XT1 - Truly Superior IQ

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 872
Like?
Re: same here
In reply to trueview, 6 months ago

trueview wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

trueview wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Welcome Photo W. You got a wonderful camera. X trans photos simply have a unique look and feel that transcends the sum of it's parts (or charts). There are a few here who have a problem with X trans for whatever reasons. But like many, when you see the photos you perceive those unique qualities, a mixture of the colors and sharpness, the way it captures the actual environment. Some may not perceive it, others may perceive it and don't like it anyway.

Watch out for those who say they are Fuji fans in a big way. Ask them specifically if they like X trans, the very direction of the company they say they love.

Now, if you want to be blown away, head over to Fliker and search groups for X trans, and get ready for tens of thousands of incredible shots. Search the XF 23mm, the XF 14, the 35, the 55-200 lenses. These thousands of photos clearly prove what a special too Fuji has created, and you have seen this for yourself in your own photos already.

It truly is an X trans universe, and I am proud to be a fanboy. It's okay to be a fanboy if your object of desire is the best.

Maybe a slight loss of sense of perspective here ?

I mean, I'm thoroughly satisfied with the xtrans sensor: the x pro 1 for me has become the digital equivalent of my Leica M6, since digital Leica prices are vastly out of my range.

The size-weight / IQ ratio of the x pro one is nothing short of stunning. But come on, I also get amazing results from my 5DIII. I also got to use a D800 a few times : can this camera also deliver in terms of IQ !

Fuji cameras are truly excellent, and with ergonomics I'm particularly fond of. But unique ?

In my opinion, uniqueness has more to do with what is in front of the camera and who is behind the camera, than the camera itself...

Oh yeah, very unique to me and many others. The colors ALONE make them unique to me and many. And yeah, somewhat overblown because it fun to toy with the X trans haters.

me ? A xtrans hater ? I must have misunderstood the definition of the word hate !

As for colors, sorry to disagree. In my opinion, the canon 5d3 has slightly better awb than the fuji. Of course, this is easily equalized in post, but the fact remains that in my eyes the canon is a bit better in out of camera color rendition.

and at high ISO, the canon wins hands down, both for IQ and AF. But that should be expected: larger sensor, and not the same price either !

Now when it comes to street photgraphy, the fuji is miles ahead, with its loads of IQ in a small inconspicuous package. Also, I prefer the x pro 1 traditional ergonomics.

And again cameras are not unique : photographers are, I mean, a very few of them

You?  No, not seen your postings.  I was talking about Graham/Photophool/Chanthis

And I disgree about cams being unique, and a couple others just agreed, from sensor onwards through colors and gain and such a camera can have it's unique way of showing itself, we'll have to agree to disagree there.

Also disagree about color on Canon.  While warm and nice, I don't believe either Fuji or Canon are very ACCURATE, and I notice you assume that accuracy is THE benchmark while not mentioning PLEASING.  Can you see that many might not agree with your base standard of judging color?  Notice how YOU defined for us the ground rules, then gave your opinion on Canon.

Having owned the 5D2, I can say the Fuji x-E1 is hands down better in most every way, beter resolution, colors, high iso (and notice I didn't say the ground rules for this, so I will, better meaning the look of noise in Fuji being more film like when present, better shadow noise  without the banding, AMOUNT of noise is not on top in my ground rules, the look of the noise is).

Knowing that many people say the 5D3 is not much different image quality than the 5D2, i would say that with my rules, the Fuji is better than even the 5D3, which from what I hear still has old sensor technology.   So again, we will have to agree to disagree.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
historianx
Contributing MemberPosts: 933Gear list
Like?
Re: XT1 - Truly Superior IQ
In reply to ryan2007, 6 months ago

ryan2007 wrote:

The larger sensor matters.

Sorry that's way too scientifically logical for this group

 historianx's gear list:historianx's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Fujifilm X100S Sigma DP3 Merrill Olympus E-5 Fujifilm X-E1 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 872
Like?
Re: Take a look at the DPR comparison images...
In reply to historianx, 6 months ago

historianx wrote:

maljo@inreach.com wrote:

...there is very little or no difference.

I really don't care about DPR comparison images. All I know that in my *real* world of *actual* shooting, 4/3 with Bayer can't hold a candle to APS-C with X-Trans, especially above iso 1600 and in low light.

YOU nailed it my friend.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 8,991Gear list
Like?
Re: Can you tell them apart? X-Trans and GX7 shots (and others)...
In reply to John Carson, 6 months ago

John Carson wrote:

Ray Sachs wrote:

Here are a bunch of shots taken with a variety of cameras, including X-Trans, m43 (both GX7 and 1 or 2 EM1 shots because I didn't have the GX7 all that long), other APS, full frame, and even some from a small sensor camera. The exif is stripped out, the aspect ratios are applied randomly, and all images are uploaded with a long edge of 2048 pixels, small enough so that this doesn't come down to extreme pixel peeping, but large enough to fill a 27" monitor and to see any really notable differences in quality. And these are real world examples of how I shot 'em (all raw) and how I processed them for my taste. Your taste may be different - that's fine, but that shouldn't keep you from calling out the obvious superiority of the X-trans files and inferiority of the m43 files...

By the logic of your argument, full frame isn't clearly superior to a small sensor camera.

Random photographs of a variety of subjects under a variety of conditions presented at a variety of sizes aren't a meaningful test of the relative abilities of different cameras. For a meaningful test, you need to shoot the same subject under the same conditions.

