XT1 - Truly Superior IQ

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
trueview
Regular MemberPosts: 165
Like?
Re: same here
In reply to guitarjeff, 9 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

trueview wrote:

You may want to actually try the 5D3, especially at high iso. I personally skipped the 5D2, and went directly from the 1 to the 3.

As a long time user of film (and still using and processing it myself), my benchmark is how "'analog" digital noise is. The 5D3, similarly to the D800, has noise patterns that look more like film grain than the x pro 1, at least in my (granted, subjective) perception.

What is NOT subjective, is the ablility of the 5D3 to go really high up in iso. The following was taken at 25600 iso, 1/13th, f:4.0. Noise reduction is the LR standard : 0 in luminance, 25 in color. This is outdoors, the light coming from just one candle some distance away. THe actual light was significantly darker than the picture rendition.

Try that with the fuji. Number one, it has an extremely hard time locking focus. Number 2, in raw, the x pro 1 won't even let you go beyond iso 6400, which in effect is more or less equivalent to iso 3200 on the 5D3 (approx. one diaph difference between the x pro 1 and 5D3 when reading exposure from the same evenly lit standard grey card, with same iso and shutter speed).

The x pro 1 limits 12800 and 25600 setting to jpeg to apply in camera noise reduction. Objectively, the 5D3 is simply in another league.

However, I will admit that 25600iso is not something you need on a daily basis as a photographer. But when you need it, it's amazing how the 5D3 performs way up there.

But there we have it. Nice pic but I never use iso that high. In fact, my auto iso is at 1600. I know the 5D2 was terrible with banding and such, and the noise was not pleasing or film like to me.

Check out the noise on the shot posted here. For me it is very pleasing and film-like. And you are talking to a guy who routinely soups up Tri-x in Rodinal ! Which probably puts me in the category of severely diseased film grain lovers

Thedre we go, pleasing is unique to each of us. All I can do is compare my X-E1 to the 5D2 I had, and as I said, there really is no comparison. Yes, the 5D3 I'm sure is better than the 5D2 was at high iso, I have read that many times, but they also say not very much different as lower iso. The sensors are not that much different from what I read.

Maybe I am thinking of fine grained more specifically. I find the Fuji to have a much more pleasing noise. Never owned the 5D3 as I said but I do know that many say the iq with the 5D2 is similar,

Many say that the x trans sensor is barely useable for raw shooting, due to fatal demosaicing issues. Many say that the AF on the fuji cameras is a disaster. Do you give full credit to these many ?

Absolutely. That's why I can't really compare images from several cams because I never know what they used to convert the Fuji raws. Of course Fuji is slow to focus, definitely not a sports cam, but then again, I never shoot sports, not high iso. I have six flashes that I never seem to get a chance to use as it is. I love off cam triggering and big, fat see through umbrellas, but rarely get a chance to break that stuff out. So yes, a good fanboy knows what his cams aren't good at, lol

but the one thing they say is different is the high iso, which you have hung your hat on here. If you use that then it's a great reason for you to own it.

I found the aa filter on the 5D2 to be fairly strong and when the cr2 files were brought in to DPP with sharpening down the files were fairly blury. When considering the Fuji I literally looked at thousands of photos, and you also now that when you use a camera exclusively for a long while you are very tuned to what it offers. To me the image quality of the X trans is simply far and away better than that camera. Much more detail without the AA filter, more pleasing colors, better shadows and highlight recovery, just better all the way around.

I use the 5D3 and the x-pro 1 on a regular basis, and to be honest, when I go through my lightroom gallery, it is very hard for me to make a difference, without reading the filenames. Which says a lot about the Fuji, since it has a smaller sensor. But better details than the 5DIII overall ?

Well I know the Fuji has more resolution than the 5D2. Not sure about the 5D3. Smaler pixels I know, but the lack of aa filter in the Fuji made a huge difference to me in details.

My experience is that at default LR settings, differences in sharpness and details mostly depend on lenses. This is also true with C1.

i can see that. When I search for comparisons between the two I find the Fuji hanging right with the FF Canons, yet the Canons are using L glass that cost two or three times as much.

Check out this small gallery : http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6148996866/albums/fuji-canon, posted just now.

You will see that the fuji shot is ever so slightly less sharp. But I was using the 18mm, vs the 35mm 1.4 at optimal aperture on the canon. With a different set of lenses, the fuji would be slightly ahead.

The 18 to me was not my fav Fuji lens, I sold it. Against the Canon 35L, man, that's a real difference.

yes, the 18mm is not the sharpest, but the small size was a deciding factor for me. And yes, the 35L is better, and better be given the price difference

For me, in the end, marginal post processing with clarity, sharpening, white balance, etc is a great equalizer of minute out of camera differences. What I primarily want a camera to do is give me files which will lend themselves graciously to the tweaking which will allow me to reach what I previzualize. In that way, both the Fuji and the canon deliver, which is all that counts, at the end of the day.

Very true, we certainly agree there. For me though, the 5D2 was very problematic with banding and low ability to recover shadows because of it. I have found the Fuji to be much better in this situation. Again, I never owned the 5D3 and I have heard this is no longer a problem.

the 5d3 will show banding but you really have to give shadow quite a push for this to show. The shadow recovery slider of LR all the way to the right is not enough. You need to add some local brush exposure adjustment for that. The x pro 1 can go a bit further in my experience before becoming problematic. Neither camera hold up to the D800 which I could test, though, when comes to shadow recovery.

Taken with the Fuji :

and now the canon

and now film !

Whatever works

True. I simply prefer the look of the Fuji with no AA filter. There is a crispness that simply moves me in a good way, colors as well are more pleasing to me. Good chatting with you.

-- hide signature --

[[[If I am commenting on your awesome X trans photos in this post, I consider it a shame that there are a few users in this forum who claim that test charts keep them away from X trans cams, this then encompasses all photos, like these I am commenting on, so photos like these are part of what keep these few fellows away from X trans cams, amazing but true.]]]

Thanks for the compliment, but only one picture is x trans. The second is canon, and the third film, fuji neopan 400 if I remember well (so at least still fuji ). This picture was part of an exhibition along with others in my Madagascar gallery, and generated quite a bit of attention. Very satisfying for me as it was a big challenge to get a good fiber base print out of it. The young guy in the forefront is severely underexposed, making it difficult to balance him out against the harsh light of the background.

the first picture, taken with the x pro 1, I am very happy about? as I do not consider myself as a solid landscape photographer. So I'm very proud of it

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow