Previous news story    Next news story

Fujifilm X-Pro1 studio samples published, including Adobe Camera Raw conversions

By dpreview staff on May 7, 2012 at 23:47 GMT
Buy on GearShop$1,199.006 deals

We've just been given access to a beta version of Adobe Camera Raw that supports the Fujifilm X-Pro1 and have used it to process our standard test scene. The good news is that it produces similar resolution to the camera's JPEG output and that it appears to recognize the selected dynamic range extension setting. The X-Pro1 is not a camera with obvious peers, so we've presented it alongside a mixture of DSLRs and mirrorless cameras

The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is included to see how well Fujifilm's claims that the X-Pro1 captures resolution 'parallel, if not superior, to a full frame sensor,' stand up. These are just our suggested comparisons - you are able (and encouraged) to choose your own.

After publication, it was discovered the conversions had been conducted in the AdobeRGB colorspace. This has now been corrected and more appropriate sharpening applied.

502
I own it
212
I want it
62
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Fujifilm X-Pro1

Comments

Total comments: 112
fengyboy
By fengyboy (May 10, 2012)

After seeing the samples, I'm glad I made the right decision to purchase Canon 5D MK2, instead of X Pro1. Maybe there's room for improvement in terms of RAW converter, but who knows.

0 upvotes
dmstraton
By dmstraton (May 10, 2012)

You can say what you want, but from personal experience and from developing RAW even in the crappy converter supplied, the camera is capable of absolutely crazy pixel-level resolution and the noise suppression combined with the detail retained is amazing...it's ACR Beta and it's a new type of array...the RAWs here aren't reflective in anyway of what I have seen - and that's reflected in the fact that the JPEGs here outshine the RAWs by a large margin...you can't talk about mushy RAWs and click to a JPEG which is clean, sharp with good contrast and wonder how it happened...

Frankly don't care if anyone believes it, but have the courtesy to actually shoot a camera before you rag on it...and yes, I have shot and owned/own a 20D, 40D, 7D, 5D MkII, NEX 5N, Panasonic GH2 and Olympus, and about 5 Nikon digitals that I can't remember right now...so I don't have a reason to be biased.

This camera puts out a great image...period. I am sure the final review will reflect this.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (May 10, 2012)

You do not want people to rag about this fudgi,

you make it sound a done deal by saying "...period" in the end,

but then you push dpr to back you up.

Straton, in spite of your self-credentials, you forgot the say that the shutter should not stick, the orbs should not bloom, and that A in AF should stand for Auto.

And if you cannot put in words the diff between this fudgi and GH2 -- or perhaps another price-equal cam -- you got it kinda mushed up.

1 upvote
CriticalI
By CriticalI (May 10, 2012)

Unlike you I don't tend to slam other cameras I have never tried to justify my own decisions, but since when did the Xpro1 have sticky aperture blades and white orbs? Moreover, I have owned every brand and they all have issues, including serious IQ issues, but few are as willing as Fuji to address them.

Shoot what you like, no-one cares what you think, especially since you have no direct experience and are just trotting out what you hear third hand. It does not make you qualified to judge anything.

0 upvotes
Max Thunder
By Max Thunder (May 15, 2012)

I was about to comment on the lack of colors and the lack of definition in the etchings next to the dime and the severe color overfilling in the "1200" next to the Dime but all these problems seem to be gone with the Master conversion of CriticalI! Maybe at the cost of some oversharpening artifacts but at least the blue "spots" close to the queen's throat are back. i suppose the colors of the wave pattern on the left engraving are back too... However, the Canon still has more severe aliasing than the XPRO1 (the coin above Mickey's head and the VW Beatle picture)...

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
max metz
By max metz (May 9, 2012)

After looking at these very closely, comparing them with the D3x, D4, D700, M9 and today with the D800E, the colour and tone are more than I had hoped.

The quality of the still to be released 18-72mm XF zoom will be the clincher for me, the three primes are easily good enough already.

