Farnesworth
New member
I've thrown 6 m-mount lenses (and the fuji 35mm 1.4) onto this camera.
Results are at picabroad.com |
Results are at picabroad.com |
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
6 Leica lenses on X-Pro 1
- Thread starter Farnesworth
- Start date
Shashin
Well-known member
The page does show examples of those lenses on the M9.
Ario Arioldi
Member
Comparing the performances of a given lens on cameras having different sensor size does not make much sense, in my opinion.
Ario Arioldi
Member
Agree, and for two different reasons; precise manual focus as it is implemented with the available FW is quite difficult to achieve and not only for the absence of focus peaking but also because using the given magnification the image available in the EVF is not stable enough (insufficient refresh rate?).
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.
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
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 .
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 .
Farnesworth
New member
Hi Roger
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 !
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:
The R glass would work great on the X-Pro1, as pretty much any other SLR glass.
Not surprisingly, it appears Fuji would rather sell their own glass.
Safe travels, Roger.
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Ok I see we are looking at entirely different aspects of the tests . I don t worry about edge sharpness with adapted lenses on APS C size sensors . My preference is to just use the M9 . I know this is important to many who are looking for an alternative to the Leica M . Its always been my understanding that edge sharpness will suffer with adapted lenses because the sensor does t have the micro lenses necessary to handle the extreme angles inherent in the M wide angles . This seems to be a common problem with most of the new cameras .
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 .