Originally Posted by ziggy53 I saw that there is a Leica M-Mount adapter coming, but I haven't seen an announcement of dedicated Leica branded lenses for the Fujifilm X-Pro 1. Did you see something regarding dedicated lenses?

I had a conversation about the camera with someone who works at a camera shop. I misunderstood
him and called him back and you are correct it is the Leica M-mount adapter he was referring to.My apologies.

No problem. I just checked the FujiFilm USA site and they don't have any official information yet, but I see the same information about the new adapter mentioned on a number of sites, so I suspect it's in the works.

Apparently, someone from FujiFilm mentioned it at the CP+ show, earlier this year. Later, Fuji showed a prototype:

http://leicarumors.com/wp-content/up...-adapter2.jpeg

http://leicarumors.com/wp-content/up...-adapter3.jpeg

Originally Posted by ziggy53 No problem. I just checked the FujiFilm USA site and they don't have any official information yet, but I see the same information about the new adapter mentioned on a number of sites, so I suspect it's in the works. Apparently, someone from FujiFilm mentioned it at the CP+ show, earlier this year. Later, Fuji showed a prototype: http://leicarumors.com/wp-content/up...-adapter2.jpeg http://leicarumors.com/wp-content/up...-adapter3.jpeg

Do you have any views on this type of system eventually replacing DSLR's down the road ?

Originally Posted by lensmole Do you have any views on this type of system eventually replacing DSLR's down the road ?

At least 2 camera manufacturers have said that "mirrorless" interchangeable lens cameras are the future, with the traditional "SLR" design fading and, eventually, disappearing. There are a few hurdles that need to be cleared before that can happen.

An SLR design has an optical path that allows you to see through the taking lens. You see, at the speed of light, what the lens presents, as the lens forms the image. For human beings this means that you have no "lag" regarding the scene contents. This allows an extremely good perception of action within the scene. When you depress the shutter button completely, to take the image capture, there are different "lags", but many of those same lags also exist in the mirrorless designs.

In a typical mirrorless camera design, (I prefer the name "E.V.I.L.", short for "Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens"), the image is captured by the imager, which has to process the captured image and then display that processed data. The cycle of capture-process-display occurs rapidly, but there is delay, and that delay can cause you to misjudge critical moments in time.

(There is another camera design, pioneered by the Canon EOS RT (1989), but recently popularized by the Sony "SLT" series cameras. These bodies use a fixed, semi-transparent primary mirror, which splits the image into 2 paths; one path leads to the viewfinder, while the other path leads to the imager. This design has some problems, but the design is still fairly popular nonetheless.)

Getting back to the EVIL cameras, until the viewfinder delay becomes negligible, they will have limitations regarding sports/action photography, including active children applications.

For most other photographic applications the delay is less critical, and I suspect that entry-level dSLRs may start to disappear in the next few years.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 At least 2 camera manufacturers have said that "mirrorless" interchangeable lens cameras are the future, with the traditional "SLR" design fading and, eventually, disappearing. There are a few hurdles that need to be cleared before that can happen. An SLR design has an optical path that allows you to see through the taking lens. You see, at the speed of light, what the lens presents, as the lens forms the image. For human beings this means that you have no "lag" regarding the scene contents. This allows an extremely good perception of action within the scene. When you depress the shutter button completely, to take the image capture, there are different "lags", but many of those same lags also exist in the mirrorless designs. In a typical mirrorless camera design, (I prefer the name "E.V.I.L.", short for "Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens"), the image is captured by the imager, which has to process the captured image and then display that processed data. The cycle of capture-process-display occurs rapidly, but there is delay, and that delay can cause you to misjudge critical moments in time. (There is another camera design, pioneered by the Canon EOS RT (1989), but recently popularized by the Sony "SLT" series cameras. These bodies use a fixed, semi-transparent primary mirror, which splits the image into 2 paths; one path leads to the viewfinder, while the other path leads to the imager. This design has some problems, but the design is still fairly popular nonetheless.) Getting back to the EVIL cameras, until the viewfinder delay becomes negligible, they will have limitations regarding sports/action photography, including active children applications. For most other photographic applications the delay is less critical, and I suspect that entry-level dSLRs may start to disappear in the next few years.

This is good to know, your explanation is much appreciated Thank you.

Originally Posted by lensmole Do you have any views on this type of system eventually replacing DSLR's down the road ?

I can't fathom it. Especially when you consider shooting sports, action, kids, weddings, and actually holding a camera securely in your hands.