What your samples establish is that you can get a nice looking photo from a wide variety of equipment. Indeed you can, but controlled comparisons under a range of conditions, including demanding conditions, will permit many cameras to be distinguished.

To quote from a slightly earlier response to a slightly earlier comment along the same lines:

"The point is it's not an experiment (or test). It's real world actual photography that I've been doing over the past year or so. Lots of them in very similar circumstances and lighting, but yes, covering a variety of conditions. If the differences in IQ between cameras really mattered, this is exactly where you'd be able to see it. If you can only see it pixel peeping test photos, does it matter and can you really say that one is meaningfully better?

I could do a whole other series of low light shots that would also not show which is scientifically better in a test lab but would show that everything from m43 to full frame can produce really nice low light photos - the small sensor shots wouldn't hold up for the most part here, but everything else would."

If the differences only matter in controlled testing, then it becomes almost a philosophical question whether they matter. I do a lot of fairly demanding street shooting in low light using zone focus techniques which tell me a lot about a camera's higher ISO capabilities in a lot of ways. And also many of it's operating characteristics. I can get into a detailed analysis of what makes a camera better or worse for this type of work. I'd bet if I was a wedding or sports or portrait photographer I could get into a lot more detail about which tools are closer to the ideal for those jobs too.

But I can only address my particular area of expertise at that level - for more general shooting in a variety of circumstances and conditions I can only show what's worked for me. I've pretty much stopped using sensors smaller than m43 because I can now get m43 and APS sensors in such small packages that I don't see the point any longer and in low light, the 1" and smaller sensors do really start to limit what I can do. But between full frame and m43 I only see tradeoffs, not better worse. Yes, full frame has better low light capabilities and narrower DOF IF I'm willing to carry and shoot with the fastest best glass available, which is large, heavy, and expensive - so I'm not. So at that point APS or m43 with faster glass that closes most of the gap between sensors is a better choice for me. Tradeoffs...

-Ray

-- hide signature --

We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 872
Like?
Fun conversation guys, but breakfast calls
In reply to guitarjeff, 6 months ago

I enjoyed the back and forth everyone.  Someone else will have to defend X trans from here for a while, that is if ther are any X trans lovers left.
  For Graham, Photofool/Chanthis

IT'S AN X TRANS UNIVERSE.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 872
Like?
Enjoyed it Ray, and others. Fun conversation this morning.
In reply to Ray Sachs, 6 months ago

The smell of bacon is drifting down the hall way, hmm, heart attack on the way.

just for all the detractors.

X TRANS SUX!!!!   Nothing unique, nothing pleasing, just aother ho hum camera, that's all.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 872
Like?
Re: XT1 - Truly Superior IQ -Inane thread
In reply to nixda, 6 months ago

nixda wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Ray Sachs wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Ger Horgan wrote:

"I compared pictures of the GX7 with my XT1 with similar settings. In every case, the XT1 pictures were visibly superior. Better sharpness and better color rendition. My experience with the GX7 was that it has trouble taking truly sharp pictures.

-- hide signature --

Sorry I cannot take this guy seriously .. A simple question why did he buy a GX7 in the first place ?

...

http://www.dinglephoto.com

Gerry

Good point Gerry. So do you perceive or did you see something unique in the many X trans photos you must have looked at before you purchased? Trying to figure out here if it's possible for there to be something pleasing and unique about the way Fuji X trans shows it colors or rendering possibly because of it's electronics and such.

Sure, it has it's characteristics, same as any other filter, array, processor combination. That's fine if that's all you're talking about.

It's the nonsense about (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't recall your precise language) 'it's OK to gloat when you have the best' or 'those who don't think it's the best just aren't artistic enough to see the differences' or just generally dissing everything that's NOT x-trans. X-trans is great. It's wonderful. So are several other sensor/array/processor combinations.

For some X-trans is the reason they got into Fuji gear, for others it's ONE reason among several, for other's it was DESPITE x-trans, and for still others it was reason enough NOT to go with Fuji. I love Fuji and I'm fine with x-trans, but I don't hold it above it's competitors - to me what makes Fuji REALLY special are the handling of the bodies and the great prime lenses. I also love their jpeg processing but I rarely shoot jpeg, so I hope Adobe gets it right when they add those film emulation profiles to Lightroom - I'd LOVE that...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

If that'/s what's bothering you then you should know that these types of remarks are COMPLETELY aimed at the hater trolls who hang out in this forum for the purpose of trashing x trans. Of course I know it is not an X trans universe, this is to tweak the haters and I will continue to do that as long as they are here for their twisted reasons.

It goes both ways in my opinion: Haters are as much of an annoyance as are extreme fanboys

As usual, the 'truth' is found somewhere in between.

But I'm a fan boy in the FUJI forum, why are the haters here.  Not equivalent to me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: XT1 - Truly Superior IQ -Inane thread
In reply to guitarjeff, 6 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

nixda wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Ray Sachs wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Ger Horgan wrote:

"I compared pictures of the GX7 with my XT1 with similar settings. In every case, the XT1 pictures were visibly superior. Better sharpness and better color rendition. My experience with the GX7 was that it has trouble taking truly sharp pictures.

-- hide signature --

Sorry I cannot take this guy seriously .. A simple question why did he buy a GX7 in the first place ?

...

http://www.dinglephoto.com

Gerry

Good point Gerry. So do you perceive or did you see something unique in the many X trans photos you must have looked at before you purchased? Trying to figure out here if it's possible for there to be something pleasing and unique about the way Fuji X trans shows it colors or rendering possibly because of it's electronics and such.

Sure, it has it's characteristics, same as any other filter, array, processor combination. That's fine if that's all you're talking about.

It's the nonsense about (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't recall your precise language) 'it's OK to gloat when you have the best' or 'those who don't think it's the best just aren't artistic enough to see the differences' or just generally dissing everything that's NOT x-trans. X-trans is great. It's wonderful. So are several other sensor/array/processor combinations.

For some X-trans is the reason they got into Fuji gear, for others it's ONE reason among several, for other's it was DESPITE x-trans, and for still others it was reason enough NOT to go with Fuji. I love Fuji and I'm fine with x-trans, but I don't hold it above it's competitors - to me what makes Fuji REALLY special are the handling of the bodies and the great prime lenses. I also love their jpeg processing but I rarely shoot jpeg, so I hope Adobe gets it right when they add those film emulation profiles to Lightroom - I'd LOVE that...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

If that'/s what's bothering you then you should know that these types of remarks are COMPLETELY aimed at the hater trolls who hang out in this forum for the purpose of trashing x trans. Of course I know it is not an X trans universe, this is to tweak the haters and I will continue to do that as long as they are here for their twisted reasons.

It goes both ways in my opinion: Haters are as much of an annoyance as are extreme fanboys

As usual, the 'truth' is found somewhere in between.

But I'm a fan boy in the FUJI forum, why are the haters here. Not equivalent to me.

The bottom line is that comments from both haters as well as fanboys need to be taken with huge grains of salt, which is not what many people are willing to put up with. It's just like reviews on Amazon: the bashing 1-star and glowing 5-star reviews are usually completely unrealistic and useless. If you enjoy living on the fringes and to hang your head out the window that much, then so be it, but don't be surprised that people take a swing at it.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 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 Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 872
Like?
Re: XT1 - Truly Superior IQ -Inane thread
In reply to nixda, 6 months ago

nixda wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

nixda wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Ray Sachs wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Ger Horgan wrote:

"I compared pictures of the GX7 with my XT1 with similar settings. In every case, the XT1 pictures were visibly superior. Better sharpness and better color rendition. My experience with the GX7 was that it has trouble taking truly sharp pictures.

-- hide signature --

Sorry I cannot take this guy seriously .. A simple question why did he buy a GX7 in the first place ?

...

http://www.dinglephoto.com

Gerry

Good point Gerry. So do you perceive or did you see something unique in the many X trans photos you must have looked at before you purchased? Trying to figure out here if it's possible for there to be something pleasing and unique about the way Fuji X trans shows it colors or rendering possibly because of it's electronics and such.

Sure, it has it's characteristics, same as any other filter, array, processor combination. That's fine if that's all you're talking about.

It's the nonsense about (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't recall your precise language) 'it's OK to gloat when you have the best' or 'those who don't think it's the best just aren't artistic enough to see the differences' or just generally dissing everything that's NOT x-trans. X-trans is great. It's wonderful. So are several other sensor/array/processor combinations.

For some X-trans is the reason they got into Fuji gear, for others it's ONE reason among several, for other's it was DESPITE x-trans, and for still others it was reason enough NOT to go with Fuji. I love Fuji and I'm fine with x-trans, but I don't hold it above it's competitors - to me what makes Fuji REALLY special are the handling of the bodies and the great prime lenses. I also love their jpeg processing but I rarely shoot jpeg, so I hope Adobe gets it right when they add those film emulation profiles to Lightroom - I'd LOVE that...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

If that'/s what's bothering you then you should know that these types of remarks are COMPLETELY aimed at the hater trolls who hang out in this forum for the purpose of trashing x trans. Of course I know it is not an X trans universe, this is to tweak the haters and I will continue to do that as long as they are here for their twisted reasons.

It goes both ways in my opinion: Haters are as much of an annoyance as are extreme fanboys

As usual, the 'truth' is found somewhere in between.

But I'm a fan boy in the FUJI forum, why are the haters here. Not equivalent to me.

The bottom line is that comments from both haters as well as fanboys need to be taken with huge grains of salt, which is not what many people are willing to put up with. It's just like reviews on Amazon: the bashing 1-star and glowing 5-star reviews are usually completely unrealistic and useless. If you enjoy living on the fringes and to hang your head out the window that much, then so be it, but don't be surprised that people take a swing at it.

And I have no problem with them taking a swing, I can defend myself.  But I think I will define the bottom line, fanboys in their own forum are not the equivalent of haters being in a forum where they hate the very equipment it is about.  They deserve a few more swings, which is what I like to give right back to them

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Carson
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,048Gear list
Like?
Re: Can you tell them apart? X-Trans and GX7 shots (and others)...
In reply to Ray Sachs, 6 months ago

Ray Sachs wrote:

If the differences only matter in controlled testing, then it becomes almost a philosophical question whether they matter.

I think this is a mistake. Medical researchers do controlled testing (at ever increasing levels of sophistication) to determine the relative efficacy of different drugs or, more generally, different treatment regimes. They do this because casual observation of outcomes involves too many variables for reliable inferences to be drawn.

Yet results on medical efficacy that are only apparent in controlled testing do make a difference in the real world. Using the better drugs means that clinical outcomes will be better, on average, than they would be with the inferior drugs.

