jenbenn: Hm if a look at the green felt in the test scene the disadvantages of the x-trans sensor in the x-m1 and x-e2 compared to the x-a1 becomes very obvious. Both JPGS and RAWs of the x-e2 and the x-m1 are much softer compared to the corresponding files from the x-a1. So far I thought that the x-trans softness was a raw converter problem. From the test scene it appears however that even Fuji hasn't found a proper way to process the x-trans data for their in-camera jpgs!
Fuji as much as I love your cameras, please, drop that stupid xtrans colour filter array.In reality images created from bayer sensors (which include an anti alising filter) are much sharper. The noise advantage often attributed to x-trans is not real as it comes at the expense of softer files. Sorry but the same can be achieved with a proper raw converter and some noise reduction.
You know not what you speak of..Your looking at the difference in raw converter (w/ raw files) and base jpg settings (w/ ooc jpgs) NOT the difference in sensors. The X-Trans sensors have better iso performance and detail resolve than comparable bayer array sensors, period.Will that be the case forever, probably not, but is the reality atm. One would hope that manufacturers will get back to designing sensors with more concern in ISO performance rather than super high mp that you have to throw away (downsampling) but it is likely that it won't happen until some proverbial threshold is reached in mp..
You won't find it on DPR but you can find plenty of other sources that process X-Trans raw files with different apps than Adobe that show more of what the sensors can do.. Just because Adobe products are the most used doesn't mean they are the best to use - if you have trouble grasping that simple concept you probably should not be publicly voicing your criticisms of the products.
wkay: I'd really like to know how you get your bugs to sit still for 10 minutes while you setup the tripod in their faces, compose, and take 11 shots..
heh.. you can also use the machine gun method, especially if you plan to do a little bit of cropping in the final image. In that you simply take a series of shots at your cameras top fps rate while you slowly turn the focus ring, lol.Not the best method for absolute critical sharpness, especially if your camera body vibrates too much, but in stacking you have lots of room to make small adjustments.(Need to be on a tripod of course.)
Timmbits: " it’s better to change the focal point by moving the lens physically back and forth rather than using the focus ring"
I am curious as to how to do this...
I'm imagining my camera on a tripod, and I have to move it by a fraction of a millimeter... how does that work?
Didn't want to leave you with the wrong impression, or have you think that rails are the only/best way.-Ideally- you would look for a macro lens that does not 'focus breath' (change its magnification) though many lenses people use do. The author mentions the Canon MP-E 65 which is a fantastic lens though big heavy and expensive. One of its benefits though is that it does not change its magnification through short adjustments unless you wrack the focus from min to max, and even then it isn't much. That allows you to simply bump the focus ring a little, capture an image, bump it a little further, capture another image etc. That will result in a series of images that are the same magnification (distance) on the sensor - only differing in what is in focus from front to back of the subject.
Timmbits,There are numerous styles of rails that will mount to your tripod, to which your camera mounts to the rails, allowing you to slide your camera forward/back in small increments (typically marked in millimeters.)That would allow you to keep the same focal length of the lens while moving the focal plane forward or back for each image needed.
MP Burke: I think that the interest in photographing animals in the field is the ability to capture behaviour, such as fighting, feeding and mating.Going out when the insect is at its coldest and immobile prevents such behaviour being observed.The dragonfly in the photograph is not identified and indeed could be difficult to identify, since the view does not show the top of the abdomen or thorax where many characteristic markings are likely to be. Some may regard the image as novel or attractive, but it says little about what the insect is and nothing about what it does, so I do not regard it as being particularly useful nature photography.It should be said that if people become fixated on stacking and want a static subject there are many pinned specimens already in museum collections. Some invertebrates are in decline: no need to kill them. Finally many small animals have been photographed using the scanning electron microscope, with higher DOF and resolution than optical can provide.
Forget the article, there are many aspects of photography in general you do not appear to fully understand.If I were to put it in the same 'black and white' context you have shared, there would be two types of photographers:1 - Those that use photography as a tool for creative expression and/or interpretation.2 - Others similar to yourself primarily interested in 'cataloging' everything around them through photography.
There is no right/wrong either way - just a different usage.
In contrast to your assertion however, I would dare say that most viewers and photographers looking at the dragonfly image noticed the symmetry, colors, fragile nature of its wings, etc and were not concerned what specific variety of its species it belongs to. It is simply a moment frozen in time that we are able to capture, study, enjoy, and at times even compose the perspective to produce imagery that is interesting/pleasing to look at.
SiliconVoid: Little value in these news updates until ACR produces higher levels of detail than is already achievable in the jpg files. We know there is more detail there than ACR can process or the jpg files would not already be beyond what many other cameras deliver with their raw files.How about showing what Fuji's raw converter does - its not like 'everyone' uses ACR to process their raw files, regardless of whether they use LR to process their output. How about DxO, CaptureOne, and several others that process Fuji files better than ACR. Though that would show the level of superiority the X-Trans sensor has over the 'end-of-life' Bayer designs, and we wouldn't want to do that to Sony and Toshiba now would we... =)
I understand the popularity of ACR/LR, and therefore the underlying interest, though as it cannot process any higher levels of detail than Fuji's own jpg engine it is still of little relevance until it does..DPReview has mentioned numerous times though no attempts are made to tweak processing, choosing instead to maintain a level of uniformity in processing so there is some relevance to other sensors. I have tweaked ACR output of the X-Pro1 that surpasses results shown by DPReview. Unless DPReview is going to do the same it lessens the relevance of comparison given that the X-Trans is completely different.Not trying to be combative btw, I am aware of the time needed to find the best tweak for each sensor versus an established 'average' setting. I am just stating an observation that 'updating' results that still show false softness and overall lack of image detail is doing little but degrading interest in what represents one of the few real evolutionary technologies in this industry.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Beautiful camera but raws are way too soft compared to the other cameras. What's the excuse this time? Not depth of field again, I expect...
-Undisclosed Fujifilm processing engine...
Not sure why Fuji feels the need to keep it a secret when they can see it is negatively impacting the perception of the sensor.. O.o
Little value in these news updates until ACR produces higher levels of detail than is already achievable in the jpg files. We know there is more detail there than ACR can process or the jpg files would not already be beyond what many other cameras deliver with their raw files.How about showing what Fuji's raw converter does - its not like 'everyone' uses ACR to process their raw files, regardless of whether they use LR to process their output. How about DxO, CaptureOne, and several others that process Fuji files better than ACR. Though that would show the level of superiority the X-Trans sensor has over the 'end-of-life' Bayer designs, and we wouldn't want to do that to Sony and Toshiba now would we... =)
Not sure why we are worrying about low-pass filters and occasional areas of detail only visible/beneficial at ISO100 and above f/3.5. The bigger issue is the approach Nikon is taking and resulting image quality they try to market to the consumers just to have an 'edge' in the MP race no one is running except Nikon. The "grain" that is introduced due to signal amplification (seen as low as ISO400!!) is a step backwards in digital photography evolution, and is only accepted by some because they just want Nikon to be the best, be in the lead, and a considerable more who are just ignorant of what it should be.It has gotten to the same point graphics cards did 5-10 years ago where manufacturers tweaked their hardware to run benchmark tests (DxO in this arena) but yield no real benefit in the real world. As some have noticed here, the Pentax outperforms the D7100 in almost every area - but certainly in lower noise and retention of detail which gets destroyed by the "grain" in the D7100.
I try to keep up with this kind of stuff, not sure how this announcement got past me.. BUT in having recently visited the Hasselblad website, the new Lunar is nothing more than an NEX-6/7 with fancy trim... Damn!!, I was hoping for a cropped MF sensor, lol, which would have been a 35mm sensor - /sigh..
Oh well.... Who will be first with a 'real' interchangeable lens mirrorless body????****A 35mm digital body!****
Oh, sorry.. I was referring to the whinny-ass comments, not the camera….
Why do we have to hear from the gadgetographers every time a new camera is announced? Does a camera have to have more mp and speech recognition to be of benefit? Do we need 36mp to get great 2-8mp downsampled images? Is high-mp high-gain noise ok because it can look like 'grain'? The industry does not need film-like 'grain' at ISO-640 so some gadgetographers can have more mp - especially when 95% of everything they produce ends up a ~2mp image on a computer screen.Why do people complain what the newest model 'needs' when they are not even capable of using the camera they have...?