Slowly this camera is stacking up to be ideal for my shooting style at a price that is very attractive. Hopefully by year end I'll move across to this system as planned.

3 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (May 9, 2012)

These samples are not a judgement of the camera but of Adobe. Here are two samples converted from the supplied Silkypix converter with a minimal USM applied.(Original conversion courtesy of Warfie 35).

Enough detail for you? These are less detailed than the RPP conversions but still a lot better than the Adobe ones.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6049604561

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 9, 2012)

Your samples has obvious sharpening artifacts. I don't mean you put excessive sharpening but silkypix did this in order to overcome lack of sharpness that happened due to fuji "innovative" color filter.

2 upvotes
JesperMP
By JesperMP (May 9, 2012)

There is color moiré in the silkypix picture of the queen engraving. Disappointing considering the innovative sensor design. Or, something is wrong with these samples too.
I didnt see any moiré in the ACR Xpro1 samples, even where other 16MP cameras show obvious moiré.

0 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (May 9, 2012)

Sharpening won't reveal new detail.

This merely demonstrates the detail is there in Silkypix and not in ACR, that's all. Silkypix has many sharpening levels including none as do all RAW converters.

We are comparing RAW converters more than the camera here.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 9, 2012)

Jesper, it also depends on demosaic. The ACR has pretty bad one.
Here's the sample: left — AMAZE demosaic algorithm, right — PPG.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/Screenshot%20from%202012-05-09%2016%3A57%3A59.png

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 9, 2012)

@CriticalI
Your pic has no additional details compared to ones with adobe interpretation. I see all these details at the shot PPed with adobe stuff too. They are without color and sharpening artifacts unlike your sample, but looks smearier ;)

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
1 upvote
CriticalI
By CriticalI (May 9, 2012)

No you don't. You can sharpen the ACR ones as much as you like - there is none of the vertical striated detail at all and much more colour bleed. Try a new monitor.

0 upvotes
JesperMP
By JesperMP (May 9, 2012)

@Emacs23
Why isnt exactly the same picture used for the test of the two algorithms ?
How can we know if the moiré differnece is due to different algorithm, or due to that one picture is not level like the other (so that the pattern in the building wall will line up differently with the sensor pixels) ?

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 9, 2012)

@JesperMP
Yes, my fault. Just, these artifacts were always seen with PPG. Here's the comparsion at the same picture:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/Screenshot%20from%202012-05-09%2020%3A01%3A07.png

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 9, 2012)

@CriticalI
Fuji was given an unfair advantage: they used 60mm lens, although others are only 50mm. Longer focal length lenses are usually resolve more details than shorter ones.
Inspite of this, the 5N is on par with fuji, but shows less pronounced color and sharpening artifacts:
In this case all these cameras should be used the same lens. I would propose CZ Makro-Planar 50. But this is the question for DPR. They are well known as lames for everyone who seriously get deep in these deals.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/Screenshot%20from%202012-05-09%2018%3A34%3A04.png

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JesperMP
By JesperMP (May 9, 2012)

@Emacs23.
You are right that now we can see the difference with the moiré from differing algorithms.
More interesting is to see differing algorithms for Xpro1, and from similar 16 MP sensors. Is sharpness at base ISO at least as good as other sensors, and are there more details and less grain at high ISO than other sensors. Thats what I want to know.

0 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (May 9, 2012)

@Emacs23

Unfair advantage? Is this a game of football or life and death? Why are you trying so hard to be negative? Noone is bad mouthing your camera so get a life.

At these F numbers all lenses should be sharp enough so that sensor resolution is dominant, and most 50mm primes are as good as they get stopped down.

Also longer lenses have less DOF which is an issue. Moreover the scaling does the Fuji no favours - the OMD pix are scaled to match the vertical size of the APS sensors, so the objects are quite a bit larger and appear more detailed, but even the D7000 images are around 5% bigger possibly because of the focal length or perhaps the framing is different.

