Jonathan F/2: Those lenses look huge. Better off buying Micro Four-Thirds for the size and getting a DSLR when you need FF and proper continuous focus.
roxenford: I see many complaints about Fuji RAW files processed through Adobe Lightroom. i thought that was fixed....what about using Fuji's suppled CD raw converter?
You obviously have no idea what you're doing if you can´t see any problems with x-trans rendering in Lightroom :-)
No. My Fujifilm X-E1 files are still not good in LR5.
dahod: I've been thinking about Fuji for a bit but seem to recall there was an issue with post-processing X-Trans RAW files and 3rd party software support. Can someone please tell me if that's been adressed?
X-trans rendering in Lightroom = horrible
atone2: Totally uninteresting before Fujifilm get rid of the ridiculous x-trans filter array. One must be blind not to see the awful rendering of x-trans rawfiles, especially in Lightroom. My original X100 still has much better IQ than the newer models. Money saved, wooha! :-)
@jadotI´m not interested in using Capture One Pro or x-trans sensors (any more). I´m sure the 56 1.2 is a really nice lens, but I´ve not seen spectacular results that matches Canon 85mm 1.2 or the 135mm f2. The DOF properties is comparable to the Canon 85mm 1.8 on FF.
Nice try. Good luck shooting shallow DOF pictures like I get with the 5D + 135mm f2 with the x-system. Impossible ;-)
It is also impossible to get a FF portrait setup as pocketable as the the GM1 + 45mm 1.8. Amazingly good for shooting portraits "on the fly".
And the X100 is a perfect for traveling and everyday shooting.
Today there is no system that can replace these cameras for me...
Many, many users complain about the poor x-trans rendering in Lightroom, and they will not change system because of that.
No, the x-trans sensor does NOT outresolve the original X100. The x-trans file rendering is a complete mess in Lightroom. I know because I´ve got about 1000 X-E1 files in my catalog...
I don´t want to change my workflow. I use many cameras - the Canon 5D, the Panasonic Lumix GM1 and the original X100. Lightroom renders the files from these cameras beautifully. I will not acquire any camera that require a change of workflow. I bet many photograpers think the way I do.
Fuji - you are loosing a lot of customers due to the x-trans gimmick...
Totally uninteresting before Fujifilm get rid of the ridiculous x-trans filter array. One must be blind not to see the awful rendering of x-trans rawfiles, especially in Lightroom. My original X100 still has much better IQ than the newer models. Money saved, wooha! :-)
this is what you get after spending 4000 Usd on a full frame and pro lens.
135 mm, f2.8,full frame.
Look similar to Leica Noctilux 50/f0.95 on a M9.
i love them a lot.
I cannot believe heavy pp was used, maybe some vignetting, but the hardware she uses can generate these pics out of camera.
So indeed strange why she gets coverage at DPR, so many many other great ones on 500px?
Haha...no camera and lens can give results like that without post processing. I really like her photographs, but when having a closer look some of them are processed a little to much for my taste. Nevertheless these beautiful shots have inspired me both to use my SLR more often and putting some effort in PP.
BTW, it is a f 2 lens.
atone2: If Fuji gave us an non X-trans option with OVF and EVF then I would be really excited. Meanwhile I´m considering the X-A1 (Bayer) + 14mm for landscapes. I did own the X-E1 but I did not like the output (raws in lightroom). Come on Fuji - I´m ready to use a lot of cash on your system, but I don´t want X-trans sensors....
The three year old Fujifilm X100 with bayer sensor is fantastic :-)
Problem it that I have a huge Lightroom library and I don´t want to mess around with other programs. I want a non X-trans option that works well in Lightroom. I´m pretty sure I´m not alone...
If Fuji gave us an non X-trans option with OVF and EVF then I would be really excited. Meanwhile I´m considering the X-A1 (Bayer) + 14mm for landscapes. I did own the X-E1 but I did not like the output (raws in lightroom). Come on Fuji - I´m ready to use a lot of cash on your system, but I don´t want X-trans sensors....
Beautiful shot and processing. I loved every moment at that beach when I was there one week ago:
JohnCarolan: Something odd about the tonality on these images, both the ooc jpegs and ACR conversions look particularly 'digital', micro contrast and colour transitions are unsubtle and artificial looking, like the out of camera jpegs from a Sony p & s or something. Seen this on all of the relatively few samples I've found online so far. Hopefully firmware or raw converter updates will improve on this.
Agreed. They look artificial. I suspect NR, even at low ISO.
atone2: Definately not as good as the original X100. What are you doing Fuji??
Look at her eyes, her face, her hair... horrible rendering...
What´s going on here? I really don´t like the X-trans approach...
Pretty good high iso shot (but should not be compared with canon and nikon iso 6400 though, because of inflated ISO)
X-trans high iso is ok. Low ISO = underwhelming... I´ve owned the X-E1, and it looks like NR is beeing used also @ low iso. Pretty sick...
Yes, i did. But it´s not good anyway.
Definately not as good as the original X100. What are you doing Fuji??