SD1 vs Fujifilm X-E1

Both about the same size sensor, about the same megapixels. These are 100% crops. Almost had the lenses set the same...

Use the gallery link to download full-res original as I posted it.

--
Tom Schum

I compared my X-e1(with kit zoom) and dp2m.

The Fuji looked quite soft and a bit water colory compared to the very sharp and microcontrasty Sigma. I was quite disappointed in the new Fuji. Hope it was just the jpeg and will improve significantly when a good raw converter is available.

Comments?

--
Antara
http://antara.smugmug.com

The cameras are nowhere near the same megapixels - the SD-1 has 30 bayer equivalent megapixels while the X-E1 is rolling with a mere 16.  While Fuji has done a great job with the unique sensor design and decent lens, it just is not close and the trees really show it.

The image is a great example illustrating how bayer images come to you already up-sampled on final output.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

Unless you pixel peep, there really isn't that much of a practical difference between these 2 shots.  The subject appears sharp enough on both and the colour is close.  There may be some differences in the distant trees and the weeds but when I look at a photo I'm more interested in the subject than the minutiae.

--
http://miketuthill.zenfolio.com
http://mtuthill.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/miketuthill

The cameras are nowhere near the same megapixels - the SD-1 has 30 bayer equivalent megapixels

What aload of b/s.

Where do you get this stuff?

Are you joking? The SD1 looks significantly better.

SD1

X-E1

Define "significant".

--
http://miketuthill.zenfolio.com
http://mtuthill.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/miketuthill

hmm the trees does shows a huge difference in details and clarity. I would think

it would not be in the same league to compare sd1 with fuji, perhaps with Nikon d800 it would be closer...

--
www.marcuslowphotos.com

Would you prefer to start with every single detail being fuzzier despite having slightly more pixels, or with the terrible sharpening halo issues the Fuji image has?

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

Assuming that you're addressing Kendall, he gets it from the popular equivalence in terms of "image quality" i.e. that a Bayer sensor needs "X times the MP" [insert any value less than 3 for X] to be as "good" as a Foveon. It's quite common knowledge and it is not b/s, unless you care to prove otherwise; that would be with actual numbers and links to learned papers and stuff. Not that the subject is all that new . . .

However, in terms of absolute resolution, it's as Tom says, IMHO.

--
Regards,
Ted.

Hi Kendall,

I didn't get to the "original" on my first look.  Yes the Sigma is sharper, as expected, however I could live with the Fuji unless I had the need for really large prints.

--
http://miketuthill.zenfolio.com
http://mtuthill.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/miketuthill

I have the DP2M and the Fuji Xpro1 which has same sensor as X-E1. This is a pointless comparison for pixel peepers to waste time on. May have same sensor size but different technologies. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Both great photographic tools. If you want to do a full gamut comparison then try taking photos at ISO 1600 or 3200 and see which does better then.

Thank you Tom. The SD1 looks better from here. MP

On the other hand, lots of noise under the bridge in the SD1.

Which sky is "true blue" do we think? HSB's:

SD1 204 deg, 7%, 80%

Fuji  216 deg, 16%, 82%

--
Best Regards,
Ted.

I'm not sure I could, the sharpening halos are pretty strong and the treeline is really fuzzy - in that image any flaw in the treeline would dry your eye in like a magnet.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

Since I don't know what color mode that was shot with asking that question does not help much.

I don't really see much noise under the bridge, perhaps some CA?

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

Sorry,  I should have really said the SD-1 has 46 Megapixels, since the only firm definition we have of megapixels is the number of photosites a sensor has.  Sharpness and resolution obviously mean nothing in relation to megapixels since the D800 and D800E have the same number of "megapixels" but obviously the E is sharper (no AA filter).

To be kind to the newer members of the forum more used to the quite misleading megapixel ratings placed before them by other camera makers, the "bayer equivalent" megapixel rating was developed and agreed to by a large majority of this forum so that potential buyers of Foveon equipped cameras would have a general understanding of what to expect.

Perhaps you missed the memo, especially the lengthy discussions giving the scientific basis based on the green sample size of the bayer sensor and so on and so forth.  Try a search.

In any case the "bayer equivalent" MP rating gives an approximiation of how much detail a person used to Bayer MP ratings can expect - it of course has all sorts of flaws since many subjects will yield slightly more detail than that in a Foveon sensor, depending on color, and the Foveon sensor does not lose detail with color as the bayer sensor does.  It probably also presents too conservative an estimate on possible print size.  But it is a good approximation to start with until people learn for themselves what is possible, in whatever hey chose to photograph.

I'll let you have the last response in this sub-thread, since I am only educating others as to what that term means who may not have read this forum long, and you are willfully determined to resist such efforts at enlightenment.

--

---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

Actually that would be interesting, to see at which ISO you lost the detail advantage of the SD-1.  I   think it would come after even ISO 1600.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

Can you tell us which lens you were using?  The way the Sigma renders the natural textures in the image is very nice...

Joe

I think the difference in clarity is not due so much to sensor difference but due to focusing errors: it looks like the Sigma is focused on distant objects (trees, signage) and the Fuji on the closer building.