At the end of the day, with no moire filter, you have to do it in the RAW converter by adding a bit of smoothing, but ACR went too far and probably need to back off a bit. It explains the good high ISO performance though. No need for cooked RAW, its all a matter of control in the converter. A slider would be lovely.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (May 9, 2012)

Where is the plane of focus in the JPG samples? They look terrible, which surprises me.

0 upvotes
JesperMP
By JesperMP (May 9, 2012)

After the correction of the studio samples, I dont really see any difference.
Xpro1 is still softer at base ISO than other 16MP sensors.
Xpro1 still has mushy results at high ISO (where even D4 shows some bit of grain).

0 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (May 8, 2012)

Definitely room for improvement... here's Warfie 35's self-profiled conversion from RPP - the colour is a bit off, but the detail and lack of colour bleed is a major improvement. Come on Adobe, you can do it...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=41457985

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (Jun 25, 2012)

With color artifacts at the texture (see queen face ;) ). Simple fact: you cannot restore than has not been captured. X-trans filter both: 1) helps to reduce noise in green pixels and this greatly helps in reduction of luma noise, since green has most weight (0.6, compared to 0.29 of red and 0.11 of green) in luminance perception
2) Reduces red and blue accuracy, so fuji should have lesser color depth than competitors.

BTW, what the real ISO fuji claims to be 3200? 2000? Shutter speed is always significantly slower with fuji at the same aperture.

1 upvote
inorogNL
By inorogNL (May 8, 2012)

A question, does dynamic range extension setting recognition also works with fijifilm x100?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (May 8, 2012)

I haven't yet checked, but I doubt that Adobe has gone back and re-profiled the X100.

0 upvotes
inorogNL
By inorogNL (May 9, 2012)

I've checked it this morning and after installing latest adobe camera raw RC and it does seem to work (lightroom opened my test samples correctly )

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 8, 2012)

Looks like we have a new sort of fanboyism. It's partially like leica one: fuji rocks, fuji the best, etc. But unlike leica these beliefs aren't confirmed with anything: neither their optics is the best (just good and boring as hell, definitely inferior compared to leicas), nor their cameras are the best :)))

5 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (May 8, 2012)

And that is different from any other form of fanboyism how? What a pointless post. I may as well say we have a new sort of trollism, but I guess that's exactly the same sort too.

2 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (May 8, 2012)

I'm sorry, I missed it - is there some type of all-knowning governing board that certifies cameras as "the best"? What type of confirmation do you require to claim a camera is "great"?

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 9, 2012)

Jeff. Camera should not be overwhelming. The Fuji clearly is: bad AF, unpredictable behaviour, bad image quality (low detail, low color depth).

0 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (May 9, 2012)

"bad AF, unpredictable behaviour, bad image quality"

I have spend 2 month with the X-Pro 1 so far and I assume that you don't even have the camera - otherwise you could not write this kind of (insert any of your favorite variation for "bs").

But thanks for the good laugh anyway :)

1 upvote
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 9, 2012)

Smatty, I have already told who are you :)
First I had a thought to buy one, but then, after seeing images taken with this camera I drove to the conclusion it's highly overhyped and technically not so great camera. Sample taken with really look different from the crowd, but they are mostly dull colored, washed out oversharpened pics. They are really different, because no other camera put so much PP in its raws. Adobe is trying to be fair and don't put so much sharpening as silky or the camera itself does. So you see results :)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (May 9, 2012)

Emacs23, on the dull colored and washed out we can find a common ground :)

The Fuji standard (Provia) JPG color on the X-Series cameras (except for Velvia setting) is rather conservative. I like it as I grew up with film and like these kind of subtle color and contrast out of camera. But I can see that many people like bright colors and hard contrasts in their photos out of the camera.

The oversharpening I do not agree on. But I set noise reduction to -1 and sharpening to -1 as I find the Fuji XF lenses to be very sharp already.

