Comments for Admiring Light Photography Reviews, Photos, News and Musings Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:05:46 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Fuji 10-24mm vs Fuji 14mm f/2.8 and Fuji 23mm f/1.4 by Mike V Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:05:46 +0000 I just picked up the x-t1 and in the process of getting rid of my Nikon DSLR gear. I have the 56mm f1.2 and X100 right now and thinking of what makes sense. Right now the options are to get the 10-24 and the 35mm. the other option is the 14 and 23. I’d get a nice small normal lens in the 35 f1.4 and a good zoom. I’m not one for alot of landscape but will be traveling to south africa for a safari at the end of the year.

In general I like primes, but I’m wondering if the 10-24 is good enough to replace the 23 (35mm) and wide angle range with the IS, or if I should just get the primes and eat the additional cost

Comment on Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS by 2014-04-16 | NEWSGRAPHY Sat, 19 Apr 2014 23:11:53 +0000 […] To Go Kit by Joe Farace at // Fuji Fujinon XF 10-24 mm f/4 R OIS Jordan Steele by at // Fuji FinePix S9400W by Mark Goldstein at // Nikon Coolpix P7800 by Mike Lowe […]

Comment on “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter by Robert Mark Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:33:46 +0000 You’re mistaking corner softness of the 35mm lenses compared to the corner sharpness of the Micro Four Thirds lenses.

Comment on “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter by Robert Mark Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:30:42 +0000 You’ve completely discounted the 5 axis IBIS that is a huge advantage of the OM-D bodies. I’m getting shots at ISO 1600 on my OM-D that used to require 6400 on my 5D3 (combination of faster lenses and slower shutter speed).

Comment on “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter by Robert Mark Sat, 19 Apr 2014 01:20:08 +0000 Words mean things, which is why I object to the terms “full frame” and “crop sensor” as commonly used.

When referring to the 35mm sensor format, it is always more accurate and descriptive to simply say “35mm”.

“Full frame” simply describes a sensor which captures the maximum possible size image from a given sensor size and lens combination. Of course, a Canon 5D Mark III with EF mount lens fits this description. But a Canon 7D with its APS-C size sensor is also a full frame camera when paired with an EF-S mount lens, because EF-S lenses (which are few) create an image circle that is optimized for the APS-C size sensor. There is no crop of the image circle in any way with this combination.

However, since Canon chooses not to make a full line of EF-S lenses, and since it is physically possible to mount the larger EF lenses on APS-C sensor cameras (everything from Rebel to 7D), one only uses a portion of the image circle, hence the derisive term “crop sensor”. A more accurate term would be “oversize lens”, as there is no cropping of the APS-C size sensor in any way, but one loses about half the image-making power of a lens designed for the 35mm format.

Micro 4/3 never fits the “crop sensor” designation, because every Micro Four Thirds lens has been specifically designed with an image circle that matches the sensor size. Micro Four Thirds is most definitely a “full frame” sensor.

Fuji’s excellent cameras use the APS-C format, but because all their lenses are designed specifically for the format, it is as surely a “full frame” format as 35mm is.

The same confusion exists in other sensor formats. Medium Format is both larger than so-called full frame yet also a crop sensor in the current vernacular. Medium format lenses are designed for the 60x60mm film format, yet the best current sensors measure 44x33mm — most definitely a “crop” sensor if we use the term as it’s been applied to the smaller-than-35mm-size-sensor cameras.

Let’s stop the “full frame” and “crop sensor” nonsense. A camera is simply 35mm, APS-C, Micro Four Thirds, etc.

Comment on Review: Metabones Speed Booster (Canon FD to Fuji X) by Edo Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:53:33 +0000 Seems I turn it wrong. I turn counter clock wise and now it could reach focus further.
But yet not until infinity. I could turn it further but then it could not be mounted
Any idea?

Comment on Review: Metabones Speed Booster (Canon FD to Fuji X) by Edo Wed, 16 Apr 2014 23:09:33 +0000 Hi Jordan
I just bought canon fd Fuji x speed booster.
When it’s arrived the back is protruding way inside. So even could not be attached to Fuji x pro 1 body.
That’s why I adjust the infinity.
I used it on canon FL 55/1.2 and FD 135/2
On FL 55/1.2 I adjust the infinity, even until the speed booster optic element meet with the lens back element, it still can’t reach infinity.
When I use the regular adapter this lens work well.
I could not achieve infinity on 135/2 also with 55/1.2 setting.
But actually I could adjust more on 135/2 since the back of the lens is deeper.

Since you also using the same lenses, do you achieve infinity especially for 55/1.2 ?
Do you have any ideas how to resolve my case?
Thanks a lot Jordan

Comment on Review: Metabones Speed Booster (Canon FD to Fuji X) by Review: Zhongyi Lens Turbo (Minolta MD to Fuji X) - Admiring Light Sun, 13 Apr 2014 18:13:25 +0000 […] publication of this review, Metabones has released Canon FD SpeedBoosters…take a look at my review here.  Zhongyi also is pricing their Lens Turbo at a much more accessible $130.  At that price, […]

Comment on Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R by Jordan Steele Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:46:45 +0000 You’re missing the entire point. First of all, the 56/1.2 is quite sharp across the frame at f2.4 (and quite sharp across the frame even faster than that), however, if you’re only going to be shooting at f/2.4 or slower (or you want closer focusing), of course you’re going to get the 60.

You get the 56 for the TWO FULL STOPS of aperture capability over the 60. This is a lens for subject isolation and speed. And a $500 difference for that isn’t big. These are similar lenses only in focal length. In every other way they are quite different. What do you say about something like Canon having an 85/1.2 that costs 5 times the cost of the 85/1.8? …and that’s only a one stop difference and the f/1.8 can’t do macro.

Having both lenses, there is very little difference between them at f/2.4.

Comment on Review: Rokinon (Samyang) 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye (Fujifilm X-Mount) by Jordan Steele Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:41:18 +0000 No, I did not. Since both spherical and circular objects will project to a circle in 2D space, circular is the more appropriate and encompassing term.