Jump to content

Claude

Members
  • Content count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Claude

Camera Gear

  • Camera List
    D7100
  • Lens List
    Tamron and Nikon
  1. Hi, Thanks for your support. I received news from Fuji and the camera will be shipped back to me tomorrow. Unfortunately, I won't be able to use it and test it before 3 weeks. I'll keep you informed of the official diagnostic and my results. Regards Claude
  2. Vic and Artuk Sorry for the delay. Thank you for your offer for testing. Attached you will find a Jpg image of a new test transmitted to FUJI with the xt-2. It was done at about 10 to 12 ft maximum distance (about 3m), with the 55-200 mm lens at 200 mm and 6400 iso. Inset, an image of the device used for the tests. The vertical target is aligned with the 30 mm mark on a scale inclined at 30 degrees. Three details of the photos at full aperture, f 5.6 and f 11. Even at full aperture I have a backward shift of about 2 cm. The tests were carried out with "electronic shutter" and "mechanical shutter" in "single point auto focus mode" with equivalent results. The camera was practically horizontal with the target, so it is not a problem of camera angle. The device consists of a cardboard box glued with a target and two scales of 1: 1000. Again time, energy and a $ 15 spent to do tests. It is clear that at an aperture of f / 11 , a flower, a butterfly or Princess Leia would be blurred and out of focus. Sincerely I do not know if this is a hardware problem, camera problem, software problem or lens problem (although I think Arthuk might be right - but I would prefer a camera hardware issue). I just hope that Fuji can solve the problem fast. Salutations to all, Claude
  3. Hello everyone, I made more tests with similar results. I've contacted Fuji and my Xt-2 was sent for repair. I hope this will solve the problem. I'll keep you posted! Claude
  4. Hi VeeJayCee, >When using AF, I see no point in focusing then stopping down - why not just AF at the chosen aperture and focal length ? You're right. And well, something was lost in my translation from french to english. I did let the AF system do it's job for each aperture chosen. So results were better at full aperture than smaller ones. Sure you have a better depth of field overall but the main focus goes gradually backward each time the aperture is smaller. (Note it's probable that the AF does the focus at full aperture and when you press the shutter step down to the chosen aperture) This could explain the strange results I've had with lenses tested before (another post) with a flat test target: f/8 was not better than full aperture using AF. No problems in manual focus. So Artuk is probably right in saying that it's a firmware problem on the XT-2. I agree that it's time consuming to do these test and I haven't update my firmware yet. I will redo these test again (with another Xt-2 body for comparison) and if not satisfied I will return the whole gear to Fuji until the results are good. At more than 3 000 $ I expect "Creative Perfection" (Fuji's terminology). Thanks
  5. I've read on this forum that some users have had a similiar experiences with wrong focus or blured photos. I really hope this can be resolved but if it's part of lens design, I have doubts. With previous tests I discovered that you need a higher shutter speed than before (other camera e.g. APS-C with lens design for full frame cameras) to reduce motion blur. Thus I use High ISO for my tests. If other people read this post I would appreciate that they do this simple experience and share they're results with a 55-200 zoom and as suggest by artuk with other zoom. Using a tripod, focus on a main subject or target with single point focus Auto Focus (using the smallest square) making sure that the focusing square covers the whole subject. Then, place smaller objects in the foreground and background (put a few within 5 cm and -5 cm of you're main subject). You can also use an inclined ruler to have a better Idea of the focus shift (as I did). Try at wide open first, then try stepping down at f/8 and f/11. If possible, try to have a fast shutter speed (e.g. 1/100 sec for 50 mm or 1/300 for 150 mm) to minimize camera "shake". Make note also of you're Camera firmware and lens firmware. Let me (us) know of you're results. I'll do more test in a few weeks with a better system to measure the focus shift. Some of my friends (Canon and Fuji users) offered me to use their camera gear also. Thanks in advance
