Sagitar Posted June 19, 2013 Report Share Posted June 19, 2013 Fuji have just brought out their first long lens for the X-Pro and I was lucky enough to get one for my birthday last week. It's a 55-200 mm zoom and on the X-Pro it gives the same coverage as a 82 to 300 mm lens on a full frame camera. Maximum aperture is 1:3.5-4.8 and it is image stabilised. Today, for the first time, I got enough time to play with it and there are some images below, taken in the back garden at various distances, apertures and shutter speeds. The conditions for experimenting were excellent. The light was bright without being too harsh and there was almost no wind, so I was able to use slow shutter speeds without going to high ISOs. The next two are part of a series that I shot keeping all the settings the same and changing only the aperture (letting the camera set the shutter speed). Both are at 200mm and focused on the pattern in the bird bath. The first is set to maximum aperture (f/4.8) and the second to minimum aperture (f/22). The difference in depth of field should be pretty obvious. It doesn't give me the reach of the longest of my Canon lenses, but it is much more compact and light and the quality is pretty good. I'm looking forward to using it on holiday next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Wonderful images as usual... Image number four really stands out for me, reason being the clarity pushes the eye toward the perfectly focused table/ ornament, it almost looks 3D...... That or my eyes are off again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Lovely photos there and I agree with Tony the DOF on the bird bath is just right. I just googled the camera you have and nearly fainted at the cost! Considering it's not a DSLR why are they so expensive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Results reflect the price Rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Results reflect the price Rich. It's not the camera though more the operator, you should know that Plenty of awesome photos out there taken on compacts! I think it's probably down to the compactness of the X-Pro and the retro design. I have been thinking of selling my DSLR and getting something like the X-Pro as I do feel self-conscious carrying it about sometimes as they're quite big and noisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted June 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Considering it's not a DSLR why are they so expensive? It's all relative. I don't think you will find a body with all its features for much less. The hybrid viewfinder allows a straight optical view with variable frames, or an electronic view of the through-the-lens image. It has an APS-C size sensor with a 1.5 crop factor and uses a sensor array that is randomised to avoid the need for an anti-aliasing filter so that it gives better resolution, especially at high ISO. Here is a quote from a review that compares the X-Pro1 and the (full frame) Leica M9, costing four or five times as much:- ISO 2500 In terms of high ISO performance, the Fuji X-Pro 1 is a clear winner and probably has one of the best performing APS-C sensors out there. The Leica M9 camera is almost three years old - I will revisit this comparison once the next M camera is released later this year. It is a very selective quote and I wouldn't want you to read too much into it, but it does make the point that a lot has gone into the technology and prices rise very sharply to achieve the last few percent of performance. The lenses that Fuji has produced for this camera are of very good quality and though most people would see them as expensive, (the one with which I took these images cost £600) they are good value when compared with the big boys. There isn't much point in putting very good glass onto a mediocre body. The camera is generally good for me, because it is light compared with my comparable DSLRs and I can no longer walk for a day carrying a heavy load. My only real criticism of it is that the manual focusing is poor. It is by-wire rather than direct and it does not have the feel that I want. It's not a big problem for me because I use manual focusing very little, but it really isn't good enough on a camera of this quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Can't disagree the image is in the eye of the beholder and i suppose this why i find the images so appealing. Some that Sagitar has displayed are open to.... How do i say this without offending? .... Open to debate is the best i can offer, but others are exemplary in clarity, depth and most importantly vision in my mind. It's not often i would sit back from my PC, look and ponder the image displayed but i have done many times with the images Sagitar offers. I suppose a laymen like me has no right to judge what looks right or wrong but since i consider myself the general public i think i can offer an opinion and this is i feel some of the images are totally stunning, i really wish i had the brains-V-understanding to do this myself? My advice to Sagitar for what's it's worth you need to watermark these images because they are open to "abuse" whereas you could capitalise the real value personally, in fact i would buy some of them signed by you as an introduction to nature and a belief the captured image will grow in value..... There i said it...... Throwing stones at Tony is booked for 9pm tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 It's all relative. I don't think you will find a body with all its features for much less. That is what it comes down to, the smaller technology gets the more expensive it is! Even the Nikon 1 costs as much as an entry level DSLR. Mind you now that I'm moving I might use the camera more in the garden or try some long exposures that I've still not really tried out yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Is there anything about the nature of a DSLR that makes quality better or is it simply the fact that it has higher quality components in it (larger sensor, better lenses, etc.)? There seem to a growing number of people who feel that interchangeable lens cameras are getting pretty close to DSLRs - and to most casual users I think the decision between the two is getting tougher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Is there anything about the nature of a DSLR that makes quality better or is it simply the fact that it has higher quality components in it (larger sensor, better lenses, etc.)? There seem to a growing number of people who feel that interchangeable lens cameras are getting pretty close to DSLRs - and to most casual users I think the decision between the two is getting tougher. Yes I think the sensors are larger and you can get more reach on the lenses as well but I think as technology improves these won't become an issue any more. My camera (basic kit) is selling for around £250 now so I've lost £200 on it already but the lenses seem to hold their value very well. TBH I think I might just keep it as I've been using it alot lately just to take photos of things I'm selling and it's so easy to hold and navigate around. From what I have seen with these cameras like the X-Pro it seems to be people who already have DSLRs that are buying them or money is no object. I can't really see an amateur photographer going out and spending £500 - £1,000 on this type of camera when a decent compact/bridge is all they probably need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 I notice the cost of a set of lenses for the X-Pro are slightly more than the basic camera, but guess it's always been the case that the better quality doesn't come cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 How very true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted June 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2013 I notice the cost of a set of lenses for the X-Pro are slightly more than the basic camera, but guess it's always been the case that the better quality doesn't come cheap. I believe lens design has gone in two directions. There is now a very wide range of competent "budget" lenses that will do as much as most people want for not too much money. At the same time we are seeing increasingly exotic lenses, using special glasses and complex structures to give improved performance. Comparison of the prices makes the point. For example, you can buy an image stabilised 70-300mm zoom Canon APS-C lens with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at the long end for about £300. The full-frame "L" version of the similarly specified lens from the same manufacturer will set you back £1,100. The differences are in things like focusing speed, IS quality, minimum focusing distance, minimum aperture size, quietness, bokeh, aberration (spherical and chromatic), distortion and resolution, especially at the edge and corners, vignetting, resistance to flaring, size/weight and of course quality of construction. In any technology, the last few % of performance always costs a disproportionate amount. "You pays your money" etc . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 You know what as much as i don't understand the technical arena here the topic and explanations really open a new type of window. "The differences are in things like focusing speed, IS quality, minimum focusing distance, minimum aperture size, quietness, bokeh, aberration (spherical and chromatic), distortion and resolution, especially at the edge and corners, vignetting, resistance to flaring, size/weight and of course quality of construction." What an invigorating paragraph! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.