On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 04:50:00 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Thursday, 27 December 2018 21:38:09 UTC-5, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 27, 2018, RichA wrote
(in ):

On Thursday, 27 December 2018 14:33:02 UTC-5, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 27, 2018, RichA wrote
(in ):

Reason I asked is that I saw a shot with a 56mm f/1.2 and at 2000 ISO it
was soft, very poor resolution, almost as bad as I've seen with an old Canon
56mm f/1.2 I had. Then I saw a shot from about the same distance (a few feet)
with the lens at 200 ISO and it was completely different, nicely sharp
wide-open.

I do not have the XF56mm f/1.2, but it has a very good reputation among Fuji
users who use it primarily for portraiture. Where did you see this
particular comparison/test?

One guy was complaining about the resolution of the lens on DPreview, (that
was the 2000 ISO image) another was just a shot at 200 ISO. The guy's 2000
ISO image was in focus, no motion blur, so that's why I wondered about the
high ISO wiping out detail. One guy blamed it on lighting.

As I said, I have no personal experience with the 56/1.2. For the most part
with my X-T3 I have no issues with sharpness from ISO160 to ISO6400, higher
than ISO6400 things get slightly soft. At ISO12800, and ISO25600 I still have
usable images. Check the black print on these boxes, the shots are SOOC JPEG
with no post processing using 16-55mm f/2.8 on the X-T3.

ISO6400
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-fg85FxM/0/5cbc830a/5K/i-fg85FxM-5K.jpg

ISO12800
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KJgmghM/0/d2981458/5K/i-KJgmghM-5K.jpg

ISO25600
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-...PxpmQVZ-5K.jpg

--
Regards,
Savageduck

Side issue; less powder, much heavier bullet with .45 than .40. Is that to keep them sub-sonic?

More like fashion - the image of a 45.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens