X-Pro1 Image Quality for potential buyers

Started May 20, 2012 | Discussions thread
Usee
Senior MemberPosts: 1,517Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Pro1 Image Quality for potential buyers
In reply to devwild, May 20, 2012

devwild wrote:

Out of curiosity, Have you done much with the RAWs in silkypix? I've downloaded the raws and tried processing them, and both my own conversions and the examples I've seen of the various other beta converters seem... off.

I see no problems when using Silkypix Pro 5.

My biggest concern is that all the RAW samples I can find including high iso don't show any fine-pattern luminosity noise. Even if a sensor has outstanding high iso performance, the noise should be pixel-grained, because the source of any noise is variation of voltage on the receptors, and that data should show up in the raw files. Even with noise reduction turned off you don't see that in the fuji files, instead you see chroma mottling that looks distinctly like the image has already had noise cancelling run on it.

You should try the RAW samples (especially the High ISO samples) from imaging-resource.com:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-pro1/fuji-x-pro1THMB.HTM

The RAW samples provided from dpreview, which are used within the studio comparison tool, seem to have the problems You describe...

...I guess they weren't directly uploaded but uploaded after some quirky software mangled them.

Because in conjunction with Silkypix Pro 5 You can find the fine-pattern luminosity noise when looking at RAWs from other sources.

Even this several month old 100 % crop from one of the first available ISO 6400 shots is showing the expected fine-pattern:

I have to wonder if this is also why we aren't seeing the detail we should theoretically be seeing with this sensor when compared to similar-sized APS-C sensors.

You can see all the details when You use a suited converter.

Overall the output of the X-Pro looks great, even with these quirks, but if the RAW files aren't really raw camera data, or some sort of artificial noise reduction is being done in hardware (even if it's good), that's going to drive me bonkers. I like raw because I want control over color, noise, and sharpness, and I can chose how to process those on a per-shot basis.

Same here, but the problem seems to be the handling of the RAW files before they were uploaded...

...probably some did look at them with a unsuited software which did make some changes on the RAW file before they made the upload and some did upload the RAWs unchanged.

I'm wondering what those with the camera in hand, and actually trying to use raw despite the lack of adobe support, have seen.

The adobe support seems to make some problems according to the dpreview samples within the studio comparison tool...
...which were probably made using a Beta version from adobe.

Maybe the one from dpreview, who provided the RAWs and examples, can shed some light on this issue.

-- hide signature --

It doesn't matter what You do - it matters how You do it, to get satisfaction!

Envy is the highest form of recognition.

Stop to run, start to think.
Think twice - that doubles the fun!

Your world is as big, as Your mind.
Avoid to have only one point of view!

Uli

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow