Official Fujifilm WCL-X100 Sample Images

May 15, 2012 | Zoltan Arva-Toth | Lenses | 10 Comments | |
News image

Fujifilm has posted six full-resolution sample images captured with the Fujfilm X100 camera and the new WCL-X100 wide-angle conversion lens. Taken at f/5.6 and f/8 using the Provia, Velvia and Astia film simulation modes, these sample photos are meant to demonstrate what the new converter is capable of. You can download the Fujifilm WCL-X100 samples from the website below.

Website: Fujifilm Wide Conversion Lens WCL-X100 Sample Photos

Tracker Pixel for Entry

Your Comments

10 Comments | Newest Oldest First | Post a Comment

#1 Goose Pies

Looks good, any idea on price? wonder if they will realease a 50mm converter.

12:54 pm - Wednesday, May 16, 2012

#2 JFC

Another fine example of how larger sensor cameras have insufficient depth of field for some of these scenes.

1:19 pm - Wednesday, May 16, 2012

#3 Jon S

JFC: is that a joke, or are you serious?

In case you are serious, let me explain. Firstly shallow depth of field is often desirable for artistic effect. Next, stopping down the aperture increases the depth of field.

A large-sensor camera will out-resolve and have better SNR than a small-sensor camera, even if it has to be stopped down to achieve the same depth of field.

4:52 pm - Wednesday, May 16, 2012

#4 JFC

Hi Jon S.

That is not a joke. I'm serious. That depth of field is insufficient for many of those topics. There are blurry flowers in the foreground of the yellow meadow picture, for instance, that ruin it. I don't subscribe to the "shallow depth of field" aesthetic. It is an artifact of the limitations of technology held over from the infancy of lens designs back to the 19th century, and a statement (excuse, really) more about accepting physical limitations of the hardware than beauty in the image. Bokeh certainly has its place, esp. in portraiture and some other very specific subjects, but the sort of blurry out-of-focus stuff I see in those sample images simply means: insufficient depth of field for the subject matter. A smaller sensor (which allows a smaller lens focal length: ~ 5-6 mm) is much better for such images. The additional sensor noise and resolution limitations are inconsequential for all but D to wall-sized prints @ 300dpi (who makes those?) and can be overcome easily by stitching an appropriate number of images for the intended ratio of print size to detail and doing some fine-tuning in an editor.

5:19 pm - Wednesday, May 16, 2012

#5 GH

JFC, you can always stop down a larger sensor more to equal a small sensor in DOF. Sure, you'll have to raise ISO, but the ISO of a larger sensor camera is much cleaner to begin with. In essence, a large sensor camera can do anything a smaller sensor camera can do, but the opposite isn't true.

9:17 pm - Wednesday, June 6, 2012

#6 JFC

Hi GH!

At 4.3 mm and f/8 the Sony TX-5's hyperfocal distance is ~18". You can hand hold rectilinear images in focus from a foot to infinity at ISO 80 all day long.. or shoot regular or telephoto images ALSO. Very versatile. Goes in your pocket, too.

I'd love a full frame camera with comparable depth of field. The closest full frame rectilinear lens for that purpose is the Voigtlander Heliar at 12mm. That works out to a 24" hyperfocal distance at f/8. Not too bad, but mucho distortion and only f5.6 max.

Not a practical setup, either, because that is ALL it does.

I'm open to suggestions, though.

10:18 pm - Wednesday, June 6, 2012

#7 Dave Dillon

JFC, while I respect your opinion I find your argument completely ridiculous. Shallow depth of field is often a big selling point for me, and a large portion of the photography community. There are reasons people still shoot large and medium format film. If I need sharp infinite focus I use a tripod... not a big deal for far superior image quality. I'm sure your sony TX-5 is great... but I can tell you with certain confidence I'd spot it as a "snapshot" as opposed to a shot taken with an X100.

8:54 pm - Monday, June 11, 2012

#8 JFC

Dave, though many of the photos at your site are nice I would point to "Lush Horizon" as exhibiting the insufficient DOF to which I refer in the Fuji shots. That unfocused blob in the near field ruins the photo.

Even for the "quality first" photographer, keep in mind that current models of those little folded-optics cameras (such as that Sony I mentioned) create very sharp 11x14 prints and with moderate care taken both when snapping and in post can support 16x20 well. And if you think you will need a wall-sized presentation of a subject you encounter, then take a bunch of shots and stitch them together back at the studio (18000x12000, anyone?).

Certainly better than "snapshot" quality... though of course snapshots have their own aesthetic and should not be disparaged.

Such a camera fits in your pocket and can be concealed in the palm of your hand. Mr. Cartier-Bresson would have been very interested in carrying one.

10:44 pm - Monday, June 11, 2012

#9 Dave Dillon

JFC, if I had wanted the entire focal plane of "lush horizon" to be sharp, I would have shot it at F8 or F11. That shot was taken at F2.8 or F4 using the x100's built in ND filter. I enjoy the subtle blur of shallow DOF and use it in MANY of my shots.

Believe it or not, that's why Canon and Nikon expensive high end glass is fast F1.2 or in that range. It's a desirable effect that many photographers want. If you want a fully sharp image you stop down. Your argument is flawed. You can always stop down, but you can't always open up.

But to each their own, if you like point and shoot cameras small sensors buy one! They're cheap! I wish I had a desire for a cheapo best buy camera, would save me a lot of money. I'm actually "compromising" with the X100 as I usually shoot a full frame film camera or a Canon 5D.

2:54 pm - Wednesday, July 11, 2012

#10 JFC

Hi Dave

Thanks for responding so fully and respectfully!

You wrote "You can always stop down, but you can't always open up." This is a very good (and inarguable) point.

I might follow with:

"You can always blur a sharp image, but you can't sharpen a blurred image."

Mostly what I was trying to say (besides my enthusiastic vote for extreme DOF and the small, pocket-able cameras that offer it) was to point out that:

In most circumstances, when the human eye moves its gaze to the background of a visual field, it automatically refocuses (sharpens) upon whatever it encounters there. One has to trick the eye to avoid sharpening the background when looking directly at it.

For me, if there is enough space around the subject matter in a photograph for the eye to move from the subject and attempt to focus upon the background (say), then in most scenes (extreme closeup excepted) it is unnatural for the (properly corrected) eye to encounter blur.

But when the same thing happens in a photograph where the background -or foreground- is blurred ("bokeh"), the eye cannot refocus. This induces a perceptual dissonance which occurs because the eye wants to refocus (that is, sharpen the blurry subject matter) but can't, and that little trick (it just so happens) causes the sharp subject to "stand out" from the background in an entirely unnatural way.

But we've had nearly 200 years to become used to this conditioned response to the physical limitations of lens technology, and now its use in photography is accepted as a "correct" representation and twisted into the marketing of equipment (such as that f/1.2) not to mention photographic images.

To each his own, as you say, and images with bokeh can be very beautiful to look at, but if one cannot take a photo without bokeh because the DOF of the lens is insufficient to the circumstance, then the possibility of verisimilitude between the scene and the photo is lost, and only the "artistically" interpreted image remains.

2:28 am - Thursday, July 12, 2012