  6. Here are close-up of the sheep's face...and I can't do it because I've Exceeded the 2mb limit… ------- Today I compared the results with the XA-1 and the 55-200 mm lens. The results are similar to those obtained with XT-2. Tests with a Nikon D7100 and an 18-140 lens at 140 mm seems to indicate that the focus point is maintained between full aperture and f / 8 aperture. So I will test with the new firmware of the XT-2 and probably rent another 55-200 mm to be sure it's not a lens problem but I have doubt. Here's why: On another post I've tested a few lens and wrote: "the results at f/4 and f/5.6 did not produce any significant changes". Now I understand why. Because the first test was done with single point autofocus and the focus point shift even with a flat surface. At the suggestion of Veejay my other tests included manual focus. As Artuk pointed out it's unlikely a lens problem. I'll keep you posted with my results.
  7. Here are some preliminary results. I would have preferred better lighting but the weather did not allow me to do tests outside (sorry for the high ISO of 3200). A 200 mm focal length was used with the 55-200 mm zoom. These photos were taken in single point mode on a Xt-2 (without upgrading to the latest firmware). The jpg is processed in lightroom without preset. The focus was made on the nose of the pink sheep and the focusing square was included inside the sheep's head. I did let the AF system do it's job for each aperture chosen and photograph. Comparing the two photos we notice that the nose and the thread in the right eye is less in focus at f / 8 than at f / 4.8. There is a loss of texture in the sheep’s fur front. By observing the ruler, one observes a retreat of the focus of the scale 8-10 cm to cm to 12-15 cm or a recess of 5 cm approximately. This can make the difference between precise or blurred eyelashes and skin texture in a portrait or live shows as I often do. I do not know if the new firmware fixes this problem (if it is a problem or a normal situation). Unfortunately the conversion to jpg makes this difficult to see and I’ll upload a detail of the face later. The photos are cropped versions of the originals. Let me know what you think. Here are close-up of the sheep's face...and I can't do it because I've Exceeded the 2mb limit…
  8. Thanks for your reply. I'll do another test tomorrow with an x-a1 body. I've checked the lens firmware which is up to date. My X-T2 firmware is not the latest from end of march. I'll keep you posted with my results, Regards,
  9. Hi, I bought a 55-200 mm lens which is very sharp. I tested the lens in a live show where the lighting was pretty strong (not to dark e.g. 3200 ISO, f/5,6 1/200 sec). I noticed that in manual or autofocus mode with single point focusing (with theXT-2 stick), the focus is often wrong. I did some tests with a tripod afterward. When I shoot at full aperture, focusing is done at the right spot where the focus point is. By stepping down the aperture and taking another picture (I did let the AF system do it's job for each aperture chosen), I notice a progressive blur on the foreground where focusing is done with an increase in the detail of the background. It is as if the whole thing shifts progressively backwards with an increase in depth of field. Is this shift in focus and lack of sharpness on focus point while stepping down is common ? (I mean the shift in focus - An increase in depth of field is normal) The situation does not occur if I use multiple point. The focus is better if the focusing square is smaller thant the subject
  10. 50-140 lack of sharpness