But hey, you decided that the X-Pro 1 is not for you and I have told friends that they'll be better off with a Nex-7 or Oly-E in the past two month, too. But it is a good camera for me and I enjoy using it as much as I like the results I get.

Cheers :)

0 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (May 10, 2012)

Hmmm...seems like CNET thinks it's a great camera

http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/compact-digital-cameras/fujifilm-x-pro1-review-50007882/

0 upvotes
JoshKline
By JoshKline (May 8, 2012)

I think it is remarkable performance especially JPEG which I prefer (mostly due to time restraints). I think honestly that noise isn't really a big issue anymore overall. I am a big fan of using high ISO's for my event and wedding work (love using ambient light with a little strobe) I have the Fuji and Canon 5d Mark 2 and I think they are very similar in noise which is remarkable given the larger sensor of the 5D 2. Fuji is clearly using noise reduction but I think it is used very well, look at the fuzzy color balls. I think the NEX cameras are awesome also and to my eyes it is very similar especially when you consider the NEX 7 is much higher resolution so that when matched pixel to pixel it may be better. I prefer the Fuji for the superior lenses and IMO better controls.

0 upvotes
Samtendo 64
By Samtendo 64 (May 8, 2012)

Compare the Queen's(?) face on the bank note and the text next to it at ISO3200 in RAW to the Sony NEX 7/5n and the Olympus OM-D.

The fine detail and the pattern of the paper is basically completely gone on the Fuji, while still clearly visible on the other three cameras.

Then compare to the X100, even the X100 has visibly better detail there despite the lower MP.

Fuji is obviously applying noise reduction on X-Pro1 raws. So much for the "magic sensor"

edit: sorry dp

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (May 8, 2012)

I can't wait for adobe to release X Pro1 support, however, I hope Dpreview staff can reshoot this test since only the objects upfront (paper clips, moth balls, robot, hair, wrist watch) are in focus

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (May 8, 2012)

We re-shot the scene several times and couldn't get the main plane of focus to be any sharper. Also, bear in mind that this is F8 on a 60mm lens, so depth of field is a fraction shallower than the 50mm lenses used on most other systems.

0 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (May 8, 2012)

Why didn't you use the XF35mm which is close to a 50mm fov? The 35 is very sharp with low distortion.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (May 8, 2012)

To Butler: it seems something is wrong, everything in RAW is mushy or soft. ACR beta is usually close to final evrsion. Could be this camera sample with some problem?

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (May 8, 2012)

@ R Butler - that's really strange result, considering the fact that 60mm lens is praised for it's sharpness. Looks like it's still early support, but at least it's coming at some point.

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 8, 2012)

High ISO samples still looks quite strange to me with smeared details. Was there some sort of NR applied?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (May 8, 2012)

Not in Adobe Camera Raw. We're seeing similar results from Silkypix (the supplied converter), so there's a chance it's being applied to the Raw file. We'll look at this in more detail in our full review.

1 upvote
CriticalI
By CriticalI (May 8, 2012)

It's also possible that it's a by-product of the demosaicing algorithm which explains some of the other interesting issues. However I don't see "smeared details" in high ISO shots that are not also present in low ISO shots, and largely absent in the JPEGs, which makes me think Adobe are still in the tuning process.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (May 8, 2012)

Great image quality, too bad for the poor autofocus.

0 upvotes
MadManAce
By MadManAce (May 8, 2012)

Compared to the Sigma SD1, I am actually disappointed with the sharpness in both jpeg and Raw. I hope that Adobe figures out how to work with this new format because manufacture converters GUI are always garbage. Since most reports say AF is lackluster, I'll wait for the next generation and maybe by then Adobe will have the sensor figured out.

0 upvotes
zzapamiga
By zzapamiga (May 8, 2012)

Actually compared to the detail of the Sigma SD1 all the APS-C Bayer sensors look pedestrian, with the X-Pro 1 unfortunately being the worst. Hopefully it is a software problem and not a limitation of the sensor.

0 upvotes
atamola
By atamola (May 8, 2012)

Fantastic image quality.

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (May 8, 2012)

From low ISO to High ISO, the RAW files are so outstanding.
A must buy camera.

0 upvotes
Mannypr
By Mannypr (May 8, 2012)

First time I saw photos from the Xpro1 I told myself that I preferred the X100 photos . I then compared one to the other ( of course using the internet as source as I don't have either camera) and I was right . Output from the X100 looks better then the ones created from the Xpro1.

1 upvote
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (May 8, 2012)

Obviously, no one could ever say your opinion is "wrong" but as an owner of both, I would say the XP1 files are much better. The test scene posted here is poor due to Adobe issues.

0 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (May 8, 2012)

As you don't have either camera it'll be hard to objectively judge them or make a claim that one is better than the other.

I have the X10, X100 and X-Pro 1 and have seen that the IQ, DR and detail resolution of the X-Pro 1 is the best in direct comparison. The X100 is fantastic, but is always a bit behind the XP1 especially in ISO and detail resolution. But even the X10 is very good for the tiny sensor size that it has.

As there still seem to be issues with the ACR Beta Raw converter, just compare the three Fuji X-Cameras at JPG and ISO 200. Especially amazing is that all three sensors are differrent technology but the color of the JPG images are almost identical. That makes my workflow very easy when I shoot with more than one of them at the same time on the same photo project :)

1 upvote
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 8, 2012)

@Jeff
This scene doesn't look much better in JPEG as well.

0 upvotes
harold1968
By harold1968 (May 8, 2012)

really, you either have vaseline in your eyes or you have never used a xpro-1

believe me, I am being nice!

0 upvotes
Samtendo 64
By Samtendo 64 (May 8, 2012)

To be fair, the studio comparison here does look really bad. Low ISO is very mushy, unsharp with very dull colours and high ISO has very obvious noise reduction going on.

Obviously something went wrong with the processing.

2 upvotes
steelski
By steelski (May 8, 2012)

Hey, you forgot the Chroma noise reduction on again......or so it seems.

4 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (May 8, 2012)

Chroma NR in ACR is very subtle and never destroys detail like we see here.

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (May 8, 2012)

Fujifilm cams are beset with strange issues: X-10 has white orbs, X-100 has slow & inaccurate AF, X-Pro1 has mushy RAW output.

3 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (May 8, 2012)

X100 AF has been greatly improved over the past 12 month with FW updates.

And the mushy RAW output seems to be an Adobe interpretation problem of the Fuji RAW files...

3 upvotes
Samtendo 64
By Samtendo 64 (May 8, 2012)

I've owned an X100 for almost a year and have installed every firmware update. It's still slow and basically useless in low light with lots of hunting.
Yes, it has been improved, but "greatly" is a vast exaggeration.

2 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (May 8, 2012)

Why is there no chromatic noise even at iso 6400 raw? It's noise pattern is definitely very different from the other chips used. In jpeg this makes it totally noiseless.

By the way I always compare with the K-5 since I have one, and it seems the K5 shots suffer from backfocus. Look at the sharpeness of the kodak chart in the background, compared to other camera's.

1 upvote
photo nuts
By photo nuts (May 8, 2012)

DPReview folks know better. They'll use live-view to manual focus.

0 upvotes
RPJG
By RPJG (May 8, 2012)

All DPReview folks use live-view to manual focus? I can't tell if you're being ironic.

If not, that's a pretty silly generalisation, given the huge number of use-cases that require resaonably fast auto-focus to get a shot or two.

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (May 8, 2012)

@RPJG

Sorry I did not make myself clear. I meant DPReview reviewers

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (May 8, 2012)

Something is really wrong with RAWs here, possibly ACR, but usually difference from beta to final is not much. Maybe DPR should have waited a bit.

