webrunner5: Crap skin tones and crap video and it gets a 80 score??? Wow, someone at DPR REALLY likes Fuji's.
You appear to be living in a bubble. Presumably the whole world should be filled with people just like you. What beautiful harmonies that would make for.
I refer you to my previous comments.
Of course they do. What do you think event photography is?
In any case, for my purposes (semi-formal portraits) the Fuji OOC jpegs were more than good enough for my clients. I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time processing RAW; they won't give a darn.
"Honestly I believe anyone who shoots only JPEG is not too concerned with image quality. Any discerning enthusiast who puts a high value on IQ and shoots RAW should be pretty happy with Fuji."
RAW snobs. Not everyone is shooting fine art.
But seriously, the OOC fuji jpegs were arguably as good as any RAW processing, using almost all the available DR with the right settings. Unlike other systems, the only significant advantages in shooting RAW was in changing your mind about exposure and WB or fussing over noise. The OOC jpegs were a great way to avoid a lot of admin.
That's no longer true.
In the meantime, RAW shooters do have a tendency to be shooting low ISO pics, whereas the Fujis were fantastic for high ISO people pics where ultimate image quality isn't such an issue.
In any case, this is about differing needs not ultimate image quality.
BarnET: Where is yabokie the x-trans thrasher.I expected the usual "x-trans is an stupis cost saving piece crap " comment.Maybe he finally found his she-troll.
Time for an evening troll, I see.
All very amusing. Two trolls fighting over another troll, who's lost interest due to a she-troll.
You're all very naughty, and go straight to your caves without supper.
No RGB histogram is just inexcusable. And with the red channel prone to clipping, also.
Along with all the other oddities and omissions, reviewers are right to call these cameras 'quirky'. I like quirky in my female friends, but not in my tools.
"Fujifilm says it isn't applying any extra noise reduction or processing to skintones."
Then what are they doing? They're definately doing something as the XE-1 and XP1 don't have this issue.
The sad thing about that denial is that it indicates the unlikelihood of a change back or an option in the menus to switch the "caked-makup/airbrush" effect off.
I actually brought in to this system with the strength of the OOC jpegs as a priority (among others), and since I regularly shoot high ISO people pics, this is a problem for my upgrade path. Indeed, just getting a second body (which a Nikon does for now). And I really do need that phase AF. Bummer!
itsastickup: And plastic skin textures at high ISO?
And let's not forget the cut in shadow range.
..and has been said in these forums, -2 on the X100s/XE2 is equivalent to -1 on the predecessaors. So that's a loss of -2. I usually have my camera at -2, so this affects me directly.
It's a loss of OOC jpeg DR.
itsastickup: Fuji seem to have a record of over-reacting to some problems and totally ignoring others.
The overly stiff compensation dial / lack of RGB histogram / moving the Q button (was that really necessary) / waxy skin.
I don't mind quirks in a girl, but not in a camera. And these are a bit more than quirks; they're significant usability issues.
Most digis have a problem with blowing out the red channel. The fuji is worse than normal. They need that RGB histogram.
An EV dial that now needs two fingers to move is for me, constantly on the EV dial, a significant usability issue. Sure, landscape guys won't mind, but people shooters sure will. And fuji's are famous for their skintones, so this isn't a minor problem.
gerard boulanger: A teasing before a full review Friday?
Sure, but that doesn't justify an unnecessary reduction in DR for OOC jpegs for us jpeg shooters. And the shadow cut is extraordinarily steep.
I don;t have the XE-2 but so far it seems confirmed that the shadow cut and -2=-1 shadow setting change is true of it also.
I specifically mentioned OOC jpegs. The jpeg engine and shadow/highlight settings may have been tweaked.
It would also really be great to get some idea of the accuracy of the LCD. My X-pro1 seems highly innacurate; I can't make any colour judgements in the field (I have a calibrated Eizo).
Please do test the DR with shadow and highlight settings maxed out (ie. -2 and -2, rather than +2, +2) as you did with the X-Pro review. The sharp cut in the X100s shadow appears to be accompanied by shadow -2 being the equivalent of shadow -1 on the XE1/X-Pro, which is a disappointing loss of jpeg DR for us OOC jpeg shooters. But the X100s review didn't include these settings so it's all hearsay and subjective judgements.
Fuji seem to have a record of over-reacting to some problems and totally ignoring others.
And plastic skin textures at high ISO?
groucher: "I keep one hand on the mouse or tablet stylus as much as possible, and use the other hand "
That says it all - you have to maintain an uncomfortable and awkward seated position because Adobe hasn't the nouse to write software that utilises the RH mouse control. Simple things such as just zooming in/out or setting clone point/cloning are a pain in Photo$hop. These can be done single handed in Corel - a particular advantage in cloning which needs precision.
Adobe needs a clip round the ear for producing expensive and antiquated software that can't even manage memory successfully. Try the Gimp, Corel and NX2 (the last for superior RAW processing if you're a Nikon user).
"Corel has much more functionality than any version of Photo$hop, together with superior workflow and Color Efex Pro is included as a freeby - a very powerful combination.
People have been sucked in by Photo$hop as it's supposed to be the industry standard but there's far better out there now as is well illustrated by this article."
You've evidently not had much exposure to photoshop.
thx1138: 1/4000 and f/1.2/1.4 lenses should work well. Why not 1/8000 on such an advanced model at a high price point?
"If you can afford this cam, and a 1.2 lens to attach to it, you can afford a set of ND filters."
At $80 a pop and every other lens having a different filter size, I don't think so.
pew pew: Dear Sony haters:
Just another Canon shooterJust a Photographeryabokkie
Idk if you guys are intimidated or frustrated with your own camera, but I´m sure theres more productive things to do with your time, then dissing sony in every review.
Bottom line is that diversity, innovation and competition is ultimately better for us consumers.
There's no need for that since I wrote a userscript inspired by the fellow himself:
Richard Murdey: Any expensive lens has to justify its price tag, so its fair to ask why this 35/2.8 costs $800 considering what is available on the market today across all lens mounts.
The concern is that Sony is holding FE users hostage, over-charging on lenses to offset the low price of the cameras.
Sony's argument would be that this lens is expensive as it had to be made exceptionally sharp to match the 36 MP of the a7R, and they've all the while kept it amazingly small and light, too.
My gut reading is that its a little bit of both.
Even so, at that price the complex distortion is a head-scratcher.
The vignetting is the natural cost of having such a small lens. I suppose they justify the distortion with the same reasoned trade-off, but it's not a natural cost. I don't think it should be there.
Having said that, if the camera's firmware update automatically corrects it then it's a non issue.