I've thrown 6 m-mount lenses (and the fuji 35mm 1.4) onto this camera.
Results are at picabroad.com |
my question is, how does the Fuji output compare to Leica output using those lenses?
Comparing the performances of a given lens on cameras having different sensor size does not make much sense, in my opinion.
From what I see, Fuji X Pro 1 is a no go for Leica glass. That's too bad. GXR-M is a way to go for a non Leica route right now, it seems.
I find much easier to manual focus focus not only with the GRX-M but also with the Olympus EP-3 even if in the latter there is no focus peaking implemented.
The other reason is the poorer (compared with the GXR-M) image quality at the corners and at the borders when using certain WA lenses; from what I have personally seen with my lenses and my cameras this difference is quite evident using the CV 15, less visible but still present using the CV 12, The Zeiss 18 and the Leica WATE.
With its native lenses the Fuji X Pro 1 is a joy to use.
www.arioarioldi.net1 Member(s) liked this post
This is most disappointing.
Thanks for posting this Cyrus. I wonder what causes the borders to be so bad?
Forgetting the wide angles ..how can this be ? I don t doubt the tests but I can t understand whats happening . Take a 50 summilux and the results look somewhat mushy like you get when adding to much noise reduction . I also don t see the micro contrast that I know the lens can produce .
When I use Leica R glass on either Nikon or Canon DSLR I can see the signature of the lens immediately and the resolution is superb . This was true with even the D700 a 12MP sensor . What was different was the color saturation and contrast .
I had the same reaction to the Sony Nex 7 ..flat almost desaturated color . I know with the Sony you can get a good image if you work on the post processing but it’s not as easy as calibration and presets .
To draw any conclusions you need to hold some of the variables constant . Did you shoot the same scene with a fuji lens ? I would also bet the in camera jpegs are better than what is shown (which would be suboptimal but consistent). My guess is that the raw conversion software isn t really tuned or ready .
The jpegs are just the same (one is included from the Zeiss Biogon 21mm) so I doubt Silkypix is at fault (the same standard settings were used for all pictures save that noise reduction was turned off).
There is also a set in the test from the Fuji 35mm 1.4 on the was launched with the camera and is streets ahead of all the others lenses in this test.
The only other explanation is that the adapter is faulty, but it's odd that the centres are ok and all 4 edges/corners mushy.
There is one simple way to rule out any errors in these tests - someone just needs to put an adapter on their Fuji, shoot their Leica lens wide open and get sharp edges. I would be delighted !
Last edited by Farnesworth; 25th March 2012 at 07:08.
This is why I referenced the 50 summilux a well known lens and being 50mm it should t stress the angle of incidence issue . The IQ does t look good and this does t follow any pattern I am familiar with .