1 upvote
Ed Dickau
By Ed Dickau (May 8, 2012)

My 1st tests....
http://alexandriaonthepotomac.blogspot.com/2012/05/fuji-x-pro-1-first-test-photos.html

0 upvotes
lemon_juice
By lemon_juice (May 8, 2012)

It's too bad dpreview don't include raws processed with the converters provided by manufacturers. The fact that images from all cameras are processed by ACR doesn't mean this is an even playing ground because Adobe has to separately write algorithms for each camera and their quality may not be the same for different cameras.

How can I be sure that Adobe's algorithm for Fujifilm is the one that gets the best quality? I am inclined to assume that the camera maker knows better how to process their raws especially for such an unusual sensor. If Adobe did poor job with processing x-pro1 raws then we may get a very skewed view of the camera's performance.

4 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 8, 2012)

You cannot state that one demosaic algorithm is better than another, they all have both advantages and disadvantages.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (May 8, 2012)

That fact is that most people who buy it and shoot raw will be using ACR either in PS or LR to process the files from this camera so using it makes the most sense to me.

4 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (May 8, 2012)

The jpeg versions are basically the manufacturers' processed raws so you can compare them if you want.

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (May 8, 2012)

Yes, I am curious if the Fujifilm supplied software is any better.

0 upvotes
Kylberg
By Kylberg (May 8, 2012)

I question the DPR methodology:
1. Why the smaller size/scale compared to other 16 mpix cameras - should be the same?
2. Image is soft - this contradicts basically all X-pro1 photos I have seen - they are very sharp.
3. What are the settings in LR? Other cameras use LR standard presets including sharpening, but X-pro1 no presets?

When I used a LR beta for Pana G3 there were no presets for the G3. They came first with the released version of LR

I have looked at RAW only.

0 upvotes
topstuff
By topstuff (May 8, 2012)

I am not sure that publishing the beta files from Adobe is a good idea.

This is obviously work in progress.

And of course, critically, it is impossible for the general public to get their hands on the ACR for the Fuji simply because it is not available yet.

This is therefore totally meaningless. Surely, people should only judge on the results from software they can actually purchase for themselves?

I don't think this reflects well on DPR either.

You can imagine them thinking, "lets post the stuff from the unfinished ACR beta and the X Pro 1. It will generate lots of hits from people anxious to see the ACR output. To hell with the fact that it is not the finished item and is therefore meaningless".

I mean, if DPR is willing to put results from unfinished beta out there, where does it end? And there is also the risk of leading people to form conclusions that may turn out to be wrong or at least inaccurate later on.

It seems a cheap way of getting internet traffic.

2 upvotes
SnapHappy32
By SnapHappy32 (May 8, 2012)

I think it reflects quite well on a free site, that holds no obligation what-so-ever to give even a smidget of info.

I think it reflects well on them that they post interim results which a lot of posters have taken as an interesting glimpse into the current state of affairs.

For me it just goes to show, that the sensor is unique, and requires a unique solution.

Then again - not terribly happy to see, that the IQ of XP1 is actually in the hands of programmers, not the photographer.

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (May 8, 2012)

Agree, something is not working well in RAW.

0 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (May 8, 2012)

"The good news is that it produces similar resolution to the camera's JPEG output"

Now if it would also produce similar color like the JPG then we would have a perfect match of a Fuji in camera JPG file in Raw at 5 times the storage size...

I have shot the X100 in the past year 99.9% in JPG (0.01% to test some Raw files) and I think I stick to JPG with the X-Pro 1 as well. The JPG hold a lot of detail and have good headroom for playing in post processing. Plus the storage size and mobile workflow (MacBook Air and iPad) is easier :)

2 upvotes
JesperMP
By JesperMP (May 8, 2012)

Like others have posted, comparing Xpro1 against other 16MP sensors like K5 and K-01, Xpro1 looks softer at base ISO despite the lack of AA filter.
At high ISO, there is a smooting of the noise, almost like a JPG. There is no "grain" to see at all.