In the same way, you may not be able to figure out which camera is better from a collection of random shots, but if one camera can be shown to be better in controlled tests, then the photos you take with it will be better, on average, than the same photos would be if taken with an inferior camera.

Of course, if the differences in controlled testing aren't that great, then differences in real world use won't be that great either.

Personally, the Fuji hits the sweet spot for me in terms of the tradeoff between IQ and compactness. However, I don't have any problem with people using m4/3 rather than Fuji. As you say, the speed of the lens can be an equalizer, and there are a lot of other considerations that go into camera choice.

-- hide signature --

john carson

 John Carson's gear list:John Carson's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
trueview
Regular MemberPosts: 165
Like?
Re: same here
In reply to guitarjeff, 6 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

trueview wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

trueview wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Welcome Photo W. You got a wonderful camera. X trans photos simply have a unique look and feel that transcends the sum of it's parts (or charts). There are a few here who have a problem with X trans for whatever reasons. But like many, when you see the photos you perceive those unique qualities, a mixture of the colors and sharpness, the way it captures the actual environment. Some may not perceive it, others may perceive it and don't like it anyway.

Watch out for those who say they are Fuji fans in a big way. Ask them specifically if they like X trans, the very direction of the company they say they love.

Now, if you want to be blown away, head over to Fliker and search groups for X trans, and get ready for tens of thousands of incredible shots. Search the XF 23mm, the XF 14, the 35, the 55-200 lenses. These thousands of photos clearly prove what a special too Fuji has created, and you have seen this for yourself in your own photos already.

It truly is an X trans universe, and I am proud to be a fanboy. It's okay to be a fanboy if your object of desire is the best.

Maybe a slight loss of sense of perspective here ?

I mean, I'm thoroughly satisfied with the xtrans sensor: the x pro 1 for me has become the digital equivalent of my Leica M6, since digital Leica prices are vastly out of my range.

The size-weight / IQ ratio of the x pro one is nothing short of stunning. But come on, I also get amazing results from my 5DIII. I also got to use a D800 a few times : can this camera also deliver in terms of IQ !

Fuji cameras are truly excellent, and with ergonomics I'm particularly fond of. But unique ?

In my opinion, uniqueness has more to do with what is in front of the camera and who is behind the camera, than the camera itself...

Oh yeah, very unique to me and many others. The colors ALONE make them unique to me and many. And yeah, somewhat overblown because it fun to toy with the X trans haters.

me ? A xtrans hater ? I must have misunderstood the definition of the word hate !

As for colors, sorry to disagree. In my opinion, the canon 5d3 has slightly better awb than the fuji. Of course, this is easily equalized in post, but the fact remains that in my eyes the canon is a bit better in out of camera color rendition.

and at high ISO, the canon wins hands down, both for IQ and AF. But that should be expected: larger sensor, and not the same price either !

Now when it comes to street photgraphy, the fuji is miles ahead, with its loads of IQ in a small inconspicuous package. Also, I prefer the x pro 1 traditional ergonomics.

And again cameras are not unique : photographers are, I mean, a very few of them

You? No, not seen your postings. I was talking about Graham/Photophool/Chanthis

And I disgree about cams being unique, and a couple others just agreed, from sensor onwards through colors and gain and such a camera can have it's unique way of showing itself, we'll have to agree to disagree there.

Also disagree about color on Canon. While warm and nice, I don't believe either Fuji or Canon are very ACCURATE, and I notice you assume that accuracy is THE benchmark while not mentioning PLEASING. Can you see that many might not agree with your base standard of judging color? Notice how YOU defined for us the ground rules, then gave your opinion on Canon.

You have a point: wrong wording on my side (English not my first language). I share your opinion that in the end there is no such thing as truth in photography. So let me rephrase that : the Canon awb is more to my liking. That being said, there are a few instances when I feel the fuji is off : specifically for instance in city night photography, where in some cases the awb tries to anihilate the yellowish/reddish cast of city lights (at least here in Paris), giving pictures an overly blueish, artificial look.

Having owned the 5D2, I can say the Fuji x-E1 is hands down better in most every way, beter resolution, colors, high iso (and notice I didn't say the ground rules for this, so I will, better meaning the look of noise in Fuji being more film like when present, better shadow noise without the banding, AMOUNT of noise is not on top in my ground rules, the look of the noise is)

Knowing that many people say the 5D3 is not much different image quality than the 5D2, i would say that with my rules, the Fuji is better than even the 5D3, which from what I hear still has old sensor technology. So again, we will have to agree to disagree.

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 872
Like?
Re: same here
In reply to trueview, 6 months ago

trueview wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

trueview wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

trueview wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Welcome Photo W. You got a wonderful camera. X trans photos simply have a unique look and feel that transcends the sum of it's parts (or charts). There are a few here who have a problem with X trans for whatever reasons. But like many, when you see the photos you perceive those unique qualities, a mixture of the colors and sharpness, the way it captures the actual environment. Some may not perceive it, others may perceive it and don't like it anyway.

Watch out for those who say they are Fuji fans in a big way. Ask them specifically if they like X trans, the very direction of the company they say they love.

Now, if you want to be blown away, head over to Fliker and search groups for X trans, and get ready for tens of thousands of incredible shots. Search the XF 23mm, the XF 14, the 35, the 55-200 lenses. These thousands of photos clearly prove what a special too Fuji has created, and you have seen this for yourself in your own photos already.