    You are referring to my initial post with a defective lens. At the beginning of the sentence there is: "At full Aperture" followed by ."the 18-140,,," So Yes full aperture is 3.5. Following this, I state in parenthesis: ( the results at f/4 and f/5.6 did not produce any significant changes ). The last sentence is important. Sorry for my english, but the point was that if a 250 $ refurbished lens at f/3.5 has better sharpness than a 2000$ lens at f/4 and f/5.6, then there must be something wrong with the lens. Results were showed to the store and the salesman agreed that this is was buggy lens. Note that I do have the results although at equivalent aperture but what is the use for them since the lens was buggy ? Sharpness of the other 50-140 mm that I have rented were fine and better than the 18-140 Nikkor lens. All other comparison were made at equivalent aperture. Regards, Claude
  11. 50-140 lack of sharpness

    In response to K1W1, Lens comparisons were made for identical openings. For example I tested different openings of the 50-140mm to compare it with the 55-200 mm so between f / 4 to f / 5.6 depending on the focal length. My opinion is that for the same openings and the same focal lengths (for example 100 mm at f / 5.6) the 55-200 mm appeared to me sharper than the 50-140 mm. I cannot compare them at f / 2.8 obviously. This does not mean that the 50-140 mm is not a sharp lens. Anyway, the real test is in a real situation. The camera / stabilizer / lens combination ultimately must be tested as a whole. I made excellent shots of live shows with a rented 50-140 at f / 2.8 mm on an X-pro2. That's why I bought this lens which unfortunately proved to be problematic and returned to the store. This has led me to try 3 Fuji lenses (free trial for that matter). As a result, I prefer the 55-200 mm which is less heavy, more manageable and just as good in my opinion but with a loss of 1 to 1.5 stop. I believe the quality of the sensor will compensate for the lack of light of 1.5 stop. So I will buy the 55-200 mm. It is not impossible that I also buy an 18-135 mm as a travel lens. I feel that an all-around zoom such as the 18-135 mm is generally best used at f/8. Again this is not a laboratory test because I had a deadline to meet for an exchange or refund of the lens. For this reason, it would not be appropriate to publish the results (photos) because I did not use precision devices to verify the verticality of the wall, the precise axis of the camera to the test pattern, the perfect alignment of everything, etc. (yes a good Manfrotto tripod was used.). I did the best I can "visually". I think I was sufficiently precise to take a decision and evaluate the lenses for my need. The comparisons (at the end) were made in autofocus and manual mode (thanks for the tip) by making several shots with several different adjustments to the focus on one multiple target (center and 4 corners). Therefore, of all the tests carried out for each combination “focal length / aperture / lens”, only the sharpest and best shots were compared (from the same targert location). Finally I need to point out that It was not first my intention to test 3 different lenses but there was a free trial offer from Fuji at the store: 3 day free. So I thought that it was a good idea to test, just to be sure to make the right choice. After all an XT-2 and one or two good lenses is a lot of money. Hope this answer your question or others you might have, Claude
  12. 50-140 lack of sharpness

    Good evening, So what started as a discussion of problems I had with a 50-140 mm turned out to be a test of 3 Fuji lens in the end. So here are my final thoughts and results (with a bit of help from google translate). Finally the third 50-140 mm lens was great. For anyone who needs a bright telephoto zoom the 50-140 is a good choice but expensive. The focus was fast under low light and real conditions. The first 50-140 mm lens that I bought and tested probably had a problem and the second rental lens might require adjustments due to intensive use. The 55-200 mm has excellent sharpness. I tested this one at 55 mm, 100 mm and 180mm and the results are more than excellent at full opening. Lighter than the 50-140 mm, it is more manageable and offers a “50 mm” extra. If I need a telephoto zoom in normal conditions I would opt for this one. Under actual low light conditions, it appeared to be a little bit slower to focus than the 50-140mm. I guess tht this is normal considering its smaller opening. I found that the operation of the focal ring was not very fluid to turn i.e. a bit stiffer than the 50-140 mm (intensive rental use?). Thanks to VeeJayC for the photos. That is very eloquent. It is possible that I will buy the 55-200 mm instead. The 18-135 is certainly more versatile. I have not tested much this objective, but it has appeared to me comparable to other objectives of the same category from other manufacturers. In short, neither disappointed nor impressed. Same stiffness for the focal ring as 55-200 mm. I bought the XT-2 because it is the camera I liked the most: light, small, very functional, excellent sensor. The use of some Nikon lenses in manual mode is possible with a special ring and the Dual Viewfinder is convenient to focus. I hope that zoom offering from Fuji will improve in the future. My last comment apply to all mirrorless camera. The need for a mirrorless camera is made especially for it’s lightness which help in taking pictures. But is it really necessary to have such heavy objectives? I understand the need to have tropicalized and robust objectives but there are resistant synthetic materials that can be use. This would improve the ergonomics of the camera / lens combination. Thanks to all for their advices and comments !! Note: If you feel that this should be posted in a more general topic let me know and I’ll start a new post. Claude from Montreal HI VeeJay Comparing my results between the 50-140mm and 55-200 mm I would not be suprised that if you would rent the 50-140 mm you'd find the 55-200 mm as good if not better than the 50-140 mm at same aperture. Regards and thanks again. Claude
  13. 50-140 lack of sharpness

