If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution on Fuji cameras; highly impacted by ISO setting?
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution on Fuji cameras; highly impacted by ISO setting?
On Dec 30, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 04:50:00 -0800 (PST), 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-5K.jpg ISO12800 https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/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. Fashion? Here is my, ...er, fashionable Kimber PRO CDP II .45 ACP. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tHWv8BL/0/7bee7357/5K/i-tHWv8BL-5K.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution on Fuji cameras; highly impacted by ISO setting?
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 15:55:11 -0800, Savageduck
wrote: More like fashion - the image of a 45. Fashion? Here is my, ...er, fashionable Kimber PRO CDP II .45 ACP. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tHWv8BL/0/7bee7357/5K/i-tHWv8BL-5K.jpg No doubt it carries more weight in almost every sense than the Kimber Micro Advocate. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution on Fuji cameras; highly impacted by ISO setting?
On Dec 31, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 15:55:11 -0800, Savageduck wrote: More like fashion - the image of a 45. Fashion? Here is my, ...er, fashionable Kimber PRO CDP II .45 ACP. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tHWv8BL/0/7bee7357/5K/i-tHWv8BL-5K.jpg No doubt it carries more weight in almost every sense than the Kimber Micro Advocate. While the Micro Advocate is a fine, compact, carry hand gun, I am not a fan of the .380. If I was going toward a lighter caliber I would choose the newer 9mm loads over the .380. My preference is more for the heavier .40 S&W, or 1911 type .45 ACP, or in a revolver a .357 Mag. My Kimber Pro CPD IIhttps://www.kimberamerica.com/pro-cdp-ca has an empty weight of 28 oz the Micro Advocate weighs 13.8 oz. 15 years ago I paid $1200 for the .45 ACP, today it is priced at $1380. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Resolution on Fuji cameras; highly impacted by ISO setting? | David Taylor | Digital Photography | 0 | December 29th 18 05:53 AM |
Dpreview's reviews "Highly Recommended" is highly questionable | Giftzwerg | Digital Photography | 7 | August 18th 09 12:03 PM |
Internet prints at specified resolution (ppi setting)? | none | Digital Photography | 2 | October 17th 05 03:45 PM |
Fuji S500: What resolution setting? | Luke Webber | Digital Photography | 15 | July 26th 04 12:27 PM |