It truly is an X trans universe, and I am proud to be a fanboy. It's okay to be a fanboy if your object of desire is the best.

Maybe a slight loss of sense of perspective here ?

I mean, I'm thoroughly satisfied with the xtrans sensor: the x pro 1 for me has become the digital equivalent of my Leica M6, since digital Leica prices are vastly out of my range.

The size-weight / IQ ratio of the x pro one is nothing short of stunning. But come on, I also get amazing results from my 5DIII. I also got to use a D800 a few times : can this camera also deliver in terms of IQ !

Fuji cameras are truly excellent, and with ergonomics I'm particularly fond of. But unique ?

In my opinion, uniqueness has more to do with what is in front of the camera and who is behind the camera, than the camera itself...

Oh yeah, very unique to me and many others. The colors ALONE make them unique to me and many. And yeah, somewhat overblown because it fun to toy with the X trans haters.

me ? A xtrans hater ? I must have misunderstood the definition of the word hate !

As for colors, sorry to disagree. In my opinion, the canon 5d3 has slightly better awb than the fuji. Of course, this is easily equalized in post, but the fact remains that in my eyes the canon is a bit better in out of camera color rendition.

and at high ISO, the canon wins hands down, both for IQ and AF. But that should be expected: larger sensor, and not the same price either !

Now when it comes to street photgraphy, the fuji is miles ahead, with its loads of IQ in a small inconspicuous package. Also, I prefer the x pro 1 traditional ergonomics.

And again cameras are not unique : photographers are, I mean, a very few of them

You? No, not seen your postings. I was talking about Graham/Photophool/Chanthis

And I disgree about cams being unique, and a couple others just agreed, from sensor onwards through colors and gain and such a camera can have it's unique way of showing itself, we'll have to agree to disagree there.

Also disagree about color on Canon. While warm and nice, I don't believe either Fuji or Canon are very ACCURATE, and I notice you assume that accuracy is THE benchmark while not mentioning PLEASING. Can you see that many might not agree with your base standard of judging color? Notice how YOU defined for us the ground rules, then gave your opinion on Canon.

You have a point: wrong wording on my side (English not my first language). I share your opinion that in the end there is no such thing as truth in photography. So let me rephrase that : the Canon awb is more to my liking. That being said, there are a few instances when I feel the fuji is off : specifically for instance in city night photography, where in some cases the awb tries to anihilate the yellowish/reddish cast of city lights (at least here in Paris), giving pictures an overly blueish, artificial look.

Having owned the 5D2, I can say the Fuji x-E1 is hands down better in most every way, beter resolution, colors, high iso (and notice I didn't say the ground rules for this, so I will, better meaning the look of noise in Fuji being more film like when present, better shadow noise without the banding, AMOUNT of noise is not on top in my ground rules, the look of the noise is)

Knowing that many people say the 5D3 is not much different image quality than the 5D2, i would say that with my rules, the Fuji is better than even the 5D3, which from what I hear still has old sensor technology. So again, we will have to agree to disagree.

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.  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, 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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 8,991Gear list
Like?
Re: Can you tell them apart? X-Trans and GX7 shots (and others)...
In reply to John Carson, 6 months ago

John Carson wrote:

Ray Sachs wrote:

If the differences only matter in controlled testing, then it becomes almost a philosophical question whether they matter.

I think this is a mistake. Medical researchers do controlled testing (at ever increasing levels of sophistication) to determine the relative efficacy of different drugs or, more generally, different treatment regimes. They do this because casual observation of outcomes involves too many variables for reliable inferences to be drawn.

Yet results on medical efficacy that are only apparent in controlled testing do make a difference in the real world. Using the better drugs means that clinical outcomes will be better, on average, than they would be with the inferior drugs.

In the same way, you may not be able to figure out which camera is better from a collection of random shots, but if one camera can be shown to be better in controlled tests, then the photos you take with it will be better, on average, than the same photos would be if taken with an inferior camera.

I hear you John, and I don't think we're coming from terribly different places. I know that at the margins of the most challenging shots, there are differences. From my experience (AND most of the testing I've looked at - the detailed measurable stuff to which you refer...), there are small but measurable differences between m43 and APS and much larger differences between either and full frame. I had an RX1 and loved it and spent a couple of months with a Nikon Df and loved the sensor but had mixed feelings about the whole DSLR experience (which I haven't really been into since the film SLR days, and those were very different beasts!).

If I had the tolerance for the size and weight of comparably fast full frame lenses to the APS and m43 stuff I shoot, I'd be a full frame guy. Because the measurable results are notably better and the situations where it's actually visible in real world shooting are frequent enough to matter. But I concluded I was only willing to shoot full frame with smaller lenses that generally are about a stop slower than what's available with APS (Fuji specifically) and m43. So what I was gaining with the sensor I was mostly losing with the slower, smaller glass. So the differences between what I actually would shoot with full frame vs APS/m43 at that point becomes very small and there's no compelling reason for me to go with full frame.

When I compared the results of the RX1 or Nikon Df with a 35mm f2.0 lens (which is exactly what I was using on the Nikon and the only choice on the RX1) to any APS Fuji with the 23mm f1.4, the differences get really really small. If I'd been willing to shoot the Df with a 35 f1.4 we'd have a different story, but that's a big, heavy, expensive lens. So here I am...

Of course, if the differences in controlled testing aren't that great, then differences in real world use won't be that great either.