DPR said that the good news is that the resolution is almost like the JPGs. What do they mean by that ? Who would buy a camera in this class and get JPGs ?

I dont believe that this is really "real" RAW.

4 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (May 8, 2012)

Its seems to me that these samples were converted with quite much NR on, or the camera does it automatically.

0 upvotes
PG Thomas
By PG Thomas (May 8, 2012)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1020&thread=41450992

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1020&thread=41430383

Pete

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (May 8, 2012)

Not impressed. Looks much softer even than K-01 in RAW.

0 upvotes
snake_b
By snake_b (May 8, 2012)

Apparently, they knew they could sucker people because most look at noise and not the quality of the picture as a whole.

0 upvotes
MoltenP
By MoltenP (May 8, 2012)

Hmm, I'm not convinced everything is in focus. The playing card is pretty soft, but the foreground items are sharp.

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (May 8, 2012)

It's nothing to do with focus. The XPRo1 is simply NOT capturing the details. Hmmm....

2 upvotes
PG Thomas
By PG Thomas (May 8, 2012)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1020&thread=41430383

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 8, 2012)

@PGThomas
I don't see anything special in these shots. Every modern APS-C camera can do the same. Although colors with these APS-C cameras will be better :)

2 upvotes
PG Thomas
By PG Thomas (May 8, 2012)

Sorry

I have the K5 which along with the D7000 is regarded highly. and i can't get the same level of detail with the SP90 lens

0 upvotes
Art Vandelay II
By Art Vandelay II (May 8, 2012)

I'm inclined to agree with MoltenP. The files I'm getting out of my XPro1 are the sharpest I've seen from any camera I've owned (which includes a Sony NEX 5n among many others). Something seems horribly wrong with this RAW processing.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
zzapamiga
By zzapamiga (May 8, 2012)

Raw Photo Processor's current Beta version also supports the Fuji X Pro 1

http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/RPP64_1520Beta.zip

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (May 8, 2012)

The ACR Beta support for the X-Pro1 is obviously not working as the colors look completely unsaturated in RAW. I don't remember the X100 having any delays or buggy ACR builds the way Adobe is for X-Pro1.

I hope Adobe and Fuji get this together or there are going to be a lot of unhappy X-Pro1 users, or a lot of new Silky Pix converts. It's a pity as the X-Pro1 creates such beautiful files and images.

1 upvote
TEBnewyork
By TEBnewyork (May 8, 2012)

They have very different sensors and the one in the X-Pro1 needs new algorithms for the RAWs.

2 upvotes
miniTO
By miniTO (May 8, 2012)

This is all great... but its a Beta!

Why even bother posting comparisons? They prove very little if anything due to all the questions surrounding Adobe and if they got the algorithms right.

Wouldn't it simply have been better to wait... and post apples-to-apples.

1 upvote
photo nuts
By photo nuts (May 8, 2012)

Is this some kind of mistake: X-Pro1 captures resolution 'parallel, if not superior, to a full frame sensor'???

It cannot even compare with a 16 MP APS-C sensor!!!

All I see is mush.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
starwolfy
By starwolfy (May 8, 2012)

I think what is wrong is that this statement is too general. They should have said: X-Pro1 captures resolution 'parallel, if not superior, to some full frame sensors

3 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (May 8, 2012)

@ Starwolfy:

Good point.

So, I decided to compare it against the 12 MP Nikon D700. Oooops... I can still see details on the D700 that I cannot see on the X-Pro1.

This is bad, very bad.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (May 8, 2012)

High-ISO JPEG looks good, maybe half-stop better than E-M5 at 12800 and up. RAW does not make sense to compare, it is OBVIOUSLY processed through some noise-reduction algorithm (i.e. not really raw). Is it the same mistake which dpreview made with Pentax K-01?

3 upvotes
ashwinrao1
By ashwinrao1 (May 8, 2012)

Yup, agreed that high ISO rocks, but base ISO, it appears a bit mushy...

