Tag Archives: opinion

Commentary, Equipment, Fujifilm, Reviews

Considering the Fujifilm X-E5

Image 4 Comments

Fujifilm recently announced the X-E5, the latest camera in their X-E series. I think this model series is intriguing.. It is small and lightweight, well designed. has a lot of useful features, incorporates a high resolution sensor and IBIS (in body image stabilization) , and is compatible with Fujifilm’s excellent lenses. It has a few other features that may or may not appeal, along with one “elephant in the room” issue.

Fujifilm XE5 Silver Body
Fujifilm XE5 Silver body. (Used with permission from Fujifilm.)

(Notes: I omit the hyphens between X and E in this article. I have rounded prices to the nearest dollar. Photographs of Fujifilm products used by permission from Fujifilm. Affiliate links in this article lead to B&H Photo — they return a small fee to this website if you use them to make a purchase — thanks in advance!.)

Right up front, let me be clear about one thing: I have not had my hands on the XE5 yet. I owned the XE1, my first Fujifilm camera, about a dozen years ago. Our photographic household has had the XE2, XE3, and XE4, and I have recommended all of them to various potential buyers over the years. While I cannot give a “hands on” review of the new camera at this point — hey Fujifilm, I’m here if you have one to loan! — I am qualified to comment on its features and who may find them appealing.

The XE Series

Let’s start with a bit of XE history. The original XE1 camera came out in 2012. At that time it was one of only two interchangeable lens x-trans* cameras from Fujifilm — the other was the more expensive “flagship model,” the XPro1. The XE1 was a smaller, less-expensive alternative for those who wanted a Fujifilm rangefinder-style camera with interchangeable lenses. Importantly, the XE1 (like later XE models) used the same sensor found in high-end Fujiflm APS-C cameras, which at that time was the 16MP sensor used in the “flagship” XPro1.)

(*”x-trans” refers to Fujifilm’s unique arrangement of the red, blue, and green photo sites on the sensor, a design that was said to help control aliasing/moire on cameras that do not use anti-aliasing filters, among other things.)

Continue reading Considering the Fujifilm X-E5 →
Commentary, Ideas, News

Photography and Freedom of Speech… and War

1 Comment

Taking a break from the usual landscape stuff you’ll find here – don’t worry, it will be back soon! – I’d like to draw attention to a New York Times article posted today:  “Images, the Law and War” (You may need to “join” the site there to see it.)

I’m not going to take sides here – not at the moment, anyway – on the question of whether President Obama is right or wrong to withhold the release of additional photographs that reveal painful truths about our treatment of captives in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have an opinion, but I’d rather you consider the article and the underlying issues it illustrates for yourself. The article, in my view, does an admirable job of laying out the complex and conflicting values that collide in questions like this one.

It also provides clear evidence of the power of photographic images and their ability to affect those who see them.

Equipment, Tests

Corner Sharpness of the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L Lens on Full Frame

Leave a comment

Since the question of how the Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L performs across the frame for landscape photography comes up periodically, I have posted an older test photo I made last year (2007) – updated here to include a comparison corner and center sharpness.

Canon5D17_40f16CornerVsCenter.jpg

Technical data: Canon 5D. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L lens. Focal length: 17mm. Aperture: f/16. Shutter speed: 1/60 second. Shot on the tripod with MLU and remote release. If the full image were reproduced at this resolution the print would be about five feet wide. (Not that I’d do that – it is a really boring photograph! :-) In a more typical size print the corners would like very good, indeed.

A 100% crop would not be expected to be “razor sharp” – and we see typical results here. It is impressive to see how well the corner image quality holds up – despite the fact that grass is one of the most challenging subjects for a digital sensor and the fact that this part of the scene was much closer to the camera than the focus point in the center of the scene – i.e. the corner section showing the grass is only a few feet from the camera, and the camera is focused hundreds of feet away on the objects in the center of the frame. (On that subject, I’m convinced that a good number of the reports of “poor corner performance” in ultra wide lenses are actually due to the subjects in the corner being much closer to the camera position than the subjects in the center of the frame, especially when the “tests” are done by shooting actual landscape subjects.)

BOTTOM LINE: What does this tell us, how do we view this in the context of reports of soft corners on the EF 17-40mm f/4 lens, and what does this mean for anyone trying to choose a wide (or ultra-wide in the case of full-frame cameras) Canon zoom lens?

While this lens is soft in the corners when shot wide open, the lens is not particularly soft in the corners when stopped down. If your primary use for such a lens is, for example, shooting very low light handheld wide angle photographs the 17-40 is perhaps not your best choice. (The EF 16-35mm f/2.8 on full frame or the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a cropped sensor body could be more appropriate zooms.) On the other hand, if you are primarily interested in subjects that are usually shot at smaller apertures (urban/wild landscapes, architecture, etc.) then the 17-40 can be an outstanding lens – though this is more true on a full frame body than on a crop body, given that you are unlikely to use the smaller apertures on a crop sensor body given the diffraction blur issues there. So, to state it very succinctly…

… the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 lens is an excellent lens for shooting deep DOF small-aperture photography on a full-frame camera. (It is OK but not necessarily ideal for use with cropped sensor bodies, where I would prefer the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.)

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.