You may have heard that Fujifilm has opened the door slightly to third-parties regarding their APS-C based X-mount. It seems they've finally given in to both unrelenting pressure from their users and the reality of being able to fully flesh out their lens lineup with more niche lenses in a timely and profitable way. One example: poor sales of the $5995 XF 200mm ƒ/2 with 1.4x Teleconverter, a specialty prime designed for sports and wildlife photographers. It seems very few people "clamoring" for that sort of lens actually put their money where their mouths are and has made Fujifilm gun shy about serving up more high performance, expensive, niche lenses. However, the result is Fujifilm opening up X-mount to approved third parties...
Has Fujifilm’s Last Argument for Professional APS-C Been Crushed by Sony (and Others)?
The last argument for enthusiast and professional level APS-C bodies has been about the balance between size and performance. The best APS-C cameras have been able to provide 95% of the image quality and speed while taking up only 66% of the size and weight of a 35mm “full frame” body. With the introduction of Sony’s α7C, has that argument now been mooted? Has Fujifilm been left alone on the dance floor? Let’s be realistic: like megapixel counts, sensor size has become the latest dick matching spec. And just like the desire to compare dicks side by side, even if you win, you’re still in the closet. There are some tangible benefits to a larger sensor, no doubt, but does the beginner photographer actually benefit? There are also situations where the crop factor of the smaller sensor can benefit a potential owner and there’s also lens size to contend with. However, the former can be added as a software feature and the latter has been addressed long ago with simpler, more compact optical formulas.
Adapting GFX: Test Shots vs Real World and Lessons Learned
Despite white wall tests of the Canon EF 28mm and 135mm lenses showing acceptable levels of vignetting, my first real world use of them ended in failure.
Adapting GFX: a Quick Note on the Canon EF 135/2L and Some Brain Droppings on the 85/1.8 USM
Eye-AF works pretty well with this combination. Focus is slow, but it's able to find and lock onto an eye. Because of my experience with the X-T3, sometimes my expectations can be a bit skewed; face and eye detect on the 2018 X-T3 is quite good, especially on distant (small) faces as Fujifilm has improved by leaps and bounds in this area. How quickly I forget the GFX 50S is over a year and a half older, with an imaging processor based on the X-Processor 3 design in the X-T2 and not the current X-Processor 4. Combined with other hardware limitations, plus the fact that the latest firmware update was over a year ago, eye AF on the GFX 50S (or 50R, for that matter) cannot be expected to perform anywhere near that of my X-T3.
Adapting GFX: Canon EF 135mm ƒ/2L USM
There are some drawbacks though. Uncannily enough, they’re the same as with the Canon EF 28mm ƒ/1.8 USM: slight vignette with a hard vignette at infinity focus. At ƒ/8, it isn’t very prevalent as you’ll see in the samples, easily corrected with a 5:4 crop that retains 48MP. However, as the aperture gets smaller, the vignette hardens, as you can see at ƒ/32, but still works at a 5:4 crop ratio. The lens works fine with a 3:2 crop at full sensor width and in 35mm crop mode, so you can choose what works best for you.
Weirdly, the lens changes focus as you move in and out of playback mode on the GFX...
Adapting GFX: Canon EF 28mm ƒ/1.8 USM
Widening out to an approximate 22mm in 35mm format terms, the Canon EF 28mm ƒ/1.8 USM does show some hard vignetting that is never fully resolved. It’s very, very slight and occurs at ƒ/4 and smaller at infinity focus. Vignetting is prevalent fully open, mostly disappearing by ƒ/4 at close focus distances.
If the vignetting is a problem for you, the EF 28mm ƒ/2.8 IS might be a better bet but isn’t on Canon’s list of preferred lenses for the 5DSR, so it may or may not resolve well on a 50MP sensor.
Adapting GFX: Sigma Doesn’t Seem to Be the Answer
After spending a few weeks with the Sigma 50mm ƒ/1.4 Art, I've come to realize maybe Sigma lenses aren't the solution for me. At least the 50mm has a very short focus throw, making manual focus a tedious process, even with focus aids like focus peaking and focus zoom. Autofocus is just too unreliable and slow to depend on for all occasions, making manual focus capability a priority.
Adapting GFX: Contributing Data
If you'd like to contribute your findings, please include lens specifics (brand, focal length, maximum aperture, lens version, firmware version, and if it's weather sealed or stabilized), adapter used, and camera used. Full sensor sample shots without the lens hood (JPEG, 2000x1500 pixel minimum) needs to be of a white or gray background at the widest aperture at both minimum and infinity focus, repeating this at ƒ/8 and at minimum aperture, be it ƒ/22 or ƒ/32.
Adapting GFX: The Introduction of 35mm “Full Frame” Lenses on the GFX
As I have alluded to in a burst of recent posts, I am planning to generate a small database of lenses for use on the Fujifilm GFX series. Here's my chance for an introduction to give my rationale and to lay the foundation of this endeavor. I'd like to break this down into three "Y's."
Let's begin with a personal "why": I'm choosing to use Sigma lenses to obtain focal lengths and apertures not currently offered in the GF lens lineup. Fujifilm's lineup is sparse at best, and apertures wider than ƒ/2 aren't represented. It's not that I'm a bokeh whore; it's that I need more light gathering for astrophotography and Fujifilm's widest lens, a 23mm, has a maximum aperture of ƒ/4 and that's just not going to work without a star tracker due to the sensor's 51MP resolution. I'm hoping to print a few of these so what counts for "sharp" on the web doesn't work at 20" print sizes. Other benefits: 35mm lenses are much cheaper, especially used prices, and these lenses mostly have direct focusing units unlike the "fly by wire" systems used on Fujifilm lenses. The GFX system just isn't mature enough to have grown both a complete lens lineup or a diverse used lens market.
Canon’s Latest Sales Figures Are Way Down But Why Are You So Confused?
Canon is trying to sell us cameras from 2016 at 2019 prices, all up and down their lineup. Their biggest advances have been made in their entry level cameras, a market mostly ignored by both first time buyers and enthusiasts. As ILC cameras have become a luxury in the age of smartphones, the impact of entry level models will continue to shrink moving forward. The future is in models that appeal to enthusiasts while Canon has dumbed down their lineup instead. They’re still banking on entry level, mass market, low cost, high volume models while the consumer has been filtered down to primarily enthusiasts. The mass market has lost their desire or need for the ILC.
Rant: It’s an Entry-Level Camera with a 35mm Sized Sensor and an Entry Level Price. Get Over Yourself.
Oh, you're an "enthusiast," "professional," or talking face on YouTube? This camera wasn't designed for you. It was designed for the audience you spew your crap opinions at, like, "pros only shoot full frame and just because you don't get paid doesn't mean you're not a pro-level shooter. You need full frame if you want to be a pro." Well, now all of your viewers who have no technical reason to shoot with a 35mm camera now have a 35mm option with the price and features commensurate with an entry-level product.
Hot Take: So, I Bought the Fujifilm X-T3
I went out and bought the Fujifilm X-T3 on release day, which was September 20th. The spec sheet intrigued me because a lot of the bullet points revealed improvements that would improve my ability to shoot under less than optimal conditions, situations that can sometimes stump my X-T2. Mind you, this is not my review of the X-T3. That will come later when I've spent more time with it. As for the features relevant to me, they are as follows:
Here’s the problem with the vast majority of “photographers” on YouTube…
GET TO THE FUCKING POINT.
Never mind the boring, droning, pedantic talking heads who avoid writing themselves a script or interject false information they were either too lazy to get right or too stubborn to be bothered with facts. The biggest problem is their ability to take 30 seconds of useful information and wrap it in 10 minutes of garbage exposition, rattling off 8 examples to make a point when 2-3 will do and 0 would be even better. Most seemingly do it because they refuse to write an outline and stick to it or they're trying to impress you with fluff trivia to distract you from their lack of charisma, creativity or actual insight. That shit works in text because a reader can easily skim over it, unlike a YouTube video.
Why You Should Support Your Local Camera Store (The No Altruism Version)
Short and sweet, there are 3 reasons why you should support your local camera store, even if you're a greedy, arrogant and selfish bastard: Actual products on display, instant gratification, and the added value of a local professional.
JetCity Ninja 
You must be logged in to post a comment.