14 hours ago
 |
Asylum Photo
Lives in
Washington, DC, United States
Works as a
Photographer Eclectic
Has a website at
http://asylum-photo.com
Joined on
Sep 4, 2009
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Why would anyone buy this over the X-E1 kit?
flysurfer: Hi Coguar, my preview contains plenty of samples: http://www.fujirumors.com/first-look-xf55-200mmf3-5-4-8-r-lm-ois/
I also put larger versions of 30 samples on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157633257634014/
Hope this helps.
Great job, as usual. Thanks for the post. :)
Cheezr: How are you converting the RAW files? Or should I only be looking at the JPEG's?
It's pretty clear that the X-Trans sensor when developed by Adobe, requires a different sharpening strategy. Base settings for Bayer sensors is 25/1.0/25 I believe. X-Trans responds well to something like 35-50/0.5-0.9/50-100, depending on tastes.
Pablo4: To my eyes, at base ISO (where I shoot 90% of shots) the camera produces mushy RAW pictures. There is definitely some NR going on, or the sensor/lens isn't that great as fanboys would like. Just look at it and compare to the NEX 5N, 7, Olympus XZ-1 or M5. All cameras I had are sharper. Yuck, no thanks.
A lot of the mushiness is due to Adobe's rendering of the X-Trans sensor. A different sharpening method is needed, so "standardized" tests fall apart. If you apply a starting point of 35/.9/45 to the X100S, it becomes incredibly sharp. But DPRs methods take out ACR sharpening, and go with a base Unsharp Mask.
I already own 4 lenses and there's 4 more I want. Damned gear lust.
57even: Just for the record, and for all the people here whose opinions are so important (to them), I have been reading DPR's reviews for a very long time and I have never once found any discrepancy between the reviewer's findings and my own for any camera I have actually used. Make that around 10 so far.
So, if you don't like a camera for the simple reason that DPR likes it more that yours, there are three possible reasons....
1. They were considering the target user, not you. It's perfectly possible a more left field camera (Sigma DP1?) may actually work perfectly for you because the cons don't matter and the pros do - to YOU. Go for it. I respect your choice.
2. You don't understand how the reviews are conducted and the significance of the findings and conclusions. This seems pretty common judging by the comments.
3. You really need to grow up. No-one cares if you don't own the best camera in the world, or if you are insecure about making the "wrong" choice.
Just take photographs.
The last line is really it.
People need to appreciate and realize the time we are in. The fact that some of the best cameras of today's age are ripped apart reflects a short term memory.
It's an exciting time to be a photographer, lots of amazing tools to choose from. Tools we couldn't really imagine not too long ago. How many people shot ISO 6400 film? Exactly... it was generally 3200 or 1600, and loaded with grain.
Sure, focusing could be improved on mirrorless cameras, but guess what, that's happening. Most of the manufacturers are adopting various PDAF techniques. Sure beats out purely manual rangefinder mechanisms (for the masses at least).
Fuji released a solid addition to an exciting and emerging market. Guess what, the next Sony, or Olympus, or Samsung, or Canon, or Nikon, or Ricoh, or whatever will probably be better in some, or many, or even all ways. Competition benefits us all in the end.
So yeah, enjoy it, go out and shoot, there's great tools to use.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I use OM lenses on my Olympus E-P1; thus I've become tolerant to some amount of softness in photographs. After seeing the Raw studio scene comparison, however, I found the sofness in the Fuji images completely unacceptable. Many have shared their perplexity for this lack of sharpness in a camera with such an innovative sensor, and now it's my turn to wonder.
Add to that the difficulty in demosaicing Fuji's Raw files, which means no third-party image edition software programme has achieved completely satisfactory results yet with Fuji's Raws (though Adobe has come closer this time), and what you have, at the end of the day, is an overpriced body that is supposed to be complemented with very expensive lenses.
It is really a shame, because I love this camera. It is absolutely gorgeous and appeals to people like me, who lived the rangefinder glory days. I really hope Fujifilm solves these issues, because a camera this beautiful deserves success.