What we - need - is better performance from current technology.We need ISO-100 IQ up to ISO-6400.We need less expensive better quality lenses.We need people to stop buying these toys and force the manufacturers back to producing the most efficient, capable, digital photography tools they can for a reasonable price.
chillgreg: So lets see: vs Sony NEX 5R/6
The NEX's are
- much, much less expensive- same (similar) IQ- significantly smaller & lighter (+pancake kit zoom & 16/20 f2.8 WA)- adapters take almost any legacy lens- better articulating LCD- proper sweep panorama- 10fps burst inc RAW- extensive video controls- wifi + apps (eg intervalometer, remote control via mobile devices & multishot noise reduction etc)- touchscreen or similar spec EVF- faster AF + PD AF- focus peaking
One must REALLY like Fuji or retro styling to throw as much as twice the money at a bigger, heavier arguably less capable mirrorless camera. The price Fuji's asking buys a LOT of DSLR.
Food for thought.
PS DPR can you please review the Sony NEX 5R/6 and also add the 5R to the image comparison database.
;=)Lets see: Fujifilm X-Trans vs NEX gadgetry
- Less capable NEX bodies cheaper.- IQ not comparable, sorry.- Size subjective, if it matters more than IQ go for it.- Same lens adapters available. Only limited by product release dates.- Great how easily NEX LCD is damaged.- Sweep panorama a required feature? - Can lock exposure to correct.- FPS.. Learn subject, learn environment, anticipate shutter - learn photography.- Takes video. Thankfully Fujifilm still a photography company.- WiFi indeed welcome - not extensively useful in the field.- X-Trans IQ at such a high level multi-shot NR apps not needed.- Touch screen not needed on camera providing external control.- Same excellent 2.36mp OLED EVF. (if EVF is your thing)- Comparable hybrid AF performance - <OMD, <SLR.- Unique, unmatched 3rd party lens support. (Leica M-Mount Adapter)
An excellent digital photography tool where absolute IQ and lenses are desired. Current RAW support offset by better JPG than many others RAW.
OMG Fujifilm, put this sensor in an SLR body ALREADY!!!
It would be outstanding stitched together for a FF sensor (the noise ceiling alone would be pushed so far beyond typical ISO range we could get 100 performance at ~3200) but if APS-C is all Fuji can/wants to do atm that is fine.Just work with 'someone' and get this into an SLR body..!
Combine the base IQ of this sensor with real AF performance, broader lens selection, true OVF, TTL lighting capability - too many benefits to list - and it would be the best implementation of the only real technology innovation we have seen directly related to the photography industry in years.
(Higher MP and accompanying higher noise 'massaged' to look like grain is not technology progress...)
It would be outstanding stitched together for a FF sensor (the noise ceiling alone would be pushed so far beyond normal ISO range we could get 100 performance at ~3200) but if APS-C is all Fuji wants to do atm that is fine. Just work with 'someone' and get this into an SLR body..!Combine the base IQ of this sensor with real AF performance, broader lens selection, lighting capability - too many added benefits to list - and it would be the best implementation of the only real technology innovation we have seen in this industry for years.
(Higher MP and more noise massaged to look like 'grain' is not technology progress..)
ogl: I don't see that the problem is solved. I see just the try to solve. Some problems are tried to be solved and solved a bit, the rest problems are unreal to solve. Corrected colours, lost resolution.The problem of X-trans sensor is not the software. The main problem is color filter array pattern of Fuji sensor.
No one said the problem was 'solved' (if we assert there is a 'problem' at all given Fuji's jpg output is better than most sensors raw conversion can produce) DPR said that raw support had been 'improved'...
Donald Duck: If you wonder what the face of the queen on that bill really looks like - go to the comparison tool and compare with the NEX-7 or any other camera with a Bayer sensors. You will be amazed how fake the X-Trans image looks like.
Non-existing black spots, non-existing diagonal lines on the face, etc.
Please....You are simply seeing the effect caused by any sensor without a low pass filter. The D800e looks like she is wearing blush, it is color moire (zoomed in) - and the diagonal lines are the most visible, even on the D800/e, 645D, etc.. not to mention the image is in color. It is not green ink like US notes nor black and white. If capturing the face on a currency note was your intent you would not do it from a distance and you would use a macro lens.
The Fujifilm X-Trans sensors are capable of showing higher/comparable levels of detail even though they are lower mp, which is the big deal about them as the lower mp count also contributes to much lower noise by comparison.
I am just waiting for DxO support, could care less about Adobe for image processing/correction. If you look at what DxO can do with the S5-Pro compared to what anything else was capable of doing when it was reviewed it is a whole new camera. Same thing will happen with the newer Fujifilm sensors.
Uran: This is not quite what I was expecting, I like the 3500 Cam the FPS still slower than my D300 with a grip, so for fast moving animals we are forced to buy the D4 or look to the Canon 7D 2 as a bang for buck option.
Apparently some 'photographers' may need to look for a D4 upgrade.
It is a good thing though the photography world had those 8fps 51-point AF bodies back in 1905 when NatGeo started publishing wildlife images - what ever would we have done up to the 21st century...
Parry Johnson: Hmmm... no D400? Perhaps it's the "unlucky #4" Japanese namesake, but I think this is a case where Nikon wants to sell a bunch of prosumer bodies before coming out with the "real" flagship DX camera. In the meantime, my D300/S just took another $50 to $100 dive in the used market.
Nikon states on their website (all of them containing information about the D7100) that the D7100 is:"The new flagship of Nikon's DX-format HD-SLR lineup.""Meet the new flagship of Nikon's outstanding DX-format HD-SLR line-up: the D7100."
SiliconVoid: In recent years I have defended DPReview dozens of times across the internet regarding their integrity and analysis, specifically regarding their ability to assess a product on its own merits and across its designed capability range - instead of penalizing a product for what it lacks in a comparison. THEN I read this review.
If you add the D600 to the scoring module on page-25 you can see what is supposedly areas that would allow it to score differently (higher in this case) and it is interesting that the areas showing better performance are simply not substantiated in the pages of the 6D review. Not to mention areas of heated debate and comparison (the 6D's inferior 11-point AF system and Canon's tired old 63 metering zones) where even though DPR hops on the bandwagon to proclaim Canon's failings of the 6D their own testing shows that the 'lowly' 11-point AF and 'zone' metering system out perform the D600.
What the hell is that, does DPR write the reviews before or after testing???
"By babola (4 days ago)SiliconVoid...you should get out more."
heh, I do not actually comment that often, nor follow forums much - but yes when I do, one could assert a bit long-winded. =)
(@Comitant)I do not own a 6D.I do however own a 5DmkII - Rebel - Nikon D700 - D300s - and Fuji S5Pro.My criticism was based on the accuracy of test data provided versus the resulting score - and the evolving assertion of DPR that this feature or that feature matters to everyone so we have to award points for them.
lensberg: This nagging perception that Canon sensors are in anyway inferior to their Sony / Nikon counterparts exists only in theory... and is primarily propagated by DXO...
Despite the extravagant ratings that DXO awards Sony sensors... the reality is that Sony camera's doen't even come close to touching Canons image quality... in both RAW & JPEG...
Isn't it miraculous with Toshiba's foray into sensor development... Nikon manages to catapult that maiden sensor to take the top spot amongst DXO's APS-C sensors... considering the fact that noise is eating away at detail beyond ISO 3200... talk about bias...
The 6D is an outstanding camera as far as pure IQ goes... The level of captured / retained detail in anything from 12800 and above is simply awe inspiring... Personally i'd rather have better noise control compared to better dynamic range... Nikon in true fashion try to give you the best of both worlds - a jack of all trades... Canon on the other hand is the master of noise control...
Not sure you completely understand DxOs comment on sensor testing Revenant.
There are several parameters that have significance at the sensor level because they provide a base to understand what is happening in A/D processing (S/R ratio, DR (white to black, not color) color depth, and DxO measures at that level.There are other factors such as tonal gradation and ISO performance that have little relevance if tested at any other level than what can be achieved by the user. Therefore DxO measures all dynamics again so they have results for both 'sensor level' and 'print sample' across all parameters. Producing a scale between 'input' and 'output'.
The fault in ranking is they score from the 'print sample' not the 'sensor level', nor do they average across the ISO range.
In the end they score a camera on the best possible output of an arbitrary standard (~8mp image) regardless of how poorly the camera performs across the remainder of its ISO range or at an unprocessed sensor level.