The Wonder of Mirror-Up for Low Light Photos

Article and photos by Denni Raubenheimer
***Click on images for high res versions 

All experienced photographers with long lenses can attest to the challenges that low light brings to achieving sharp images. One of the fundamental things that I teach beginner clients with regards to shutter speed is how to know if your shutter speed is quick enough to avoid camera shake when shooting hand-held. The guide line is simple: keep your shutter speed faster than your focal length, or at least equal to it, when shooting hand-held. If your camera has a cropped sensor then I advocate using your effective focal length as the minimum. However, this isn’t always feasible in low light. This is where Mirror-Up shutter release mode, or a delayed shutter, becomes useful. 

Leopard at sunset. Focal length 420mm without VR at 1/400s using a bean bag with Mirror-Up. Click on image for high res version.

Professional Nikon D-SLRs have a shutter release mode called Mirror-Up (M-Up). This mode is the same as activating Mirror Lock-Up with a Canon, or other D-SLR, but it is readily accessible. It is also effectively the same as setting a delay of at least one second between your camera’s mirror-lift and the actuation of the shutter. 

Mirror-Up isn’t always the go-to in low light situations, one will usually compensate for low light with large apertures, high ISOs, physical stabilization (e.g. a bean bag) and, or vibration reduction (i.e. image stabilization). However, for relatively stationary subjects and especially when you want to avoid excessive ISOs and don’t have very good image stabilization (or none at all) Mirror-Up can help you produce sharp images at shutter speeds well below those you would usually require. 

Reflections and ripples in water at sunset. Focal length 420mm without VR and on a beanbag at 1/320s with Mirror-Up.

In Mirror-Up one needs to press the shutter button twice to take a photo. The first press lifts the camera’s mirror, the second one releases the shutter. If one waits a second or two after the mirror lifts, before pressing the shutter button a second time the vibrations caused by the mirror lifting will have largely faded and will not reduce image sharpness. The effect of these vibrations are negligible at high shutter speeds, but at low shutter speeds they will reduce image sharpness. Obviously, their effect become redundant if the camera is not kept physically stable – then blurring caused by the “macro” movements of the camera will far outweigh blurring caused by the internal vibrations produced by mirror-lift. Furthermore, different D-SLR camera models’ mirrors produce different amounts of vibration as their sizes, weights and rotational velocities differ. Nevertheless, at shutter speeds that are low relative to focal length when one’s camera is kept relatively static, avoiding the vibrations generated by mirror-lift will always improve image sharpness.

The Nikon D800 has a 36MP full-frame sensor that can show very high levels of detail and thus easily betrays a lack of sharpness. It’s mirror-lift (or rather -slap) causes significant vibrations and when using good quality lenses vibrations coming from the mirror can significantly impact image sharpness at slow shutter speeds. With the D800 I most often shoot wildlife at 420 mm (300mm f/4 with 1.4 TC) with a Nikkor lens that does not have VR (i.e. IS). Due to the high resolution that the combination of the lens and sensor give, the photos quickly betray lacking sharpness. Personally, I find that for consistently pin-sharp images (when not panning) with this combo hand-held I need to go faster than 1/800s (i.e. 1/1000s, or faster). In low-light I have found that if I have to shoot hand-held at 420mm I can use 1/400s when I use Mirror-Up and get consistently acceptable sharpness, and noticeable sharper images than when not using Mirror-Up. I would then estimate one stop improved stability for hand-held without VR (i.e. IS) at telephoto focal lengths. 

Burchell's zebra at sunset. Focal length 420mm without VR and hand held at 1/320s with Mirror-Up.