The default settings both for jpegs and in RAW for the X-Trans is softer than many competitors. It's easy enough to adjust a setting in camera, or in your RAW conversion. The details are there, don't let the default settings fool you.
RichRMA: The odd thing is, when I look at the RAW images from the test set-up, the Fuji doesn't seem to resolve as well as some of the competition, at least until very high ISO where its low-noise helps.
Blame Adobe's default sharpening for the files. As a user, I can tell you the detail is there, you just have to move the slider. I'll take that over the previous ACR versions where the details were smeared and edges were sharpened giving a water color like appearance.
tomtom50: That Fuji refuses to release the algorithms they use in-camera amazes me. I won't buy from a company that so disregards the needs of their users.
They are on record as having released the algorithms to various RAW conversion companies. Adobe didn't come up with this on their own.
Nikon007: The Washington sign is clearly better but there is much more moire in the new LR version so pick you faults they both have issues.
The moire brush works pretty well in my experience.
McJ: Is anyone else getting these odd dots everywhere in the image? I'm using the ACR 7.3 to DNG converter. Image below is from a crop of the DPR raw.
http://imgur.com/jhoDY6b
What were your DNG settings? I got those dots on some old conversions, but the dots disappeared when I upgraded ACR way back when. (I think 7.1?)
Digital Imaging Technician: Great that they have made some improvements. But I must say I'm a bit disappointed. It very much looks like the same mushy watercolor effect (slightly less of it) but with lowered sharpness. This is judging from samples, I have to give it a go in LR.
Lesson learned: just go bayer the next time. I don't think X-trans offers anything that has justified all this trouble.
Give your own files a shot. In my files, the clarity is about on par with the jpegs, close enough to not see a difference unless I zoom to 200% anyways. Also, the new demosaicing allows for sharpening and clarity adjustments without getting really odd details. I understand being disappointed in the sensor, but this update is clearly an improvement.
Henry M. Hertz: so what is it worth?
you have no AA filter so your images look sharper.... but then your images look like crap because no software knows how to handle your damn sensor.
lol
I'm not going to hype the sensor tech, because in the end it doesn't matter a whole lot what the process is as long as the result is good...
But your post is kind of ironic when the article is specifically talking about better support for the sensor in question.
Timmbits: Thank you for this quick and dirty update. Short and to the point. Very useful.
@DPR: have the other converters been updated as well, or is it just Adobe that covers the Fuji as well?
I'm eyeing the Fujis, so this is all good to know.
Capture One, Adobe, SilkyPix and open source DCRaw based editors are basically it. Aperture has yet to be updated, as well as DXO, I believe.
Photohobbyfun: I heard part of the issue with ACR was that pushing a file would cause the water color affect to appear.
Has this issue also been resolved with the new release?
I was hoping DPReview would show how ACR and Capture One handle files when they are being pushed.
The new RCs seem to sharpen RAFs well. There's still some detail inaccuracies, but we're talking about stuff that's hard to spot at 100% viewing, so I consider it a non issue.
IrishhAndy: In my experience silkypix gives the most detail but is a pain to use. I found the fuji jpegs lacked detaill and had a lot of colour noise. It would seem that this sensor is almost impossible to proxess for optimum results.
Yet everyone else says they are some of the best JPEGs they have encountered. What's your play?
Asylum Photo: Could you guys produce OOC JPEG samples with -2 NR and +1 Sharpening. It'd be interesting to see what happens then.
I haven't experienced the color noise you have, apparently. Though, I will say, I process my files (RAW and JPEG) with ACR/LR, and that has pretty good color NR control.
In this case, I'd like to see the above samples processed in camera with the above settings to see what the effect is on the file and how they stack up to ACR/C1.
Digitall: Fuji please, put the option of DNG in your cameras. ;)
Wouldn't change anything. DNG is just a file container.
Could you guys produce OOC JPEG samples with -2 NR and +1 Sharpening. It'd be interesting to see what happens then.
shutterdragon: Hmm, I'm not too impressed, unfortunately. If Fujifilm would only support in-camera TIFF....
Fuji has apparently given Adobe what they need, but Adobe has taken the lazy route.