[joachim]

Substantially better than the XF 35mm f/2 ... yummy 

 
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf23mmf2_r_wr/specifications/">http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf23mmf2_r_wr/specifications/</a>

vs
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf35mmf2_r_wr/specifications/">http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf35mmf2_r_wr/specifications/</a>

In the central circle of approximately 2 cm diameter the 35 beats the pants out of the 23 (contrast & resolution) Only in the very corners does the 23 outshine the 35. I would not subscribe to "Substantially better". Though the homogeneity of the new 23 is quite something, I agree.

[Klaus]

Valhalla, N.Y., August 25, 2016 – FUJIFILM Corporation has announced the new FUJINON XF23mmF2 R WR, a compact, weather and dust-resistant wide-angle lens weighing just 180g. [...]


Sometimes I'm thinking that they chose that town just for the cool name.

Let's hope it's not the place where dead systems are coming from. ;-)

[Rover]

Let's hope it's not the place where dead systems are coming from. ;-)

Was Samsung based there as well? From the way the NX system ended, I think it would rather reside in Hel...

[JJ_SO]

Stumbled over the video linked by dave and watched also this one

https://youtu.be/LtqH0MRk7Ng

 

(no need to suffer the blurp if not for entertainment reasons  ^_^ ) but together with the Fujirumors article about the final firmware, I'm really looking forward to see what's behind this "smoking my D500 in terms of tracking"  :blink:

[microcontrast]

Looks like the 23mm f/2.0 is optically corrected for distortion. That's at least one point that should make Klaus happy

[Klaus]

Stumbled over the video linked by dave and watched also this one

https://youtu.be/LtqH0MRk7Ng

 

(no need to suffer the blurp if not for entertainment reasons  ^_^ ) but together with the Fujirumors article about the final firmware, I'm really looking forward to see what's behind this "smoking my D500 in terms of tracking"  :blink:

 

I am wondering whether his comment about image compression DX vs FX is valid.

He says that the compression is different for a 85mm f/1.8 FF vs a 56mm f/1.2 APS-C.

How can it be different at the same focus distance ?

[JJ_SO]

Simply because it's a different focal length. Please feel free to live the equivalence dream, it will for me never be true. It's simply no valid logic to up- or downscale all (!!! And not only some) involved parameters. Which doesn't mean, I defend him or say his logic is better than yours, he talks and repeats too much.

[Klaus]

So you have no argument.

[JJ_SO]

Exactly.  

 

I just don't believe it's possible to equvalent each involved parameter - which has also to be print size and watching distance and still see - no only calculate - the pictures will be different. Sensors in general react differently to put 1.5× light or ISO on them and it shifts the whole range of dynamics, too. You always calculate, as if an APS-C sensor behaves exactly like a m medium format sensor, just 2.5 smaller and that's totally unreal, simply not happening in real world.

 

No one would get bigger sensors, if a smartphone sensor could do exactly the same like a medium format one - and just don't start to point out where's the difference, because all that differeences are there throughout the whole range of sensors. One is not like another. There's a reason for bigger and for smaller sensors and you can calculate as long as you want, they never will bring you the same results. And I'm not talking about tiny little jpg samples.

[Klaus]

Take the equiv lenses - set to 2m - both put on a tripod that isn't moved, of course.

For the arguments sake - let's take a portrait.

How could the nose, the eyes, the ears be possibly any different?

Because of the same distance, the angle to those points is exactly the same.

If the angle is the same, the compression is the same.


Compression is about focus distance.

If you stay with the same format, you have a different compression for an ultra-wide, wide, std, tele, super-tele ... because they are used at different focus distances (for that head portrait). Different focus distances = different angles.


q.e.d.