Opticallimits

Full Version: fuji xt2 seems amazing
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Quote:It's the price/performance/space/weight relation, which makes it at first a bit silly to go for the FF camera  Wink But to go for that one or a D810 still can have some reasons the Fuji can't offer now. Some are upgradeable just by firmware updates (like some menu points which are stupid if you know it can be done differently and better).

 

Both cameras have their own target groups.

 

And Toni-A, instead of posting more links of Leica-straps or whatever, you could ask once Wikipedia for "resolution". It is a ratio of how many points to get on the same distance. 300 dots per inch. It is not a comparison of Megapixels because their resolution value can be the same - just one camera doesn't show the same field of view than the one with the smaller or bigger sensor.

 

Posting something like

"I don't know this guy, however for an APS-C camera, to be able to be compared to a full frame competitor having twice the resolution," is plain wrong and only left remained by BC because it fits well in his reasoning, otherwise he had pulled out his calculator like he did when someone dares to compare different, DoF which never will make it into solid math. Airy discs are hard to measure and soft to compare.

 

5D IV has 36 mm and 6720 pixel on that distance. 6720 ÷ 36 mm = 186.66 pixel per mm or 4741 ppi (pixel per inch)

Any 24 MP APS-C camera has on 23.6 mm 6000 pixel. 6000 ÷ 23.6 = 254.24 pixel per mm or 6457 ppi 

 

Now decide for yourself which one has the higher resolution. And try to find out the 5D R's resolution ^_^ 

 

Sony α7R II 35.9 mm, 7974 pixel 7974 ÷ 35.9 mm = 222.11 p/mm

 

Phase One IQ3 100 MP: 53.7 mm 11608 pixels: 11608 ÷ 53.7 = 216 p/mm

 

I would never be so stupid to say the Fuji is the best of this choice because her resolution (and all other 24 MP APS-C models as well) is higher than even a super expensive MF. Would be wrong conclusion, but the fact remains, these days standard APS-C have a bloody high resolution.
 

"I know one thing it's that I know nothing"

 

Never pretended to possess the knowledge, I posted something I saw asking for discussions/advice

However if you did  like the comparo here's a really crazy one:

iphone 7 versus leica M9,

 

http://petapixel.com/2016/10/05/iphone-7...omparison/
He avoid the border comparison there.

But yes, things are evolving. I'm wondering why the phone manufacturers haven't looked into folded lenses yet (like in the Sony T10). 

Guest

Quote:I think you bring in a new variable which is output size. But this we don't know when we compare sensors and pixel densities. In my comparison I talk about sensor sizes. If you target the same output size for each sensor, the resolution of the final picture changes.

 

If you use the same enlarging value, it remains with pixel count, you just get smaller output sizes from APS-C - but the resolution comparison remains the same. But the bigger you get, the more distance you need to see the whole picture. And since our eyes also have resolution limits, you will not see  bigger benefit for a certain enlargement, because you are too far away to resolve 300 dpi on 100 inch  Wink

 

What you don't look at, is the loss of Aliasing filters and different color depth of the sensors. This matters as much as resolution, because our eyes can't tell the absolute difference, but the relative difference is visible. So, the 50 MP Sensors of Sony in Pentax, Hasselblad, Fuji, PhaseOne will show more colors than the one from a Canon 5DRS, just because the absolute pixel density of the sensor is lower - and each pixel bigger. Therefore more sensitive and bigger color scale. This is for me the reason to get bored about equivalencing calculations. It's more variables involved in this game.


Actually, I removed output size/ fov as variables in my comparison since I'm comparing sensors based on the same output size and fov.

Yes, I avoided color depth and AA filter discussion, that will complicate discussion

I guess my point is calculating pixels/mm on different format of sensors may be more misleading than you thought