Digital Medium Format cameras still exist for a reason. So too will 35mm DSLRs.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft I can't fathom it. Especially when you consider shooting sports, action, kids, weddings, and actually holding a camera securely in your hands. Digital Medium Format cameras still exist for a reason. So too will 35mm DSLRs.

Well I did notice that the new, X Pro 1. is a bit larger in terms of something to hold on to.New technology replaces old,we used to drive 1927 models T's and they served their purpose, but it doesn't mean we keep driving them.So image "maybe" a system that has all of the attributes you have mentioned,but only superior.It takes longer to go from say .01 % to 10% in an innovative stage of the development of a product than it does to go from 10% to 90%. It's kind of like information going through an inverted funnel,all of the sudden some things become more popular and useful and 8 track tapes become collectors items along with records, and cassette tapes not to mention VHS replaced by CD's and so on. Just my thoughts.

X-Pro 1 does not threaten to replace DSLRs, as it is not much more compact, and it is less capable in terms of AF and FPS.

Until we can invent something else that can perform the functions of a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens or a 35mm f/1.4 lens, etc, large cameras are here to stay for specific uses. Point-n-shoot cameras are in more imminent peril of joining the 8-track in the tech museum. (funny, I just bought an S100 too)

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft X-Pro 1 does not threaten to replace DSLRs, as it is not much more compact, and it is less capable in terms of AF and FPS. Until we can invent something else that can perform the functions of a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens or a 35mm f/1.4 lens, etc, large cameras are here to stay for specific uses. Point-n-shoot cameras are in more imminent peril of joining the 8-track in the tech museum. (funny, I just bought an S100 too)

I am not talking about the x-pro 1 replacing DSLRs. more specifically mirror less camera technology.
It is only a question ! Anyway this link might tweak your grey cells.

http://www.howtogeek.com/102534/htg-...l-photography/

I've seen the Trey Ratcliff video. He makes a few good points for landscape photography. I also agree EVILs are good for street photography and times you want to be discrete. But think about it, if you want/have to carry a 24-70/2.8 or a 35/1.4 or a 70-200/2.8 (or even an f/4 for that matter), what is the point of a smaller body? There is none. And if you want control over DOF and low noise, you need APS-C minimum, imo. Physics is physics. Glass lenses like those are not going to get any smaller. Someday maybe we will invent a lens and sensor that are as small and sensitive as the human eye, with the same DR, but lovers of thin DOF will be disappointed. And it will have to be something other than glass.

You make a very valid case about lenses. Also the ergonomics of shooting a small camera with a LCD screen and having my arms extended out a couple of feet is not a good feeling for me or very reassuring it just doesn't feel right. Maybe they will sort through some of the obstacles or maybe some kind of combination with large glass. Although I am seriously considering purchasing the x pro 1 for a second camera,as apposed to replacing my 5d mii with the new miii .

Originally Posted by lensmole You make a very valid case about lenses. Also the ergonomics of shooting a small camera with a LCD screen and having my arms extended out a couple of feet is not a good feeling for me or very reassuring it just doesn't feel right.

See I just don't see DSLRs going away any time soon for these reasons and more.

Maybe they will sort through some of the obstacles or maybe some kind of combination with large glass.

It will have to be some material other than glass if the lenses are to get smaller.

Although I am seriously considering purchasing the x pro 1 for a second camera,as apposed to replacing my 5d mii with the new miii .

Sure if you don't need the AF that the 5DIII offers, the X-Pro 1 is very attractive as an upper-middle-class Leica! Wish I could have one, but I need the AF. Kids, ya know?

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft ... It will have to be some material other than glass if the lenses are to get smaller. ...

The glass types (and fluorite crystal) used in current lens construction are already about as efficient in transmitting light as you can get. Future zoom lens formulas may improve a little, but that's about it.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 The glass types (and fluorite crystal) used in current lens construction are already about as efficient in transmitting light as you can get. Future zoom lens formulas may improve a little, but that's about it.

Agreed, which is why I said we will have to come up with something other than glass - something like a synthetic eyeball lens. Fluid, gel, ectoplasm, whatever.... something space-aged that isn't even on the drawing board yet. (or maybe it is)

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft Agreed, which is why I said we will have to come up with something other than glass - something like a synthetic eyeball lens. Fluid, gel, ectoplasm, whatever.... something space-aged that isn't even on the drawing board yet. (or maybe it is)

Or make the sensor smaller, which lets you use a smaller imaging circle, which lets you use a smaller lens.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft Agreed, which is why I said we will have to come up with something other than glass - something like a synthetic eyeball lens. Fluid, gel, ectoplasm, whatever.... something space-aged that isn't even on the drawing board yet. (or maybe it is)

A little lens theory is in order.