Right, and as noted, they're not that great between APS and m43 (let alone between competing current APS sensors).

Personally, the Fuji hits the sweet spot for me in terms of the tradeoff between IQ and compactness. However, I don't have any problem with people using m4/3 rather than Fuji. As you say, the speed of the lens can be an equalizer, and there are a lot of other considerations that go into camera choice.

I'm in exactly the same place for most of my shooting. APS is the sweet spot for me and Fuji is an easy choice because of the handling of the cameras and the excellent range of prime lenses they've been developing for the system. The lenses are really most of it... The balance swings to m43 for me once I get into fast zooms or longer lenses because there the size difference between APS and m43 is fairly significant while the IQ differences are still quite small. And, coincidentally, I prefer the 3:2 aspect ratio for most of the types of shooting I do with primes and 4:3 for stuff like portraits and the kind of event shooting I usually do with zooms and longer lenses. So that all works out very fortuitously for me...

So I have a mixed system with APS (Fuji and Nikon Coolpix A) and m43. If I had to go one way or the other I could without a particularly notable difference in IQ, but I like the mix for the reasons noted. And I should probably note that I use the APS gear FAR more than the m43 gear. Not because of any difference in IQ, but because I just do a LOT more prime lens shooting than zoom or telephoto.

My point wasn't that there are NO differences, just that they're too small to justify the kinds of pronouncements that were being made in this thread and elsewhere about the clear and obvious superiority of Fuji's X-Trans sensors to anything else out there, and m43 in particular... I mean, if they really were so vast, one SHOULD be able to pick out the differences from a bunch of random photos taken with a bunch of different cameras...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
trueview
Regular MemberPosts: 165
Like?
Re: same here
In reply to guitarjeff, 6 months ago

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

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 ?

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 ?

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

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.

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.

Taken with the Fuji :

and now the canon

and now film !

Whatever works

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 872
Like?
Re: Can you tell them apart? X-Trans and GX7 shots (and others)...
In reply to Ray Sachs, 6 months ago

Ray Sachs wrote:

John Carson wrote:

Ray Sachs wrote:

If the differences only matter in controlled testing, then it becomes almost a philosophical question whether they matter.

I think this is a mistake. Medical researchers do controlled testing (at ever increasing levels of sophistication) to determine the relative efficacy of different drugs or, more generally, different treatment regimes. They do this because casual observation of outcomes involves too many variables for reliable inferences to be drawn.

Yet results on medical efficacy that are only apparent in controlled testing do make a difference in the real world. Using the better drugs means that clinical outcomes will be better, on average, than they would be with the inferior drugs.

In the same way, you may not be able to figure out which camera is better from a collection of random shots, but if one camera can be shown to be better in controlled tests, then the photos you take with it will be better, on average, than the same photos would be if taken with an inferior camera.

I hear you John, and I don't think we're coming from terribly different places. I know that at the margins of the most challenging shots, there are differences. From my experience (AND most of the testing I've looked at - the detailed measurable stuff to which you refer...), there are small but measurable differences between m43 and APS and much larger differences between either and full frame. I had an RX1 and loved it and spent a couple of months with a Nikon Df and loved the sensor but had mixed feelings about the whole DSLR experience (which I haven't really been into since the film SLR days, and those were very different beasts!).

If I had the tolerance for the size and weight of comparably fast full frame lenses to the APS and m43 stuff I shoot, I'd be a full frame guy. Because the measurable results are notably better and the situations where it's actually visible in real world shooting are frequent enough to matter. But I concluded I was only willing to shoot full frame with smaller lenses that generally are about a stop slower than what's available with APS (Fuji specifically) and m43. So what I was gaining with the sensor I was mostly losing with the slower, smaller glass. So the differences between what I actually would shoot with full frame vs APS/m43 at that point becomes very small and there's no compelling reason for me to go with full frame.

When I compared the results of the RX1 or Nikon Df with a 35mm f2.0 lens (which is exactly what I was using on the Nikon and the only choice on the RX1) to any APS Fuji with the 23mm f1.4, the differences get really really small. If I'd been willing to shoot the Df with a 35 f1.4 we'd have a different story, but that's a big, heavy, expensive lens. So here I am...

Of course, if the differences in controlled testing aren't that great, then differences in real world use won't be that great either.

Right, and as noted, they're not that great between APS and m43 (let alone between competing current APS sensors).

Personally, the Fuji hits the sweet spot for me in terms of the tradeoff between IQ and compactness. However, I don't have any problem with people using m4/3 rather than Fuji. As you say, the speed of the lens can be an equalizer, and there are a lot of other considerations that go into camera choice.

I'm in exactly the same place for most of my shooting. APS is the sweet spot for me and Fuji is an easy choice because of the handling of the cameras and the excellent range of prime lenses they've been developing for the system. The lenses are really most of it... The balance swings to m43 for me once I get into fast zooms or longer lenses because there the size difference between APS and m43 is fairly significant while the IQ differences are still quite small. And, coincidentally, I prefer the 3:2 aspect ratio for most of the types of shooting I do with primes and 4:3 for stuff like portraits and the kind of event shooting I usually do with zooms and longer lenses. So that all works out very fortuitously for me...

So I have a mixed system with APS (Fuji and Nikon Coolpix A) and m43. If I had to go one way or the other I could without a particularly notable difference in IQ, but I like the mix for the reasons noted. And I should probably note that I use the APS gear FAR more than the m43 gear. Not because of any difference in IQ, but because I just do a LOT more prime lens shooting than zoom or telephoto.