  1. I reacted to Toni-A's sentence. If you want to bring in more conditions and a real target comparison (because that's what counts after all, I agree), you're opening a new discussion - not his point that FF sensors have twice the resolution of standard APS-C which IS misleading. Resolution ≠ absolute pixel count, that's all I said and proved.
  2. and he was not referring to output or FoV  Wink
  3. By avoiding other variables you tend to get results which also can be confusing: AA filter and color depth have an impact, so ignoring them, is also misleading
  4. By "removing" variables you just state, all sensors should have the same output target. IMO the reason to buy bigger sensors and justifiy the exponential costs is the ability of getting either bigger output sizes or more detailed crops. Meaning, even if the sensor itself has higher resolutions (talking now of Toni-A's sentence again) the enlargement is still relevant.
  5. basically I could use a black box, cut a mount for a large format lens in and on the other side an open frame with a normal flatbed scanner with the ability to scan transparent film. Fantasy resolution like 4800 dpi aside and just calculating 1200 dpi of the scanner, we get a picture at least of 9921 × 14031 pixel (A4, 210 × 297 mm - most good scanners offer more area) = 139.2 MP. A lot of information although this "sensor", acting like a slow mo shutter, only resolves 1200 dpi / 25.4 mm = 47.2 p/mm.
  6. Going very small with output, like 8" or so, printers already are not able to resolve all informations coming from the sensors - ignoring the purpose of bigger sensors doesn't help.
If you compare sensors, comparing all variables and parameters is necessary, otherwise your "results" contain a certain portion of non-reality. I know that you see it from a practical amateur or wedding-photographer side, but believe me, customers who have a choice and the photographer enough skills, will go for bigger sensors although they don't know with which sensor the picture was made.

Last weekend I took it to a dance event in dim light. I never did bursts with my Nikon because I know, with a D810 in AF-C and 5 fps only the first and maybe second shot (it's no action cam, I keep on telling myself) are sort of in focus. Now, after this intro the result is predictable: I was amazed how much shots were in focus. With a medium fast focusing 23/1.4, mostly used wide open.  Smile

 

[Image: i-GLFmWPF-X2.jpg]
At that price point the X-T2 better has to be brilliant anyway! ;-)

Oh, if it's the price point only, the D810 should blow a lot of other bodies away, no?

 

:ph34r:

 

Moving things or people are just for one or max. three frames in focus, on the Nikon D8xx side of things. Not for 10 in one burst... Sidenote: With the grip and two additional batteries I already got 200$ discount without really asking for. Now I'm on the lair for the Fuji rebates which are rumored to appear this weekend.

 

[Image: arrgw15x18.gif]

Guest

http://kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-t2.htm <- Ken rockwell review; some of the comments seem bizzare such as colour only good for people and you are better off with canon for landscape because it will produce more saturated colours. But whatever....

Well, I'm no Pro, so it's good enough for me  Big Grin According to Fuji rumours he says it's no camera for Pros.

 

Alright, fine for me, others see it different and he doesn't need to become another one of those guys competing for lenses and bodies when they are short.

 

There are some weak spots IMO:
  • Lots of buttons to customize - but not with the functions I want to have. Electronic level is deep in the menu and not possible to set a button for it.
  • Same for the quick menu.
  • The "MyMenu" could be more intuitive
  • The "custom settings" are more or less for JPG photogs to adjust sharpness and saturation and whatever - real "user settings" or "benches" do contain a lot more parameters.
  • People are not all happy with LR's handling of the RAWs, I'm not happy that Phase One 4 weeks after coming to market still can't handle compressed Fuji RAWs which means 50 MB for only 24 MP? Nikon is packing 36 MP to 40...44 MB
  • Customizable AF-C has the downsides that my crystal ball is not always with me or sometimes remaining silent - how can I know, which situation will come next? And even if - adjusting those setting is distracting if things happen quickly. So I find myself thinking, maybe with another setting all ten shots would have been good, not "only" 8 (I was used to 4 with Nikon, depending on the situation of a burst).
  • The front wheel dial... sort of only decorative. The only use I could discover so far was for exposure correction when I set the dial to C. For lenses with electronic aperture it would be useful, especially since their aperture ring is more resisting than the ones with engraved f-stop numbers.
  • When I set card slot 1 to RAW and 2 to JPG, the camera will display a fat warning and not releasing the shutter, if I take one card out. On Nikon it just goes both files to one card, easy.
  • swivelling display has to be unlocked. Cumbersome. Canon, Sony, Nikon can do better with no lock and are no less rugged.
  • In general, I wish the aperture rings and dials would have the resistance against movement what I feel with the tilt display...
  • Awkward: When I use Auto-ISO, I only see the aperture and the max. ISO in the EVF or LCD - on my X-E2 I can see the shutter speed too, at least - and on Nikon the ISO as well. MAybe another setting I haven't discovered yet...
So, no perfect camera for Pro's? I have no troubles to leave this opinion unquestioned.

  One thing I will say is, I would like a screen lock on the D750 and D500 (when it turns up)  I'm often finding it slightly off the body, I wonder if one day the camera strap will get caught under it, so I think Fuji got it right!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5