Where the release mode really shines is when I use it on a beanbag. When shooting wildlife from a vehicle and to a lesser extent on foot I am very fond of bean bags. The are not as stable as tripods, but give lots of maneuverability with lenses that are not excessive in weight. With the non-VR 300mm f/4 + 1.4 TC and on a steady beanbag I can quite comfortably shoot at 1/250s and expect sharp images (without a cable release), whereas I would not try and avoid going below 1/400s in these conditions in regular release modes (remember the D800 easily betrays lacking sharpness and has significant “mirror-slap”). When I need to, I can go even slower on a bean bag with Mirror-Up. The below image of the Giraffe was taken at 420mm and 1/100s on a not-so steady bean bag. 

Giraffe at sunset. Focal length 420mm without VR and using bean bag at 1/100s with Mirror-Up.

100% crop of above image.

I once was forced to capture bioluminescent waves under a starry sky on a beanbag (I cannot remember if it was with, or without a cable release). I only had a brief few moments to grab equipment before my “body guards” left for the beach and had decided not to add a tripod to our flight luggage. Furthermore, my “guards” quickly became impatient on the beach, so I just went for Mirror-Up and tried keeping the camera as static a possible on the beanbag (mounted on a laundry basket!). In the end I used 1s exposures at ISO-12800. Amazingly, a portion of the images were acceptably sharp!

Bioluminescent ocean waves under starry sky. Focal length 24mm on bean bag at 1s shutter speed with Mirror-Up.

The draw-back for using Mirror-Up on live subjects and when shooting without a tripod is that after lifting the mirror you shoot blind, i.e. your view-finder is completely black. Also, you obviously lose continuous release. However, in situations where my subject does not require continuous release and the light demands slower shutter speeds than the value of my focal length Mirror-Up is often part of the solution – and sometimes invaluable.  

Burchell's zebra portrait. Focal length 420mm without VR and on a bean bag at 1/320s with Mirror-Up.

 

100% crop of above image.

Black-headed Oriole. Focal length 420mm without VR and on make-shift beanbag at 1/250s with Mirror-Up.

100% crop of above image.

Nikon D610: Informal Review with Comparisons to Nikon D800

Article by: Denni Raubenheimer

Photos by: Denni Raubenheimer and Yolande Raubenheimer

 

The Nikon D610 is the relatively new “entry-level” full-frame from Nikon. Its pricing makes it an attractive option to those wanting to enter the world of digital full-frame and also a likely choice for serious amateurs and professionals looking for a second, or third, full-frame body. Reviews of this acclaimed model are abundant. However, here I give my impressions of the camera and compare it to the awesome non-flagship Nikon D800. Many wanting to purchase an “affordable”  Nikon full-frame will have to choose between the D610 and D800. I hope this article will help such readers to come to sensible final choices.  

Butterfly taken heldheld with single AF-point and C-AF. Nikon D610, 1/400s, 280mm, f/8, ISO-500.

Technical background:

To give some context to readers that are not familiar with Nikon’s latest full-frame bodies. The D610 was released quite shortly after the D600. The sensor and image quality of these two models are the same and the specs are near identical. A noteworthy improvement in the D610 is an upgraded auto white balance system. Unofficial as it might be, the main reason that the D610 was produced so quickly after the D600 is arguably that it resolves the problematic tendency of the D600’s shutter-mechanism to expel micro droplets of oil onto the camera’s image sensor. Nevertheless, the D610 and D600 are Nikon’s most affordable full-frame D-SLRs retailing for around 1800 USD and 1500 USD, respectively (body-only). The Nikon D800 (and D800E) is one rung up the ladder (the camera that pioneered 36 Mega-pixels in the full-frame arena; a highly acclaimed and ground-breaking model) costing about 2600 USD (3000 USD for the D800E; body-only). The next rung of the ladder is that of the flagship D4 and D4s that retail for roughly 5000 USD and 6500 USD, respectively (body only). These flagship models are arguably only suited for successful professionals and the significantly wealthy, but offer unbeatable image quality and autofocus performance (though those with a preference to Canon would probably argue that Canon’s flagship 1D X outguns the Nikon flagship).

