Re: The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Apr 4, 2012.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> 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.
     
    Bruce, Apr 4, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 4, 5:14 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Rich <> 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.
     
    RichA, Apr 4, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> 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?
     
    Bruce, Apr 4, 2012
    #3
  4. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 4, 2:58 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> 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.
     
    RichA, Apr 4, 2012
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. digiboy

    purple fringe - due solely to Bayer filter?

    digiboy, May 31, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    2,487
    Ron Hunter
    Jun 6, 2004
  2. Bayer mosaic filter array question

    , Aug 25, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,135
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Aug 26, 2006
  3. David Dyer-Bennet

    Bayer filter removal

    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 13, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    3,415
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Apr 30, 2007
  4. Eric Miller

    Bayer Filter Obsolescence?

    Eric Miller, Jun 14, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    611
    Kevin McMurtrie
    Jun 19, 2007
  5. Me

    Re: The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

    Me, Apr 4, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    357
    Views:
    4,634
    TheRealSteve
    Jun 1, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page