X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8

Started Oct 5, 2013 | Discussions
inasir1971
Senior MemberPosts: 3,273Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to Einst Stein, Oct 5, 2013

Einst Stein wrote:

Look at the trees at about 1~3 o'clock of "C" and at about 9~"12 o'clock of B.

The picture on the left is significantly clearer in both sharpness and color depth.

The tonal rendition is also much pleasing.

Post-processing effect?

IMO, they're both just as capable - it comes down to processing of the raw files...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Red G8R
Senior MemberPosts: 1,640Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to inasir1971, Oct 5, 2013

Since my first comment on this forum an hour ago, I went out an bought the XA1(black) from my local dealer. I have a two week trial to decide and I will take it on my Miami trip this week. I'm not one to buy and return but he knows I've been searching for a compact camera for travel. Battery is being charged now and really looking forward to playing with this little gem.

-- hide signature --

Peter
Ontario, Canada

 Red G8R's gear list:Red G8R's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D600 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Absolutic
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,719Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to inasir1971, Oct 5, 2013

Xtrans provides Fuji with marketing advantage so it won't go anywhere even though many of us wish the new X cameras came with bayer.

They cannot change it. It will be a marketing suicide. If they switch to bayer the marketing advantage will be lost. It will be just another ilc with same 16mp Sony sensor. How would u differentiate ur self from Sony then? That u have Fuji colors? That u have better lenses? This would be lost on 95% of targeted audience. Then u would compete strictly on price.

On the other hand if u put xtrans in, ur salesperson can say: this camera has special sensor while that other one has a regular sensor. We r different. Consumer says oh that's different and must be better

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,704
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to inasir1971, Oct 5, 2013

inasir1971 wrote:

Another surprising find are the muted colors with the X-Trans. For example, the yellow of the construction workers' hard hats and the red of the crane.

I'm surprised no reviews mentioned the obvious color issues. When I got my X-E1 the first thing that was clearly noticeable was faded colors in some places, strange color shifts in other, disappearing colors in small details and at high ISO, and sometimes the small details take on the colors of the surrounding objects.

To my eyes the X-A1 is better and predictable in its results.

The test images from X-A1 look a lot like from Sony NEX cameras, but with less visible noise. I wonder if Fuji used the latest Sony sensor.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,704
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to Absolutic, Oct 5, 2013

Absolutic wrote:

Xtrans provides Fuji with marketing advantage so it won't go anywhere even though many of us wish the new X cameras came with bayer.

The Trans marketing advantage will be lost after lots of reviews state the obvious. The Trans cameras will be perceived as more expensive and less capable.

They cannot change it. It will be a marketing suicide.

It's hard to make a quick turn, people will feel they were duped by previous claims. Fuji did a big mistake by releasing X-M1 and X-A1 identical bodies with different sensors. That made it possible to evaluate the Trans vs Bayer claims. They themselves created this predicament.

If they switch to bayer the marketing advantage will be lost. It will be just another ilc with same 16mp Sony sensor. How would u differentiate ur self from Sony then?

Actually Sony's NEX cameras are really good. I did a number of NEX vs X-E1 tests and Sony in most of them was a winner. The weak spot of Sony is the lack of good lenses, the latest Zeiss was a big disappointment. The Trans sensor is Fuji's imaginary advantage, the only real advantage Fuji has is some good lenses, and they should build on that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Absolutic
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,719Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to forpetessake, Oct 5, 2013

forpetessake wrote:

Absolutic wrote:

Xtrans provides Fuji with marketing advantage so it won't go anywhere even though many of us wish the new X cameras came with bayer.

The Trans marketing advantage will be lost after lots of reviews state the obvious. The Trans cameras will be perceived as more expensive and less capable.

However, common reviews these days are not stating it.

The Nikon guy Matt Granger did a review on youtube where he compares XM1 and XA1, XM1 wins in his opinion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DZL7aM3ZmI&feature=c4-overview&list=UUL5Hf6_JIzb3HpiJQGqs8cQ but I think he is comparing jpegs.

They cannot change it. It will be a marketing suicide.