My point wasn't that there are NO differences, just that they're too small to justify the kinds of pronouncements that were being made in this thread and elsewhere about the clear and obvious superiority of Fuji's X-Trans sensors to anything else out there, and m43 in particular... I mean, if they really were so vast, one SHOULD be able to pick out the differences from a bunch of random photos taken with a bunch of different cameras...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Where we disagree Ray is that I don't hold that in order for something to make a huge difference you would need to be able to pick that thing out in a dozen shots.  The feel could definitely, and will be, expressed over thousands of images, and if it means thousands of images then it means for than a dozen shots.  As I said, we can go to two specific cams like the 5D2 and the X pro1 and I can tell a big difference over many shots, and since I will use that cam for a body of work that could contain thousands of shots, it means just as much difference in my own shooting as it shows itself to be in the hundreds of shots I would look at from other shooters.

You admitted that the electronics and such, filters, gain, type of noise feel, colors, can all make a certain cam have a feel, or characteristics.  That admission was al I was looking for, and we disagree on how much difference that should or could make.  I claim that it can make a huge difference over the lifetime of a cam and a body of work.  I claim that there are probably many X trans users who would say the same, that the special character of X trans photos (that which is beyond the charts and numbers) made a huge impact on their desire to buy an X trans cam.

But you are a cordial person and I enjoyed the back and forth.  I can agree to disagree, no problem there.

-- 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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 8,991Gear list
Like?
Re: Can you tell them apart? X-Trans and GX7 shots (and others)...
In reply to guitarjeff, 6 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

Where we disagree Ray is that I don't hold that in order for something to make a huge difference you would need to be able to pick that thing out in a dozen shots. The feel could definitely, and will be, expressed over thousands of images, and if it means thousands of images then it means for than a dozen shots. As I said, we can go to two specific cams like the 5D2 and the X pro1 and I can tell a big difference over many shots, and since I will use that cam for a body of work that could contain thousands of shots, it means just as much difference in my own shooting as it shows itself to be in the hundreds of shots I would look at from other shooters.

I agree that the native characteristics of a given filter/array/processor can vary some and it becomes apparent more over time than instantly. But where my experience differs is that the longer I shoot, the more aware I am of what I'm after in a given shot and how I can process the shot to get to that point. And once I've done the processing, the relatively minor differences in that native "look and feel" are reduced to nearly nothing or absolutely nothing or, on occasion, maybe even less than that.  Some say I over-process and I understand that I process some shots a lot, but it's ultimately a matter of taste and my taste (or lack thereof) takes me where it takes me....

Over the past couple of years (we seem to have hit a bit of a plateau in sensor development about two years ago) I've found less and less difference in the ultimate appearance of the photographs I produce and the only meaningful difference is how well the files can handle various types of processing before they start breaking down. And even THOSE differences are far smaller than they were 3-4 years ago. In 2010 or 2011, it didn't take much processing for a 12mp m43 file to really start coming apart at the seams, with ANY shadow recovery exposing horrible amounts of highly visible noise. With the new sensor that Olympus started using in 2012 and the round of APS sensors (which X-Trans, among others, is built on) were also a notable improvement upon what was there before.

The extensive work I did with full frame over the past year (mostly the RX1 with it's amazing DR and Nikon Df with it's amazing high ISO capability) showed this difference in spades. There was almost nothing I could try in processing that those files couldn't handle in spades and ask for more. Both APS and m43 files, while WAAAAAY better than the previous generation, have their limits and I'm sometimes able to find them. As with image quality at the limits of DR and low light sensitivity, I find very little difference in processing modern APS (X-trans or otherwise) and m43, but quite a bit between either and full frame.

And, of course, processing software has improved too, issues with X-Trans processing aside. Stuff like shadow and highlight recovery and NR are much MUCH better in today's tools than what was out there a couple of years ago.

So, I get your point, but I don't see it much once I've done what I'm going to do to the files my cameras produce. Hence, I really can't get worked up about the differences.

You admitted that the electronics and such, filters, gain, type of noise feel, colors, can all make a certain cam have a feel, or characteristics. That admission was al I was looking for, and we disagree on how much difference that should or could make. I claim that it can make a huge difference over the lifetime of a cam and a body of work. I claim that there are probably many X trans users who would say the same, that the special character of X trans photos (that which is beyond the charts and numbers) made a huge impact on their desire to buy an X trans cam.

But you are a cordial person and I enjoyed the back and forth. I can agree to disagree, no problem there.

No problem here either. I always enjoy a good discussion, but I can't stand the flame wars that often break out. I usually try to avoid them completely, but if there's a germ of a discussion in the subject being yelled about, as I think there was in this thread, I sometimes jump in and try to engage in that discussion...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 872
Like?
Re: same here
In reply to trueview, 6 months ago

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.

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.

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.]]]

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 872
Like?
Re: Can you tell them apart? X-Trans and GX7 shots (and others)...
In reply to Ray Sachs, 6 months ago

Ray Sachs wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Where we disagree Ray is that I don't hold that in order for something to make a huge difference you would need to be able to pick that thing out in a dozen shots. The feel could definitely, and will be, expressed over thousands of images, and if it means thousands of images then it means for than a dozen shots. As I said, we can go to two specific cams like the 5D2 and the X pro1 and I can tell a big difference over many shots, and since I will use that cam for a body of work that could contain thousands of shots, it means just as much difference in my own shooting as it shows itself to be in the hundreds of shots I would look at from other shooters.