Very recently, the D750 and D810 were launched. The former lies in between the D610 and D800 and the latter is the successor of the D800. The D750 makes choosing the best “affordable” Nikon full-frame a more difficult choice. Comparisons to the D710 are not included in this article.

Specifications:

Here are the core specifications of the D610:

- 24 million effective pixels

- 6016 x 4016 maximum resolution (3:2 ration)

- Sensor size and type: full-frame CMOS

- Processor: Expeed 3

- ISO: 100 – 6400 (Boosted: 50 – 25600)

- File formats: NEF (RAW) 12 – 14 bit (lossless compressed/compressed/uncompressed) and Jpeg (fine/normal/basic)

- Regular Nikon Autofocus types with addition of face detect AF.

- Focus points: 39 (9 cross-type)

- Shutter speed range: 30s. – 1/4000s.

- Shooting modes: P, A, S and M.

- Flash X sync speed: 1/200s.

- Max frame rate: 6 frames per second

- Buffer in RAW: 14 frames at lossless 14-bit RAW format.

- Drive modes: single, continuous low, continuous high, mirror-up, quite shutter release, timer

- Metering modes: Multi (matrix), Centre-weighted, Average and Spot.

- Exposure compensation range: ± 5 stops

- AE bracketing:

- WB bracketing:

- Storage: 2x SD slots

- Remote control: wired and wireless

- Body Material: Magnesium alloy and on top and behind with polycarbonate front.

- Environmental sealing: Water and dust resistant

- Weight with battery: 850g.

- Dimensions: 141 x 113 x 82 mm

- Video resolutions: 1920x1080 (30/25/24 fps) and 1280x720 (60/50/30/25 fps)

- Video format: MPEG-4, H.264

- Microphone and speaker are mono.

- Timelapse capable: Yes

--- Specs obtained from www.dpreview.com

Red-knobbed Coots. Nikon D610, 1/1600s, 420mm, f/7.1, ISO-720.

Nikon D610 specs vs. Nikon D800

The most noteworthy areas where these fall short of the higher-end Nikon D800 are the maximum shutter speed (1/4000s. vs. 1/8000s.), the amount of focus points (39 points vs. 51 points), flash X-sync speed (1/200s. vs. 1/250s.), body material (Magnesium alloy on top and behind with polycarbonate front vs. complete magnesium alloy skeleton) and resolution (24MP vs. 36MP). In terms of resolution the “deficit” of the D610 is only really relevant to photographers that require the utmost detail in their images and have an arsenal of lenses with extremely good resolution and to those that often need to crop their photos significantly (though at high ISOs extreme cropping with the D800 is generally not feasible for retaining good image quality). Lastly, the D610 outguns the D800 in maximum frame rate, namely 6 fps vs. 4 fps, but has a smaller buffer (14 vs. 20 frames at max frame rate and 14-bit compressed RAW).

For videographers that can afford the D800 the choice between the two is a no-brainer, with the D800 being a professionally competent video D-SLR camera. For those who might only on occasion need high quality video, the D610 is good enough. 

Nikon D610, hand-held, 1/250s, 50mm, f/3.2, ISO-1250.

100% crop of above photo after resizing to 16MP. Note ISO of 1250.

First impressions:

The very first impressions that I had of the D600 were of briefly handling clients’ cameras. I liked the feel and somewhat liked the smaller size (I have large hands). The playback from a few images suggested very similar to near identical image quality to that of our D800. I could see that the autofocus area was slightly smaller than that of the D800, but also that for wildlife application it would generally be large enough. The most noteworthy difference that I spotted on the D600’s body was the lack of a designated AF-ON button. After these first brief interactions with the D600 I felt sure that had we gone for the D600, in stead of the D800, we would still have had a more than adequate primary body for our wildlife and general purposes.

After receiving the test unit that we had for two weeks it didn’t take me long to configure it to our preferences. Something that Nikon’s recent pro bodies allow is exposure compensation via Auto ISO in Manual mode. This is an extremely versatile shooting mode set-up, so that’s what I used for most of the shooting I did with the test unit. After shooting a few images I could notice that the D610 sample did have noticeably longer lag in between shots compared to the D800. This is probably the only significant criticism I have of the D610 vs. the D800. Apart from the time lag (that I quite quickly became unconscious of) shooting with the D610 was very enjoyable and I never felt unconfident in the camera’s abilities. 

Handheld image at ISO-3200 with no NR. Click on image to see cropped window at 100% after resizing to 16MP..

Performance:

The D610 performs like a true pro-grade body. White balance and focus are very dependable and hard to distinguish from the D800. While shooting birds in flight I did get the impression the D610’s focus tracking was slightly inferior to the D800. However, the D610 largely made up for this with its quicker frame rate and thus it seemed that the amount of critically sharp photos were similar to what I would have expected to produce using the D800.

The size of the AF point array on the D610 has been critisized quite a bit, because it is somewhat smaller that that on the D800 and D4. For me personally, the area covered by the D610 would be sufficient to shoot most of the action-shots that I tend to try and capture. Only with birds in flight smaller than pigeons would I wish for a larger array.

In general, when depth of field becomes very narrow in non-action situations it advisable to move one’s single Autofocus point as near as possible to where you want the focus to lie in your final composition (i.e. compose first and then move the AF point to where you need to focus), even though almost all D-SLR models’ central AF points are most accurate, because one can easily significantly move a narrow focus-field during re-framing. Here the D610’s somewhat smaller AF point array also falls short of the D800 (and D4). However, the left- and right most AF–points do actually still lie outside the image frame’s vertical thirds.  Unfortunately, the top and bottom Af-points that lie away from the central AF-cluster do not reach the upper and lower thirds of the camera’s image frame. If you wanted to place your focus exactly on the intersection of two thirds one would still have to reframe slightly upwards, or downwards, after using the nearest AF-point.

While using our test unit I did often use single AF-points away from the centre of the frame and never noticed unreliable zones.

ISO performance on the D610 was very much what I expected – near identical to D800 images after down-sampling to 24MP. This says a lot, because if you then downsample high ISO D610 files to 16MP you end up with ISO performance that negligibly falls short of that of the Nikon D4! 

Little Egret in flight. Nikon D610, 1/2500s, 420mm, f/6.3, ISO-280.

100% crop of above image.

Concluding comparisons and final thoughts:

In terms of image quality the D610 and D800 are near identical for full screen viewing and A4 prints. The photo-file advantage of the D800 is in its groundbreaking resolution and capacity for large prints and significant image cropping at low to moderate ISOs. However, for most people 24 MP is more than sufficient. The D610 will also have less of a load on your file storage space and computer’s RAM.

Choosing a D800 over a D610 is not going to give any ISO advantages.

The D800 does arguably have a significantly better AF system than the D610. This is slightly compensated for by the 50% faster max frame rate of the D610 (6 fps) compared to that of the D800 (4 fps). However, this “compensation” is sort of nullified by the smaller buffer of the D610, which will always fill quicker than with the D800 using comparable RAW formats.

Ergonomically, the D610 handles well. The lack of a designated AF-ON button (which the D800 has) means that one has to assign the AE-L/AF-L button to AF-ON if you wish to configure the camera to back-focus only. This then means that you temporarily lose an AE-L button and then have to “sacrifice” another pragrammable button, like the Fn button, to AE-L if you need the function.

Personally, I am glad that we have the D800. For us it is worth the extra money. However, at the time we were able to afford it. Furthermore, we had gone for the D610 I strongly doubt our portfolios would have suffered noticibly and maybe not at all.

If you can not responsibly afford the D800, but can afford the D610 – then you can confidently go for the D610 – its abilities are completely professional and its image quality is awesome. If you can afford the D800, but would prefer to have money to spare for camera optics – the D610 is more-than just competent.  

Down-sampled image with moderate NR. Nikon D610, 25s, 24mm, f/2.8, ISO-6400.

Nikon D610, 3s, 24mm, f/13, ISO-500.

Nikon D610, 1/500s, 44mm, f/2.8, ISO-3200.

 

100% crop of above image without NR after resizing to 16 MP at ISO-3200.

Slightly unstable tripod used for this image. Nikon D610, 1/400s, 420mm, f/9, ISO-400.

Nikon 70-200mm f/4 (AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm 1:4G ED)

Article & photos by Denni Raubenheimer

Until relatively recently Yolande and I had been shooting with Olympus gear. When we had the opportunity to change system to Nikon we were very excited. Don’t get me wrong, Olympus is a good camera manufacturer. Its mirrorless OMD series even challenges the previously overlooked limitations of the digital SLR design. However, in the D-SLR arena few manufacturers can keep up with Nikon and Canon. Moreover, for the time being the pro-grade D-SLRs from these two companies are the most proficient pro cameras on the market. Together with the monstrous D800 we acquired two Nikon lenses, the Nikon 300mm f/4 and the recently launched Nikon 70-200mm f/4. Apart from its excellent optics, the 70-200mm f/4 has a small minimum focus distance. These two features in combination with Nikon’s latest 24 and 36 MP sensors (which give much space for cropping) made me want to write an article on the use of the lens for macro purposes (hence my article pre-view http://www.wildlifestockimage.blogspot.com/2013/08/article-preview-new-nikkor-70-200mm-f4.html). I have aborted that intention and opted rather for this general review of the lens. 

African elephant. Nikon D800 + Nikon 70-200mm f/4; f/4, 1/800s., ISO-200, 200mm.

 

Nikon D800 + Nikon 70-200mm f/4; f/5, 1/100s., ISO-1250, 160mm.

When we bought the 70-200mm f/4 there were not yet any official reviews on the lens. There was only the product information given by Nikon, previews mainly based on specifications and sample galleries. The three main reasons we went ahead and bought the lens was the lens’ MTF data provided by Nikon, the zoom range and the price (costing roughly 1200 USD, while the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII retails for roughly 2100 USD). Furthermore, the lens’ minimum focus distance is only one metre and the vibration reduction in the lens was quoted by Nikon as up to 5 stops (at the time one stop more than any other lens). 

Kalahari landscape. Nikon D800 + Nikon 70-200mm f/4; f/8, 1/320s., ISO-100, 70mm.

 

African honey-bee. Nikon D800 + Nikon 70-200mm f/4; f/4, 1/4000s., ISO-1250, 200mm.

Today we have owned the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 for more than a year. It is our sharpest lens, performs fast and accurate focusing and gives super image quality on our Nikon D800. Furthermore, the lens delivers spectacular bokeh - as far as I'm aware, just as aesthetic as that from the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII at similar depths of field. The only criticism I can actually give the lens is superficial – it does not look nearly as pro-grade as the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII! Alas, I think the quality of our photos is more important than how impressive our equipment looks :P. However, there is one area where my reading has shown a weakness in the lens compared to the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII. The f/4 lens exhibits significantly distortion at close distances. This distortion will generally go completely unnoticed, but when a close-up frame gives clear indications of real parallelism, then this weakness becomes evident. 

Nikon D800 + Nikon 70-200mm f/4; f/5, 1/250s., ISO-2500, 200mm.

100% crop of above image (note high ISO of 2500).

Shooting with the lens is a real pleasure. Relative to its size it is quite light, making it easy to shoot hand-held for long periods. Its quick focusing and excellent optics are apparent while shooting. The lens seems robust in-hand and its zoom- and focus rings are smooth and have well balanced resistance (i.e. aren’t too tight, or lose). The lens does not exhibit noticeable focus breathing and zooming is internal to the housing (i.e. its length stays constant while zooming). 

Cattle Egret shot hand-held. Nikon D800 + Nikon 70-200mm f/4; f/4, 1/2000s., ISO-200, 200mm.

 

100% crop of above image.

All-in-all the lens is an exquisite piece of hardware that on a value-for-money basis outperforms its F2.8 predecessors. I am not saying that it makes the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII redundant, an extra stop of light  is worth a hell of a lot when you really need it and the f/2.8 VRII version does have quicker AF, but if your budget is tight then the shortcomings of the f/4 become negligible. Furthermore, a 70-200 mm lens that is as sharp as the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII at less than two thirds of the cost is worthy of note in itself. 

White rhinoceros. Nikon D800 + Nikon 70-200mm f/4; f/4, 1/800s., ISO-400, 200mm.

 

Hovering African honey-bee. Nikon D800 + Nikon 70-200mm f/4; f/6.3, 1/2000s., ISO-900, 200mm. 

Fujifilm X-PRO1 Informal Review

-->

Article by Denni Raubenheimer (www.masteryourcamera.co.za)

-->

Photos: Mostly by Denni Raubenheimer

X-PRO1. Source: www.fujifilm.com.

Round-about the end of last year Fujifilm sent us a sample of their pro-grade mirrorless interchangeable-lens X-PRO1 camera together with three Fujifilm lenses to test out. The lenses were the Fujinon 35mm f/1.4 XF R, the Fujinon 60mm f/2.4 XF Macro and the Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4 XF R LM OIS. After researching the X-series a bit my wife and I were very excited about getting our hands on a sample of the X-PRO1 and I must say that it surpassed my expectations.

 

Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4 XF. 1/25s, ISO-400, f/7.1.

Lets first talk about the X-series for those of you who have not read much about these cameras. The X-series cameras might be part of the first significant onslaught on the validity of digital SLR cameras in a world of ever-developing digital camera technologies. They are mirrorless digital cameras with interchangeable lenses and APS-C sized sensors. The respective models all show very competitive image quality to similarly priced D-SLRs and a handful of these models host sensors with Fujifilm’s innovative X-TRANS colour filter array. The X-TRANS CMOS sensor is found in the X-T1, X-PRO1, X-E1, X-E2 and X-M1. It allows these cameras the absence of low-pass filters (i.e. boosted resolution; these filters are found in most D-SLRs and reduce image resolution) and simultaneously helps them avoid moiré and false colour generation (on a near-pixel level). For more information on the revolutionary X-TRANS colour filter array of these sensors go to http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/features/.

Furthermore, these cameras not only boost great image quality (also at high ISOs), but competent AF systems and good ergonomics. The latter can arguably be credited to the film-camera-like designs of the X-models. Looking very much similar to old film cameras, the X-models (purposefully) have a strong retro aesthetic. Lastly, the X-PRO1 is the flagship of the X-series, but has unofficially been dethroned by the much newer X-T1. This implies superior image quality, specs and build quality to its smaller kin (apart from the T1). 

 

X-PRO1 top-view. Source: www.fujifilm.com.

Nuff-said about the X-PRO1’s technical background. Let’s talk about our first impressions of the camera. In this regard the very first thing that struck me was the stylish retro design and robust feel of the camera. The second thing that struck me, was that the camera felt really comfortable in my hand – something I had not expected from its lack of rounded edges. I have large hands and quite like the size of full frame D-SLRs like Nikon’s D800, but the X-Pro felt really comfortable – something I suspect would also be the experience had my hands been smaller. The external and very manual controls of shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation were novel to me (having very little experience with film SLRs), but made me feel more in control of the settings, though I would need time to learn to adjust them without looking. Furthermore, after just a few photos my playback reflected the commendable image quality of both the X-Pro and the Fujinon 50mm f/1.4. It also did not take long before we had our own evidence of the camera’s very commendable high ISO performance.

 

Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 35mm f/1.4. 1/290s, ISO-400, f/2.0.