It's hard to make a quick turn, people will feel they were duped by previous claims. Fuji did a big mistake by releasing X-M1 and X-A1 identical bodies with different sensors. That made it possible to evaluate the Trans vs Bayer claims. They themselves created this predicament.

+1 it is easy to compare these two and it might have been a marketing mistake by the Fuji.

If they switch to bayer the marketing advantage will be lost. It will be just another ilc with same 16mp Sony sensor. How would u differentiate ur self from Sony then?

Actually Sony's NEX cameras are really good. I did a number of NEX vs X-E1 tests and Sony in most of them was a winner. The weak spot of Sony is the lack of good lenses, the latest Zeiss was a big disappointment. The Trans sensor is Fuji's imaginary advantage, the only real advantage Fuji has is some good lenses, and they should build on that.

I owned NEX-5n and then Nex7, and while Nex7 had incredible detail rendering at base ISO, the (1) lack of lenses, (2) relatively poor af in low light , and (3)noise in low light, made me switch at the time, I believe to m43 with OMD EM5, which took care of issues (1) and (2). The Fuji clearly wins in ergonomics in my opinion. In fact, I remember when my friend bought NEX5 and showed me that marvel when it came out, I spend 15 minutes and still could not figure out how to change ISO (they put it in some completely illogical place in the menu). I like the Fuji's ergonomics with the Q button and ability to change aperture on the lens.

In any case, I don't believe that you can win a marketing war on Lenses alone. You've got to have more than that. Sony sells more Nex cameras that Fuji X I am sure (at least I see more of Nex around, times more) with crappiest kit lens on planet (16-50).

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
briny
Regular MemberPosts: 272Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to inasir1971, Oct 5, 2013

Photo Ninja rendering. Same default sharpening for both files. There are colour differences - for the A1, blues are more turquoise, yellows are more orange, greens are more muted, reds are more vivid. Detail looks about the same.

High ISO. No noise reduction. There's a little more colour noise in the A1 file.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DonSantos
Senior MemberPosts: 1,122Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to briny, Oct 5, 2013

High ISO. No noise reduction. There's a little more colour noise in the A1 file.

Color noise is easy to get rid of without any added artifacts.

For the luminance noise the x-a1 has a tiny bit more but it's also sharper.  In lightroom when I turn the noise reduction to only around 15 the images match in sharpness and noise levels.  x-a1 still being the better because it still retains more local color than the x-e1 file.

 DonSantos's gear list:DonSantos's gear list
Nikon D600 Sony Alpha 7 Voigtlander 40mm F1.4 Nokton Classic Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Norm N
New MemberPosts: 15
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to DonSantos, Oct 5, 2013

+1

Looking at the original, I would also say that the color purity is significantly better on the X-E1. (Compare the cream colored wall below the circular roof and grey walls else ware.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Evidon
Contributing MemberPosts: 511Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to inasir1971, Oct 5, 2013

What you see as greater sharpness in the X-A1 images looks to me to be higher contrast giving the appearance of more sharpness. Additionally, the XA-1 has more artifacts, so the X-E1 is actually cleaner which was it's big selling point in  the first place. Check out the lines in the roof top shot.
Same details but a difference in contrast and artifacts.

Jim

 Jim Evidon's gear list:Jim Evidon's gear list
Canon PowerShot G15 Fujifilm XF1 Leica M9 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Beat Traveller
Contributing MemberPosts: 526Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to inasir1971, Oct 5, 2013

Two years of endless discussion about the shortcomings of the X-trans sensor, and this is the final proof? A few slightly mushier background trees?

If anyone seriously is going to use that as an excuse to go back to a Bayer sensor, then I pay my respects, as you're clearly a much greater pixel-peeper than I.

 Beat Traveller's gear list:Beat Traveller's gear list
Nikon D60 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Schum
Senior MemberPosts: 3,528Gear list
Like?
Re: different raw converter
In reply to DMillier, Oct 5, 2013

DMillier wrote:

Come on, there is always going to be something better, no matter what you use, 10 x 8 film is still better. But ask yourself this, how much better than absolutely fantastic does your camera have to be before you can feel content with your camera as you snap the cat and the kids.

Honestly.

My cat deserves the best, and now I know my X-E1 is simply not up to the job!

Relax your vigilance and the world will relegate you to the dustbin of history.  We must upgrade, and the sooner the better!

I'm slipping, slipping away into yesteryear...

When they put that Nokia 41 megapixel sensor in an X-20, then it will be time to upgrade!

-- hide signature --

Tom Schum

 Tom Schum's gear list:Tom Schum's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP3 Merrill Fujifilm X-E1 Sigma 50mm F2.8 EX DG Macro Samyang 85mm F1.4 Aspherical IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
panpen
Contributing MemberPosts: 795
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to inasir1971, Oct 6, 2013

How did you equalize the WB in post processing? Did you pick the same Kelvin number? The slight difference in color could be very well be a slight difference of only a few K degrees

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DonSantos
Senior MemberPosts: 1,122Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to Beat Traveller, Oct 6, 2013

Two years of endless discussion about the shortcomings of the X-trans sensor, and this is the final proof? A few slightly mushier background trees?

If anyone seriously is going to use that as an excuse to go back to a Bayer sensor, then I pay my respects, as you're clearly a much greater pixel-peeper than I.

You can continue paying the 200$ premium for a sensor without any gains

 DonSantos's gear list:DonSantos's gear list
Nikon D600 Sony Alpha 7 Voigtlander 40mm F1.4 Nokton Classic Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Fujix
New MemberPosts: 4
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to inasir1971, Oct 6, 2013

I have a far better result with X-E1 ( Photo Ninja Raw converter ) With PN X-Trans have more fine details than Bayer. Finally.

100% crop

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Charles2
Senior MemberPosts: 2,159
Like?
Fuji RFC -> Raw Therapee -> Picture Window Pro
In reply to inasir1971, Oct 6, 2013

The XE-1 file.

Fuji RFC (by Silkypix): demosaic, keep contrast low
Raw Therapee - LAB curves and initial sharpen by RL deconvolution
Picture Window Pro - levels and sharpen; convert from AdobeRGB to sRGB

Result

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Randy Benter
Senior MemberPosts: 2,093Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to Fujix, Oct 6, 2013

Fujix wrote:

I have a far better result with X-E1 ( Photo Ninja Raw converter ) With PN X-Trans have more fine details than Bayer. Finally.

100% crop

It looks like you used default settings for both. Is that the best you could do with the X-A1 in LR? I think a slight boost of saturation, clarity and sharpening in LR would make them identical.

BTW, I also prefer how C1 and PN handle X-Trans. Unfortunately, neither of those applications are as versatile as LR, nor do they support 3rd party plug-ins, like NIK.

 Randy Benter's gear list:Randy Benter's gear list
Leica X2 Fujifilm X100S Leica X Vario Leica M Typ 240 Fujifilm X-E2 +27 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ballwin12
Regular MemberPosts: 254Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to ChicagoRob, Oct 6, 2013

ChicagoRob wrote:

Thank you for doing this test. The X-A1 is definitely superior in fleshing out detail in the distant foliage. The yellow color rendering is quite a surprise - it's virtually impossible to see in the helmets of the X-E1 photo.

Rob

I don't see any difference.

 ballwin12's gear list:ballwin12's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon D600 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tecnoworld
Senior MemberPosts: 4,119Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to inasir1971, Oct 6, 2013

X-a1 is better imo. I think fuji has to abandon x-trans in the next gen of x cameras.

 tecnoworld's gear list:tecnoworld's gear list
Samsung TL500 Samsung NX100 Samsung NX200 Samsung NX300 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Emacs23
Regular MemberPosts: 428Gear list
Like?
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
In reply to Fujix, Oct 6, 2013

Fujix wrote:

I have a far better result with X-E1 ( Photo Ninja Raw converter ) With PN X-Trans have more fine details than Bayer. Finally.

100% crop

Try rawtherapee with amaze demosaic and deconvolution sharpening. You'll end up with more fine details than Xtrans+PN.

 Emacs23's gear list:Emacs23's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Leica Super-Elmar-M 18mm f/3.8 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads