sharpest image fujix100 v gx1 20mm panasonic lens

Discussion in 'Micro Four Thirds Forum' started by adam, May 5, 2013.

  1. adam

    adam SC Regular

    26
    Jan 24, 2013
    Birmingham UK
    Adam
    Hi ,

    Re - fujix100 v lumix gx1 20mm panasonic lens

    Which combination in your opinion gives the sharpest edge to edge definition - I am very curious.

    Thank you for your comments.

    Adam
     
  2. bartjeej

    bartjeej SC Hall of Famer

    Nov 12, 2010
    bart
    I've never had any m43 camera, let alone that specific combination, but I did consider getting one. Both lenses are great; fast, sharp and compact. In my estimation, when people speak about the 20/1.7, its sharpness is mentioned more often than when the X100 is discussed; the latter does have a wonderfully dreamy way of rendering highlights and flare, which I really like. The X100 is a little soft around the corners at f/2 (already pretty darn sharp in the center). It's very sharp by f/4, although in my opinion, it's never really biting-sharp (it's not unsharp or fuzzy in any way, it just never looks like you could cut yourself if you run your finger over the paper/screen; could be that it has less micro-contrast than some other lenses). Would love to hear from others in this regard though :smile:
     
  3. Gary

    Gary SC All-Pro

    Aug 19, 2012
    Southern California
    Gary Ayala
    I have the GF1 and a X100S ... so I'm close but not on the money with your request. The 20mm is very very sharp and the sensor Bayer sorta feeds this sharpness. The X100S is also very sharp, but the image is less digital and more filmlike in appearance. I dunno if it's the micro-contrast of the lens or the µ4/3 sensor rendering more defined colors or you could say a less blending of colors. One would think that it would be easier and more cost effective to design/manufacturer a sharper lens corner-to-corner for a small µ4/3 sensor than a larger APS-C sensor.

    Why are you interested in this comparison?

    Gary
     
  4. adam

    adam SC Regular

    26
    Jan 24, 2013
    Birmingham UK
    Adam
    Thank you for the responses. I am thinking of purchasing another camera and both appeal. I like the 100S but not sure if I can afford it however I understand its a beautiful photographic tool that delivers performance and image quality in spades. It seems however that one model supersedes an other within the space of 1 -2 years and wonder how much more photographic imagary can improve based purely on technical advances.

    Adam.

    Adam.
     
  5. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    Comparing gear is one thing, but worrying about minute differences in sharpness between different combinations and how it will affect your photography can become an undesirable end game in and of itself. I have many photographs that I took a couple years back with early m43 cameras that are much better photographs than many I have shot more recently with much "better" gear. Buy good gear that is within your budget and shoot a lot. If I showed you a photo taken with both set-ups and asked you which one was overall better (not just sharper, but better overall) and you weren't allowed to pixel peep, I'm quite sure you'd be satisfied with either one.

    just my 2 cents
     
  6. pdh

    pdh SC Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    Listen to that man; his 2c could save you many $$$ and your sanity
     
  7. Armanius

    Armanius Bring Jack back!

    Jan 11, 2011
    Houston, Texas
    Jack
    Gf1 + 20/1.7.
     
  8. adam

    adam SC Regular

    26
    Jan 24, 2013
    Birmingham UK
    Adam
    Thank you.

    People make excellent and thought provoking comments.

    I wonder why people pixel peep at 100% apart from those who post process in applications such as LR, in order to determine accuate sharpening levels etc.

    Am I right in assuming that viewing at 100% is akin to seeing what the image would like like in print at a size of 3 feet by 2 feet.

    Adam
     
  9. bartjeej

    bartjeej SC Hall of Famer

    Nov 12, 2010
    bart
    ^pretty much, yeah...
     
  10. pdh

    pdh SC Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    But the thing is, would you stand so close to a 3' x 2' print that such differences become apparent?

    Or would you stand back to see the "big picture"? At which point tiny differences in sharpness may (I'm inclined to say "will", but my eyes are getting older) become completely irrelevant.
     
  11. Gary

    Gary SC All-Pro

    Aug 19, 2012
    Southern California
    Gary Ayala
    I think it was Lawrence A, a member of this forum, who stated if you need a computer to see any differences then there isn't any difference at all. And that is very sound advice. A bigger difference than sharpness only seen at 100%, is camera handling and versatility.

    The X100 had a built in viewfinder, which I find to be a significant advantage over an LCD in terms of quick framing, camera stability and daylight shooting.
    The GX1 has an advantage in versatility as it is a camera with an interchangeable lens mount. (You can purchase an EVF for the GX1, but now the cost is approaching the X100).

    Gary
     
  12. lcsolla

    lcsolla SC Regular

    109
    Sep 5, 2011
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Luis Castro e Solla
    Just two small points:
    1. ergonomics and pleasure are important. I tried the GX1, found it excellent in size and ergonomics, especially if combined with the optional electronic viefinder. I have also tried the X100, but not enough to have an opinion about it.
    2. differences which are seen on screen are often not seen in prints; problem is, we more and more show pictures in (increasingly big) screens :-(