    Note: Indeed, manual focus has an impact on results a f/2.8. And yes this new 50-140 mm is very good. Something was wrong for sure with the first one I bought. More on this tomorrow. Claude from Montreal
  14. 50-140 lack of sharpness

    Hello everyone, Thanks to all for your reply. I'm in the process of redoing all the tests. New targets printed at 600 dpi on an Epson R2880. So I rented for free trial 3 lenses: 18-135 mm, 55-200 mm and another 50-140mm. Before replacing the targets, I did the test first with the third 50-140mm lens at autofocus and manual settings (to compare with previous results on the same basis). This 3rd lens is far better than the other two and it is likely that this is the one i rented this spring. The settings did not affect the results. I did not finalize all the tests but the 55-200 mm lens seems to be very sharp and the 18-135 seems blurred in the corners (always at 100 mm). Now I'm considering the 55-200 mm instead of the 50-140mm. It is less soft in the corner than the 50-140mm but needs more light. The sensor of the XT-2 is very sensitive with a wide dynamic range I wonder if in low light, the autofocus would be good at f / 5.6 with a 55-200. During the last shots in a jazz club I used 1 / 250e has ISO 3200 at 100 mm focal length f / 2.8. This would correspond to about 1 / 125th a ISO 6400 at 100 mm focal length at f / 5.6. I know that at ISO 6400 the results are very good. What do you think ? (Maybe I should make a new post for the 55-200). Thanks again, Claude from Montreal (Canada)
  15. I bought a Fuji 50-140mm lens (and an XT-2 camera) after doing a conclusive test on xpro2. At the reception of the objective I did some tests (using a tripod) with an XT-2 and targets affixed to a wall, since I found the lens a bit disappointing. I compared the results with a Nikkor 18-140 mounted on a Fotodiox adapter. To my surprise the lens had less sharpness than a Nikkor zoom 18-140 (after correction of aberrations in lightroom). At full aperture, the18-140 zoom sharpness was much better than the Fuji 50-140 mm at f/2.8 (the results at f/4 and f/5.6 did not produce any significant changes). I returned the Fuji lens for refund and I rented a second Fuji 50-140 mm lens. New tests showed that the first lens presented problems. However, I was again surprised that the second lens was comparable to the Nikkor 18-140 mm and exhibited a slight form of fuzziness (shadow around characters or bar on the target – similar to astigmatism at corners). The trials I had done before buying an XT-2 and zoom 50-140 mm had amazed me. So I'm very disappointed with the quality control of the lenses and I'm thinking of returning the XT-2. The main reason for buying this was the camera / lens combination and to have a sharp lens. The combination of the XT-2 and the 50-140 mm seemed to be a winner because the XT-2's sensor has little noise in high ISO. Non-mechanical operation is also silent and very useful in certain situations. And as a bonus it’s not too heavy to carry around. I would appreciate your advice before definitively abandoning the Fuji line (unfortunately). Am I just unlucky with two lenses with this price tag or am I doing something wrong? Note: I have done all the tests several times with and without stabilizer, with and without mechanical shutter with the same results. All tests were performed at a focal length of 100 mm only (limited time to return the lens). Test were made with target in center and each four corners. The comparison was also made with a Nikkor E 100mm lens (mounted on Fotodiox), which has surpassed the other lenses in terms of sharpness (except it was slightly less sharp at center at f/2.8). On a field test, the 50-140 Fuji lens has less chromatic (maybe none) and no barrel distortion or other type of distortion or problems found in the other lenses tested. Focus was a bit inconsistent with the first version of 40-150 Fuji lens. Unfortunately, a lack of sharpness can’t be corrected by software. The tests were not scientific but carried out with what I think is sufficient accuracy for comparison (not in a lab of course!).
×