isn't logical. I would definitely lean more in the direction of the LX100. Not yet owning either, not affected by buyer's bias, having seen: the test photos, the size (this one is huge by today's mirrorless standards), and the pricing (which is also huge). G1Xii proves it would be possible to give this a bright zoom.Īlthough X-trans may be nice for architecture photography, helping reduce moiré, it isn't quite as sharp as bayer when you inspect fine details in test photos when they compared the cameras in this category. This is from a very brief era: the transitional period where you couldn't get a large sensor fast lens pocketable camera with a zoom. If it was really inexpensive, I would say yes, it's great bang for the buck. It was a nice compromise, not having interchangeable lenses or zoom capabilities.īut when I look at the LX100, I don't really understand this product still being offered in it's current state. When mirrorless was starting out, it was nice to have a camera like this.
0 kommentar(er)
