Friday, December 12, 2014
Hope to write a bit more about it. But at the moment, I can see my m43 system being sold, and likely my Nikon as well....
Here is one of the first images with the 35/1.4.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Location:My kitted out X2
Sunday, January 13, 2013
- Great usability for someone who likes a more traditional approach. The buttons and dials can be tailored to suit.
- Manual focus is the best I have used on any EVF. This makes me want to use my old Contax lenses.
- Very small and light-weight. But not the same as the Leica X2.
- Quite responsive in its operation. The Auto-focus was quite quick, a lot better than the GF1 and the X2. But definitely not as quick as the OM-D.
- The 35/1.8 is a little soft at 1.8. But by 2.8 it is much better.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
My recent sale of my OM-D was linked to the fact that I didn't like its operational layout and its subjective image quality wasn't my taste. The sharpness, IS and autofocus is without peer in my current camera inventory (i.e., no other camera has the combination of all three). But it just didn't feel right in my hands and the images didn't present well to my eyes. I note the caveat that it is purely subjective to my own needs. On the other hand, the Leica X2 and the (old) Panasonic GF1 was much better suited. None of those two has fast autofocus or IS; but the tactile feel and operation of the camera and the final image all appealed to me.
What I wanted to do now, in tandem with my RAW processor comparison is to do a short comparison between the GF1 and X2. This will simply involve the comparison of a range of typical images between the two cameras. Nothing scientific. Each photo from each camera at about the same time. I will be using the 20/1.7 on the GF1, and the X2 has the fixed 24/2.8. Perspective will not change, so the images will have a different field of view. Apertures will be matched where possible. But as I said, nothing scientific.
At the moment, all my RAW convertors, with the exception of DxO 8 supports both cameras, and will also involve a RAW convertor comparison between cameras. It will be interesting to see how DxO's image processing compares with other converters (something that I have wanted to know for a very long time) and how that would compare against a hand tuned processing on different cameras. For me, that is, the question is; will getting/using DxO with a cheaper lens and camera combination better an inherent superior lens and camera?
Thursday, January 3, 2013
In the next few weeks, I will have some time to devote to photography. The two items on the agenda are a OM-D replacement and testing of RAW Converters. Currently, I have licenses for Aperture, Capture One, Lightroom, DxO and RAW Developer. I have recently tried Raw Photo Processor and appears to be an interesting tool. For this test, my aim to take a few standard images from my Leica X2 and Panasonic GF1 and compare the outputs.
On that note, I have recently come to appreciate the GF1. Of those images that I printed out and loved of my kids, almost half of them were taken with the GF1 and the 20m f/1.7 lens. Not the fastest combination around, nor does it have the best high ISO performance, but the results speak for themselves. Incidentally, of those that I wanted to print, very few came from the OM-D.
Finally, I had a chance to quickly play with the XE-1. It appeared to be reasonable responsive, and focused fairly quickly. But I did notice the EVF did have a little bit of tearing in certain circumstances and also had minor lag. It was only a brief test, but I have to say that I wasn't 100% sold. The resolution is great, and the MF on the rear LCD was actually quite useable. Warrants more testing time.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
The good news is that I now have funds for another camera! The first one that has popped into mind is the Fujifilm X-Pro 1 or X-E1. They both feature very simple dial controls for the essentials, but both still lack an ISO selector. Some of the high ISO images I have seen from either camera is pretty amazing. Just looking at the sample image at ISO 3200 at dpreview.com and it seems to have less noise than the D700! My only fear is the slow AF. But having got used to the X2's slower than DSLR AF, I think that it may not be an issue. But right now, the question is X-Pro 1 or the X-E1....
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Long time between posts. But this is a short one about bokeh. For me it has two qualities - the aesthetic look and the degree of blurring. The former can only be decided on a per lens basis and is highly subjective. The second factor, which is degree of blurring, is primarily based on the objective size. That is, the true aperture size. The larger the physical size of the diameter, the more the blur. For example, a 50mm f/2.0 has an aperture size of 25mm. A 200mm f/2.0 lens has an aperture size of 100mm. In most circumstances (i.e., same image size) the blur on the 200mm at f/2.0 will be far more than the 50mm f/2.0.
Given this, and the fact that I love blurred out background, I can make an informed choice between lenses as to which one will give me the most blur - but not necessarily the most beautiful blur. Some interesting conclusions is that the smaller the format, the larger the aperture needs to be to have good background blur.
In principle, my choices of lens for bokeh (for full frame D700) ranges between 50mm to 300mm. In this example, the following is a measure of the theoretical aperture size for various lenses. Noting that the large the aperture, the more blur.
50mm f/1.0 = 50mm (e.g., Leica Noctilux)
50mm f/1.4 = 35mm
85mm f/1.4 = 60mm
85mm f/1.8 = 47mm
100mm f/2.0 = 50mm (e.g., Zeiss ZF2 Planar)
135mm f/2.0 = 67mm (e.g., Zeiss ZF2)
200mm f/2.0 = 100mm (e.g., Nikon 200mm f/2.0 )
200mm f/2.8 = 71mm (e.g., f/2.8 70-200 zooms)
300mm f/4.0 = 75mm (e.g., Nikon 300mm f/4.0)
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Sunday, September 2, 2012