After having used the camera for more than two weeks both Yolande and I were more than a little fond of it, to say the least. We had use of a camera with image quality comparable to that of a decent full-frame in a relatively small and quite robust package. The lenses are also comparably smaller that pro-level D-SLR lenses, which meant that we could easily take the X-PRO along with all three lenses on spur-of-the-moment outings. With just a single lens the X-PRO is even more convenient to keep at your side, so it often tagged along when we left the house. 

 

Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4 XF. 1/640s, ISO-800, f/4.0.

It took me longer than it should have to figure out the difference between the two modes of the optical/electronic hybrid viewfinder. Its “optical” mode is rather commendable in giving the advantage of more responsive autofocus (a characteristic more usual in D-SLRs), showing an area wider than its photo-frame (though this has its cons) and giving superimposed electronic data – amongst others a live histogram (which is also present in the digital-viewfinder mode).  Being a D-SLR shooter a must admit I grew quite fond of having a digital preview of my exposure and with relatively quick and reliable autofocus in live view through the back LCD screen I often used this viewfinder. What I enjoyed about this latter divergence, was the ease with which one could shoot from unique angles, such as from floor-level. Using regular live view our sample did sometimes miss-focus, but I doubt more often than an entry-level D-SLR would while shooting through the viewfinder. 

 

Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4 XF. 1/180s, ISO-800, f/4.5.

Regarding the lenses. It didn’t take long to develop a crush on Fujinon’s 35mm f/1.4. This lens has awesome resolution and quality and the construction not only feels robust, but also as if Fuji followed balanced simplistic approach to the design. We didn’t get any indication that the lens suffered any autofocus weakness and I was quite impressed with the minimum focus distance. Apart from the fixed focal length I would have gladly kept it glued to the X-PRO. Honestly, I don’t know what I miss most – the X-PRO1, or the Fujinon 35mm f/1.4.

Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 35mm f/1.4. 1/480s, ISO-640, f/2.0.

Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 35mm f/1.4. 1/1050s, ISO-200, f/2.8.

 The Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4 XF was not in the same league as the 35mm prime. However, expecting it to be is would be silly. Lets look at its price and what it represents. The 18-55mm costs around 700 USD and is effectively an enthuisiast-level wide-angle. In this regards it performs reasonably well, but where it exceeds expectations is in build quality. The lens feels robust and delivers more than acceptable image quality. For its class the lens is acceptably fast and pleasant subject isolation is possible with good technique. 

 

Unedited photo from Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4 XF. 1/500s, ISO-800, f/4.5.

100% crop of unedited photo above; Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4 XF.

 We didn’t get to shoot much with the Fujinon 60mm f/2.4 XF Macro, but the build quality feels good and the focus ring allows precise focusing on macro distances. When I tried focus tracking with the lens on our toddler the focus accuracy was poor, but this whether this was due to my technique, the X-PRO, or the specific samples that were used – I don’t know. If it was due to the lens then that’s a non-issue in terms of the lens’s macro specialization. 

 

Unsharpened with no noise reduction. Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 60mm f/2.4 XF Macro. 1/50s, ISO-3200, f/8.

All-in-all I was quite sad to send the Fujifilm gear back. I grew particularly fond of the X-PRO1 for its great image quality in a robust and compact body and also developed a strong affinity for the Fujinon 35mm f/1.4 XF R for its lovely image quality. If our specialization was journalistic, or travel photography I would be strongly tempted to switch to Fujifilm for the great image and build quality the X-series offers in relatively compact packages. 

 

Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 35mm f/1.4. 1/270s, ISO-200, f/8.0. 

Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 35mm f/1.4. 1/250s, ISO-3200, f/5.6.

100% crop of above. Fujifilm X-PRO1 at ISO-3200 in low light.

Unedited photo from Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 35mm f/1.4. 1/55s, ISO-6400, f/2.

100% crop of above. Fujifilm X-PRO1 at ISO-6400 in low light.

Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4 XF. 1/160s, ISO-800, f/6.4.

Fujifilm X-PRO1 + Fujinon 35mm f/1.4. 1/2500s, ISO-200, f/2.8.