The maximum "f" number of a lens, basically the ability of a lens to collect light, is a simple function of the focal length of the lens and the opening (entrance) of the lens. Specifically, the maximum "possible" aperture of a simple lens is focal-length/diameter. A 100mm lens with 50mm front element diameter will have a theoretical maximum aperture of f2.

My Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM has a front filter thread of 72mm. Dividing 135mm by 72mm I get 1.875. Of course, the opening of the lens is a little less than 72mm, so that lens is extremely efficient at light transmission.

It's correct to say that no lens is 100 percent efficient in its optical design, but the best modern lens designs are very efficient in light transmission. There is no material, "Fluid, gel, ectoplasm, whatever...." that can improve much on current lens glass formulations, including fluorite.

Just as an aside, "glass" is only a semi-solid. Over a few hundred years, all common glass formulations will flow a bit. Glass panes used in window displays for a hundred years can have a measurable difference between top and bottom thickness, for instance.

Originally Posted by MarkR Or make the sensor smaller, which lets you use a smaller imaging circle, which lets you use a smaller lens.

Absolutely true. The Olympus ED 35-100mm, f2.0, designed for the Olympus Four Thirds system camera bodies, has a field-of-view (FOV) similar to the 70-200mm lenses on a full-frame (FF) camera body, but the Olympus zoom is an "f2" effective aperture, letting in twice as much light from the scene.

An f2 telephoto zoom is a remarkable achievement, and mostly possible because of the smaller format system.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 Absolutely true. The Olympus ED 35-100mm, f2.0, designed for the Olympus Four Thirds system camera bodies, has a field-of-view (FOV) similar to the 70-200mm lenses on a full-frame (FF) camera body, but the Olympus zoom is an "f2" effective aperture, letting in twice as much light from the scene. An f2 telephoto zoom is a remarkable achievement, and mostly possible because of the smaller format system.

True, but m4/3 is 2 stops slower than FF, so it's still behind. Oly needs f/2 just to break even with APS-C. Besides, I've heard that Oly f/2 zooms are really just older f/2.8 designs with an extra element added to bring them to f/2. I haven't confirmed this but it's not encouraging.

Someday we may invent a lens and sensor that is as good as the human eye. It will be about as good and fast as a 50mm f/1.2 lens is on Full Frame today, but obviously much smaller. Still, DOF will suffer. Cover one eye and look around your room to see why.

My 35mm f/1.4 on FF seems pretty close to the human eye, but it's a big honking package...

(ISO 400)

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft True, but m4/3 is 2 stops slower than FF, so it's still behind. Oly needs f/2 just to break even with APS-C. Besides, I've heard that Oly f/2 zooms are really just older f/2.8 designs with an extra element added to bring them to f/2. I haven't confirmed this but it's not encouraging.

Not sure what you mean by two stops slower? Aperture is expressed as a ratio, so physical size of the lens or sensor is not a consideration.

About the only thing you "lose" is bokeh-- and in a few years the processors on the cameras will be able to add that in automatically. And it will look real.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft ... I've heard that Oly f/2 zooms are really just older f/2.8 designs with an extra element added to bring them to f/2. I haven't confirmed this but it's not encouraging. ...

That is extremely unlikely. Regardless, the available image samples and reviews from the Olympus ED 35-100mm, f2.0 are indicating a lens of extremely high quality:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...php/product/43
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2008/12...ed-35-100mm-f2
https://www.google.com/search?q=Olym....,cf.osb&cad=b

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft ... Someday we may invent a lens and sensor that is as good as the human eye. It will be about as good and fast as a 50mm f/1.2 lens is on Full Frame today, but obviously much smaller. Still, DOF will suffer. Cover one eye and look around your room to see why. My 35mm f/1.4 on FF seems pretty close to the human eye, but it's a big honking package... (ISO 400)

The average human eye (no two eyes are the same) is estimated (including some peripheral vision) to be approximately similar to the FOV of a 50mm lens on a FF 135 format camera. The actual focal length of the human eye is estimated at 22-24mm. The estimated f-stop equivalence for the human eye is around f2.1-f3.2 when the pupil is wide open, down to approximately f8 when the pupil is closed, but the eye lid open.

Best accumulated information:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html