Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not. (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t945098-re-the-death-of-the-bayer-filter-maybe-not.html)

Bruce 04-04-2012 09:14 AM

Re: The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.
 
Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>I don't hate the Bayer. I think it's a clever way to deal with a problem
>that some find objectionable. But its days could be numbered.
>Don't know if resolution is improved yet, but it's nice to know that it
>only costs $1700(!) to get a non-flawed Fuji when mainstream makers produce
>$500 DSLRs that meet the spec.
>

<http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6126592906/first-impressions-using-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/6>


You should be celebrating the X-Pro1 because it is a traditionally
made metal bodied camera. This is exactly what you have been asking
for yet, true to type, you cannot resist dissing it!

One of the reasons that you can buy cheap DSLRs with something like
comparable performance is because they are made of plastic. Perhaps
now you can see why?

As for the death of the Bayer pattern, it isn't. This is no Foveon
and there is still a pattern. It may not be the exact Bayer pattern
but the principle is very much the same. However, what we are seeing
is the slow death of the AA filter, which is very welcome.

The X-Pro1 does not seem to be afflicted with the multiple teething
problems of its X100 and X10 companions. However, it seems to have
sloooow AF. I haven't had the chance to give one an extended trial so
I will reserve a final judgement until I do, but based on the reviews
I have read the AF speed could well be the X-Pro1's Achilles' heel.

I am not attracted by the lens selection. I would like to see
equivalents of my favourite rangefinder lenses, which would mean a
16mm f/2.8 and a 24mm f/1.4 in addition to the 60mm f/2.4 that
Fujifilm got about right. Instead, there is an 18mm f/2 (???) and a
23mm f/2, with presumably the same optics as the X100 lens.

There will be two zooms, a 12-20mm f/4 and a 70-200mm f/4, both image
stabilised. I don't think anyone in their right mind would buy a
70-200mm lens for a 'rangefinder' camera with an APS-C sensor.

So I am not convinced by the X-Pro1. The Leica M10 will probably cost
four times as much, but it will be the complete digital rangefinder
camera with lenses in focal lengths that people want. There is a
little over a month to go before the M10 is announced, possibly
accompanied by Leica's take on a mirrorless system camera.


RichA 04-04-2012 02:57 PM

Re: The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.
 
On Apr 4, 5:14*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >I don't hate the Bayer. *I think it's a clever way to deal with a problem
> >that some find objectionable. *But its days could be numbered.
> >Don't know if resolution is improved yet, but it's nice to know that it
> >only costs $1700(!) to get a non-flawed Fuji when mainstream makers produce
> >$500 DSLRs that meet the spec.

>
> <http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6126592906/first-impressions-using-t...>
>
> You should be celebrating the X-Pro1 because it is a traditionally
> made metal bodied camera. *This is exactly what you have been asking
> for yet, true to type, you cannot resist dissing it!


Are you kidding? I'd take one in a minute. But maybe not at $3000+
for one with 2 lenses. I'd rather get a traditional DSLR, like the
upcoming D400 with the new 16-85mm f4.0 zoom.

> One of the reasons that you can buy cheap DSLRs with something like
> comparable performance is because they are made of plastic. *Perhaps
> now you can see why?


I was referring more to function. See: AF quality and speed.

> As for the death of the Bayer pattern, it isn't. *This is no Foveon
> and there is still a pattern. *It may not be the exact Bayer pattern
> but the principle is very much the same. However, what we are seeing
> is the slow death of the AA filter, which is very welcome.


True. I had a Fuji S5 so I know about "different" sensors and what
they produce. The jury is still out, but this one looks pretty good.

> The X-Pro1 does not seem to be afflicted with the multiple teething
> problems of its X100 and X10 companions. *However, it seems to have
> sloooow AF. *I haven't had the chance to give one an extended trial so
> I will reserve a final judgement until I do, but based on the reviews
> I have read the AF speed could well be the X-Pro1's Achilles' heel.


Same as Pentax.

> I am not attracted by the lens selection. *I would like to see
> equivalents of my favourite rangefinder lenses, which would mean a
> 16mm f/2.8 and a 24mm f/1.4 in addition to the 60mm f/2.4 that
> Fujifilm got about right. *Instead, there is an 18mm f/2 (???) and a
> 23mm f/2, with presumably the same optics as the X100 lens.
>
> There will be two zooms, a 12-20mm f/4 and a 70-200mm f/4, both image
> stabilised. *I don't think anyone in their right mind would buy a
> 70-200mm lens for a 'rangefinder' camera with an APS-C sensor.
>
> So I am not convinced by the X-Pro1. *The Leica M10 will probably cost
> four times as much, but it will be the complete digital rangefinder
> camera with lenses in focal lengths that people want. *There is a
> little over a month to go before the M10 is announced, possibly
> accompanied by Leica's take on a mirrorless system camera.


I thought the practical limit for rangefinder focusing was 135mm for
35mm? Personally, I like how they are breaking from tradition with
different focal lengths than what we are used to getting from Canon
and Nikon. They aren't the first to do that. A 12-20mm f4.0 is
interesting, not quite 2x and not that fast, so maybe it's to keep the
size reasonable? Also, it will be sharper across the board than an
f2.8., all things being equal. As for the 70-200mm, it probably makes
more sense here with a reasonable sized body than on some of the other
more diminutive mirrorless offerings from other companies.

Bruce 04-04-2012 06:58 PM

Re: The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.
 
RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>I thought the practical limit for rangefinder focusing was 135mm for
>35mm? Personally, I like how they are breaking from tradition with
>different focal lengths than what we are used to getting from Canon
>and Nikon. They aren't the first to do that. A 12-20mm f4.0 is
>interesting, not quite 2x and not that fast, so maybe it's to keep the
>size reasonable? Also, it will be sharper across the board than an
>f2.8., all things being equal. As for the 70-200mm, it probably makes
>more sense here with a reasonable sized body than on some of the other
>more diminutive mirrorless offerings from other companies.



How are you getting along with your new GH2, Rich?


RichA 04-04-2012 08:04 PM

Re: The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.
 
On Apr 4, 2:58*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I thought the practical limit for rangefinder focusing was 135mm for
> >35mm? *Personally, I like how they are breaking from tradition with
> >different focal lengths than what we are used *to getting from Canon
> >and Nikon. *They aren't the first to do that. *A 12-20mm f4.0 is
> >interesting, not quite 2x and not that fast, so maybe it's to keep the
> >size reasonable? *Also, it will be sharper across the board than an
> >f2.8., all things being equal. *As for the 70-200mm, it probably makes
> >more sense here with a reasonable sized body than on some of the other
> >more diminutive mirrorless offerings from other companies.

>
> How are you getting along with your new GH2, Rich?


I traded it back and ordered the E-5M. The 14-140mm had zoom-
creep. But honestly, I wanted the Olympus in the first place.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.