1 upvote
highwave
By highwave (May 8, 2012)

So much for the claimed extra sharp images due to lack of an AA filter. Images don't look any sharper than other 16 MP comparable cameras.

ISO performance is stunning on the other hand. But there is something fishy about how the images look. It's as though noise reduction is being applied to RAW regardless of settings. If not than that is really FF rivaling performance on the ISO front.

2 upvotes
PG Thomas
By PG Thomas (May 8, 2012)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1020&thread=41430383

0 upvotes
harold1968
By harold1968 (May 8, 2012)

this is is the sharpest non FF camera I have ever used in jpg

clearly the beta RAW in ACR is broken

1 upvote
PG Thomas
By PG Thomas (May 8, 2012)

I agree. As my macro shots prove.

0 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (May 8, 2012)

I don't disagree with either of you PG Thomas & harold1968

I'm just saying, there are clear indications of processed RAWs

Both sharpness and noise performance are not what's expected

0 upvotes
wskb
By wskb (May 8, 2012)

Have a look at the raws at 3200 and 6400, highly impressive, where is the noise? Can't help thinking there must be some in-camera pre-raw processing here that is cutting down the colour noise... (ps, was focusing on the baileys bottle)

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 8, 2012)

Adobe definitely needs some more time for better demosaic algorithm, because right now fuji looks less sharp at the pixel level than any of D7000, NEX-7, 5d mk III. Colors are horrible too, but it was expected and unlikely to be avoided: bizarre "innovative" color filter introduces more problems than it solves.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
privater
By privater (May 8, 2012)

Seems it still implement some noise reduction to the Raw, compare to 5D3 and D4, the Raw from X-Pro1 seems blur and free of any noise.

2 upvotes
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (May 8, 2012)

I know this is just the Beta version of the software, but wow! Image quality on the Xpro1 looks like it blows the other cameras out of the water at all ISO's

0 upvotes
drwho9437
By drwho9437 (May 8, 2012)

JPEG is okay but the RAW look quite bad, guess they haven't got the demosaicing down yet?

3 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 8, 2012)

I guess we saw different pictures. Because that ones I examined look horrible.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (May 8, 2012)

Wow?!
I thought the samples looked pretty bad.

3 upvotes
cinefeel
By cinefeel (May 8, 2012)

Yeah these look terrible.

NR to hell. Mush.

I'm sure the camera is capable of better if they improve the algorithm.

3 upvotes
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (May 8, 2012)

I'm sure they'll improve the algorithm a bit since I'm getting better results from my jpegs and even the Silkypix images came out with more detail. The use of NR is blatantly obvious, and yeah, it does look a bit mushy in a lot of places. Still, that concerns me little since from my jpegs, those issues are just not there, so I just figured that was an issue with it being a beta algorithm. What really impressed me was that they don't look as much like digital images as the others and pretty much every other FF or APS-C digital camera I've seen. Check the gradient in the watch. It looks like a smooth gradient, not the usual transition of digital noise. In all the details, the transitions from dark and medium tones to highlights is very smooth like what I get from film, not what I get out of digital. It's what really impressed me with the jpegs, and what I'm again seeing with the RAW files. Check the angled card at the bottom with the horizontal lines. It looks quite natural.

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (May 8, 2012)

> What really impressed me was that they don't look as much like digital images as

Of course they don't, with such a strong NR ;)

2 upvotes
PeterPrism
By PeterPrism (May 8, 2012)

MY XPRO1 looks VERY better than this BETA VERSION JOKE-TEST.

0 upvotes
dellaaa
By dellaaa (May 13, 2012)

Despite all the fanboy clamor and pants wetting, the images that this camera produces are mediocre. I was waiting for this test and it proved my point.

But talk to a fan boy and their copy of the camera produces 'stunning' images, color nuances that we mere mortals can't see, please....

I think the Fuji flavor of fanboy seems to be the strongest and most offensive of the lot these days. I am just saying.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 112