jaapv Posted April 24, 2014 Share #21 Posted April 24, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Small does not equate to excellence.Nor does shallow DOF. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Hi jaapv, Take a look here lenses too slow. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
imants Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share #22 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Nor does shallow DOF. But it is a very useful in lots of situations portraits is one that most people will understand . Here excellence comes into play Edited April 24, 2014 by Imants 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share #23 Posted April 24, 2014 Well, if ISO 12500 does not compensate, what does?And don’t start on shallow DOF, or I’ll be forced to quote Lars Bergquist…. At 12500 one starts to lose iso versatility as there are reduced ISO options available. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 24, 2014 Share #24 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) But it is a very useful in lots of situations portraits is one that most people will understand . Here excellence comes into play Free after Winogrand: If your DOF sucks you are not close enough. I think that, in the Leica world especially, shallow DOF photography is very close to mannerism in far too many instances. Edited April 24, 2014 by jaapv 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share #25 Posted April 24, 2014 Great you want to think like Winogrand we all have different approaches I am not forcing you into playing with DOF and how it relates to elements and principles of composition. The more versatile the lenses are the greater the scope is my argument 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted April 24, 2014 Share #26 Posted April 24, 2014 These T lenses are not too slow and their speed maintains lens compactness in keeping with the design of this system. If you want f0.95 to 1.4 then go to the M system. Even the S system doesn't have very fast lenses. I have plenty of Summiluxes and they are rarely used wide open. I think that the 23mm lens is probably quite fast for the main target demographic whilst the more 'demanding' M-lens owners can then fit their M Summiluxes for that extra stop for low light or bokeh. For a zoom lens on a compact camera the speed of the 18-56 is also quite reasonable - pushing the ISO one or two stops is a better option than fitting a Coke-can sized lens to the front of a compact camera. Even Leica can't defy the laws of physics with respect to lens size and maximum f-stop. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted April 25, 2014 Share #27 Posted April 25, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Great you want to think like Winogrand we all have different approaches I am not forcing you into playing with DOF and how it relates to elements and principles of composition. The more versatile the lenses are the greater the scope is my argument I think the T system may not be for you. The lenses are too slow - for your desires. We get it. No big deal. I don't think it's for me either... For different reasons... Which I noted-one time-on a different thread. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berth Posted April 25, 2014 Share #28 Posted April 25, 2014 Great you want to think like Winogrand we all have different approaches I am not forcing you into playing with DOF and how it relates to elements and principles of composition. The more versatile the lenses are the greater the scope is my argument f I wonder how many Leica lenses fit on the new 'T'? Is there another small camera that has more? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted April 25, 2014 Share #29 Posted April 25, 2014 I wonder how many cameras with lenses faster than f/2.0 are out there? Is that a real question? The Fuji X system already has three - a 23/1.4, a 35/1.4, and a 56/1.2. But the zoom is more of a question: 3.5-4.5 with contrast-detect AF could be really painful. Dante Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted April 25, 2014 Share #30 Posted April 25, 2014 Geez - tke a deep breath and allow some time. Fuji's 56 f/1.2 and 23 f/1.4 are great - but it took Fuji 2 years to add them to the X system. Also took Fuji 2 years to add a superwide zoom, while that appears to be high on Leica's "next lenses" list. Nikon F system started with apertures f/2.0, f/2.5, f/3.5 and f/2.8 (none of them zooms) - it took Nikon a decade to build "the Nikon System" as it eventually came to rule the 35mm world. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berth Posted April 25, 2014 Share #31 Posted April 25, 2014 Is that a real question? The Fuji X system already has three - a 23/1.4, a 35/1.4, and a 56/1.2. But the zoom is more of a question: 3.5-4.5 with contrast-detect AF could be really painful. Dante How many Summiluxes will mount on the 'T'? Is it possible that all of them of every focal length from the beginning? Does anybody have a f/2.0 zoom? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share #32 Posted April 25, 2014 Andy for a company that prides itself on creating great lenses it is disappointing . But so be it I had hoped for a camera that had some kick and spunk but all there is is a updated version of a x 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted April 25, 2014 Share #33 Posted April 25, 2014 There is more to a great lens than maximum aperture. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted April 25, 2014 Share #34 Posted April 25, 2014 Andy for a company that prides itself on creating great lenses it is disappointing . But so be it I had hoped for a camera that had some kick and spunk but all there is is a updated version of a x You are too much fixed on figures. You get shallow depth of field with f2. No, it is not f1.4 but get one step closer and it is almost the same. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share #35 Posted April 25, 2014 No I am not fixed on figures, I know the differences between lens aperture results by using cameras not but addition and subtraction. If you like to accept almost the same then I guess you are happy with what is presented Yes Mark I do know that there is more to lens and the results they yield, like I stated it is the lack that versatility aperture wise is not a positive as far as I am concerned you guys seem to be hell bent on saying that I have to like the lenses ............I do not. If you are not happy with my decision then don't respond. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 25, 2014 Share #36 Posted April 25, 2014 Does anybody have a f/2.0 zoom? Yes - the Olympus XZ1, the Digilux2, etc…. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted April 25, 2014 Share #37 Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) as I am concerned you guys seem to be hell bent on saying that I have to like the lenses Oh, not at all . I was only commenting on the maximum aperture. 1.4 would be nice but 2.0 for the target market, to keep the system compact, and the price point reasonable, seems more than appropriate. Faster lenses may well follow. If you are not happy with my decision then don't respond. If I have a different opinion I can voice it can't I? I was not being hostile or contrary, just contradictory. This is a forum after all - a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. :) Edited April 25, 2014 by MarkP 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted April 25, 2014 Share #38 Posted April 25, 2014 It is a pity that only one semi fast prime is offered, The zooms are too slow thus lack versatility"........ When I shooted film, the highest speed was 1000 ISO (Fuji 1600 was still to come) and when I had the M8 I couldn't go any faster than 640 ISO, after which digital noise creeped in. That's why I was forced to get myself a Summicron 90/2 AA. From what I can read online, being on the conservative side the T can safely work up to 1600 ISO before artifacts and noise start to kick in. That makes 1 1/2 stop more than what I could use with the M8. Thinking in M8 terms it would mean shooting with a 18-56/2.0-3.5 zoom at ISO 640. Not that bad for a kit lens, so I'd be happy it. And if I really needed to have the extra quality at slower ISO I could always slap on the adapter and the 'cron 90. Cheers, Bruno 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share #39 Posted April 25, 2014 You can have all the opinions you want but they are not fast lenses. It is a run of mill zoom aperture wise as are the proposed zooms. Bruno it is not about artifacts and noise that was not my concern I like using 1.4 at 2400 iso plus it gets the results that I chase. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted April 25, 2014 Share #40 Posted April 25, 2014 You can have all the opinions you want but they are not fast lenses. It is a run of mill zoom aperture wise as are the proposed zooms. Bruno it is not about artifacts and noise that was not my concern I like using 1.4 at 2400 iso plus it gets the results that I chase. I never said these are fast lenses. My point is that compared with what I was used to, higher ISO management has improved 1 1/2 stop and this mitigates the lens slowness, at least for some old dinosaurs like me... Cheers, Bruno Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.