I agree that the native characteristics of a given filter/array/processor can vary some and it becomes apparent more over time than instantly. But where my experience differs is that the longer I shoot, the more aware I am of what I'm after in a given shot and how I can process the shot to get to that point. And once I've done the processing, the relatively minor differences in that native "look and feel" are reduced to nearly nothing or absolutely nothing or, on occasion, maybe even less than that. Some say I over-process and I understand that I process some shots a lot, but it's ultimately a matter of taste and my taste (or lack thereof) takes me where it takes me....

Over the past couple of years (we seem to have hit a bit of a plateau in sensor development about two years ago) I've found less and less difference in the ultimate appearance of the photographs I produce and the only meaningful difference is how well the files can handle various types of processing before they start breaking down. And even THOSE differences are far smaller than they were 3-4 years ago. In 2010 or 2011, it didn't take much processing for a 12mp m43 file to really start coming apart at the seams, with ANY shadow recovery exposing horrible amounts of highly visible noise. With the new sensor that Olympus started using in 2012 and the round of APS sensors (which X-Trans, among others, is built on) were also a notable improvement upon what was there before.

The extensive work I did with full frame over the past year (mostly the RX1 with it's amazing DR and Nikon Df with it's amazing high ISO capability) showed this difference in spades. There was almost nothing I could try in processing that those files couldn't handle in spades and ask for more. Both APS and m43 files, while WAAAAAY better than the previous generation, have their limits and I'm sometimes able to find them. As with image quality at the limits of DR and low light sensitivity, I find very little difference in processing modern APS (X-trans or otherwise) and m43, but quite a bit between either and full frame.

And, of course, processing software has improved too, issues with X-Trans processing aside. Stuff like shadow and highlight recovery and NR are much MUCH better in today's tools than what was out there a couple of years ago.

So, I get your point, but I don't see it much once I've done what I'm going to do to the files my cameras produce. Hence, I really can't get worked up about the differences.

You admitted that the electronics and such, filters, gain, type of noise feel, colors, can all make a certain cam have a feel, or characteristics. That admission was al I was looking for, and we disagree on how much difference that should or could make. I claim that it can make a huge difference over the lifetime of a cam and a body of work. I claim that there are probably many X trans users who would say the same, that the special character of X trans photos (that which is beyond the charts and numbers) made a huge impact on their desire to buy an X trans cam.

But you are a cordial person and I enjoyed the back and forth. I can agree to disagree, no problem there.

No problem here either. I always enjoy a good discussion, but I can't stand the flame wars that often break out. I usually try to avoid them completely, but if there's a germ of a discussion in the subject being yelled about, as I think there was in this thread, I sometimes jump in and try to engage in that discussion...

-Ray
--------------------------------------
We judge photographers by the photographs we see. We judge cameras by the photographs we miss - Haim Zamir
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/

I can say this, you are a true gentleman my frriend.

-- 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.]]]

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
trueview
Regular MemberPosts: 165
Like?
Re: same here
In reply to guitarjeff, 6 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
SaltLakeGuy
Forum ProPosts: 10,492Gear list
Like?
Re: They made me walk the plank
In reply to fotophool, 6 months ago

fotophool wrote:

SaltLakeGuy wrote:

here on this forum for my slamming of the mft stuff when I converted over from a EM1 to the X-T1. I'm sorry but frankly I don't consider them equal on ANY level.

Flash, video? Really?

They want to call me a fanboy go right ahead. I feel comfortable backing it up all day long.

Pictures are worth a thousand words, you know.

Which is what I find so funny about the two most vocal fanboys here -- you and guitarjeff.

You'd think that if the Fuji was truly the greatest camera ever invented that the both of you would be endlessly bombarding us on a daily basis with pics that any other camera or system could only dream about. After all, you "feel comfortable backing it up all day long."

Instead, we get mostly...verbiage. The same verbiage, I might add, over and over and over.

Ray Sachs has a perspective on this stuff. It might behoove you and guitarjeff to get one, too.

And he takes better pictures than the two of you, too.

And my apologies to Ray for dragging him into this.

Better IQ across the board PERIOD. Better high speed tracking and I prefer the layout. Oh well......

-- hide signature --

Fuji X-T1 Camera, Fuji 18-55 f2.8-f4 Lens, Fuji 55-200 f4-f5.6 Lens, Fuji 23mm f1.4 Lens, Fuji 56mm f1.2R Lens, Fuji EF-42 Flash, Picturecode PhotoNinja

Oh, well, indeed.

fotophool

My Flickr Pics

You are certainly entitled to your opinion anytime. We all have one. I'm so very sorry you don't care for my photographic expertise. I'm equally grateful my clients don't agree. With that said my camera has been at Fuji for a bit getting the light leak fixed, and until I get it back my photo taking is on hold. Enough others have substantiated the things I've spoken of, so It's not like I'm scrambling for a 2nd witness or anything.

-- hide signature --

Fuji X-T1 Camera, Fuji 18-55 f2.8-f4 Lens, Fuji 55-200 f4-f5.6 Lens, Fuji 23mm f1.4 Lens, Fuji 56mm f1.2R Lens, Fuji EF-42 Flash, Picturecode PhotoNinja

 SaltLakeGuy's gear list:SaltLakeGuy's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Epson Stylus Pro 3880
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads