Previous news story    Next news story

Fujifilm X-series studio comparisons updated with new ACR 7.4 raw process

By dpreview staff on Apr 5, 2013 at 18:32 GMT

Following the recent public release of Adobe Camera Raw 7.4, we've updated our studio comparison database with new raw conversions of files from the Fujifilm X-Pro 1, X-E1 and X100S. We've been using the release candidate version of ACR 7.4 for some time, which contained significant improvements to Adobe's treatment of files from Fujifilm's X-Trans sensors. The official public release version of ACR 7.4 brings some further (very minor) tweaks.

Follow the links below to the studio comparison pages in our X-Pro 1 and X-E1 reviews, and X100S preview, now with final ACR 7.4 raw conversions.

Studio scene comparison (Raw)

The links below will take you to our standard studio scene comparison shot taken from exactly the same tripod position. Lighting: daylight simulation, >98% CRI. Crops are 100%. Ambient temperature was approximately 22°C (~72°F).

For a (more) level playing field for comparison we also shot our studio scene in Raw mode with each camera and converted it using Adobe Camera Raw. Because Adobe Camera Raw applies different levels of sharpening to different cameras (this confirmed) we use the following workflow for these conversions:

  • Load Raw file into Adobe Camera Raw (Auto mode disabled)
  • Set Sharpness to 0 (all other settings default)
  • Open file to Photoshop
  • Apply a Unsharp mask: 100%, Radius 0.6, Threshold 0
  • Save as a JPEG quality 11 for display and download.

Note: these pages feature our new interactive studio shot comparison widget. Click here to find out more.


604
I own it
78
I want it
88
I had it
Discuss in the forums
500
I own it
213
I want it
62
I had it
Discuss in the forums
763
I own it
626
I want it
184
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 87
Olaf75
By Olaf75 (Apr 8, 2013)

I read a lot about X-Trans bodies, but nothing about X-Mount Lenses...
As far as I know, post treatment softwares handle both sensor and optical issues.
The only choice with Lightroom and Capture One is Fuji X100S...

Any idea about that ?
Thx
Olaf

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 8, 2013)

I wish DPReview would fix the false signin mess once and for all.

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Apr 8, 2013)

So the us1.000 Fuji X-E1 high ISO RAW performance at least equal to the us260 Pentax K-01? But for sure DP should say the nostalgic hipster look deserve the extra us730 and 79 points overall score. Impressive!

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 8, 2013)

And optically all of these Fuji X lenses are better than what Pentax offers. So stop with the "hipster" claims, is the body of the Sony Nex 7 also "hipster", it's what inspired the XE1 body?

1 upvote
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (Apr 8, 2013)

As I understand it, the K-01's low pricing is because it has been discontinued. Not exactly a point in its favour.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (Apr 8, 2013)

And of course a cameras only factor worth looking into is it's high ISO performance? The 'hipster' look, what as opposed to the 'faux-designer' look of the K-01? Yeah the thing is, the X-E1 is a better camera than the K-01 in every possible way... And I like the K-01.

3 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Apr 8, 2013)

Could be better camera in some way, but you can only put 5 types fuji´s of lenses on the e-x1. With the K-01 you have at least the same IQ and zillions of lens with out the need of an adapter. So which one is a waist of money? In a hipster way, maybe not.

1 upvote
BJN
By BJN (Apr 8, 2013)

I wish I had a waist of money. With my waist, I'd be worth a fortune!

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 8, 2013)

waxw---

Okay, if high quality optics aren't important to you, that means very good color, then by all means pick the plenty good Pentax system lenses and a Pentax dslr. (That K-01 has been discontinued.)

Remember though that with an adapter it's pretty easy to mount any lens you like on a mirrorless system camera. Eg, I have the Nikon F to Fuji X mount adapter.

Not sure if the "hip" "waist" "waste" pun works.

0 upvotes
UlrichB
By UlrichB (Apr 7, 2013)

I set the comparison widget to 3200 iso, and moved the box to the blue watch dial at the lower right. The Fuji file -while at the surface appearing softer- is vastly superior to the compared cameras, with an extremely clean file. Maybe this is more relevant for a high iso comparison, but we should keep in mind that a clean file takes some sharpening easily, while the other cameras already fell apart in terms of chroma noise and resolution.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 7, 2013)

You can't compare resolution in an OOF area.

5 upvotes
max metz
By max metz (Apr 7, 2013)

Huge effort, 3 cameras raw examples in one hit, excellent commitment to bringing dpreview members and visitors the latest evidence about the latest gear.

Admittedly some of the comments below illustrate short intellect reaching for something on a high shelf - but there are many many more who find this level of expertise and diligence invaluable.

Big thanks to dpreview for presenting this stuff. :-D

6 upvotes
Feud
By Feud (Apr 7, 2013)

Agreed, and then some .... ;-)

1 upvote
InTheMist
By InTheMist (Apr 8, 2013)

Yep. I'm really thankful for the dedicated DPR staff. Shame so many of the users are thankless, caustic jerks.

6 upvotes
kinglau711
By kinglau711 (Apr 6, 2013)

Mr Butler,

Why are the RAWs of the X-E1 and X-Pro1 less sharp than the RAWs of any other camera like the Olympus E-M5, Canon 5D markIII, Sony Nex-7 or Nikon D7000, at 3200 ISO ?

Thank you.

5 upvotes
dengx
By dengx (Apr 6, 2013)

Because it's not sharpened enough.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 6, 2013)

Artifacts happen if you sharpen them more. I messed around with the files in 7.4 the other day and noticed that the artifacts are not noticeable if you turn sharpening way down. Which makes the images look softer.

I do wonder if Xtrans needs a unique matrix of USM...

4 upvotes
max metz
By max metz (Apr 7, 2013)

Your question to is a loaded one. The x-trans raw files are clear, they are not sharp, there is a big difference - I like clear, perhaps you like sharp, I only have one clear choice while you have many.

3 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 7, 2013)

@max metz
True, altough the sharp ones can be made "clear" too with NR. In other words, that leaves the choice open, even after purchase. ;)
To test this I compared the NEX 7 at ISO 1600 with the X- Pro 1 at ISO 3200 (which in reality is about the same real sensitivity, see also the physical exposure settings). Then ran some Topaz Denoise on the NEX file and equalized output size. After which they looked pretty much identical in terms of noise and sharpness.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
max metz
By max metz (Apr 7, 2013)

@Troj: That's cos u ruined the x-trans files, try a Nikon D1 or Canon 1D file to compare the Fuji file with - forget the lesser Nex7.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 7, 2013)

I ruined it how? I didn't do anything to it, it is what it is. I only edited the NEX file.

2 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Apr 7, 2013)

That's cos max is an idiot.

1 upvote
max metz
By max metz (Apr 8, 2013)

...gee whiz, i got off light there, "D1" should have been D4. No desert for Max. :-D

1 upvote
gl2k
By gl2k (Apr 6, 2013)

RAW software is massively underrated !!!
Back in the old film days it was the process of skilled film development that made the difference and today it is the skilled use of proper RAW software that makes the difference.
That being said, it is the combination of sensor output + RAW sw that is responsible for the final image and therefore has to be judged.

6 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (Apr 6, 2013)

To me what has always made the biggest difference by far is the photographer.

6 upvotes
max metz
By max metz (Apr 7, 2013)

Change, the x-series represents change, for that reason alone some aren't going to like it - that's cool cos... it makes the queue shorter while people resist inevitable change.

Ordering mine this month. :-D

0 upvotes
masterofdeception
By masterofdeception (Apr 5, 2013)

I try to avoid Dpreview, for the simple reason that the people here seem to know (or care) very little about photography, but seem to enjoy positing on the next great thing in terms of technology. This thread is a perfect example of why I feel this way. I posted a long time ago about why I loved the Jpegs from my X-Pro 1, and nothing has changed for me. I don't claim anything special for my pictures, but you lot can keep on bickering about your pixels in your RAW files and it won't matter a damn to me. You're still all wondering why your camera didn't make you a great photographer, and why the latest C1, LR, Silkypix, DXO, ACR .1.1.1.1 update didn't make any difference to your terrible (soft/over sharpened/ "slightly milky") pictures of your cat? Well, I guess you'll never get the point!

24 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Apr 6, 2013)

Cameras don't make photography without a photographer. But your claim is on the other end; photographers don't make photography without a camera. Get over it. Also, get over the fact that good cameras are better in making photography than technologically inferior ones. Technology is very important as it enables creative expression at different levels.

18 upvotes
Ollie 2
By Ollie 2 (Apr 6, 2013)

You "try to avoid"?

I had no idea that certain sites held such an overwhelming compulsion to return to for some.

Your comments apply to some of us, not all of us. Interesting that in making such blanket categorical statements you yourself display precisely the same form of myopia of those you condemn.

19 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Apr 6, 2013)

You are right about the people here don't know a lot about the photography, but you must understand that people is still searching better method because the digital camera technology is still immature.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 6, 2013)

You seem to have failed in your attempt to avoid DPR. And you also failed to say anything useful.

The camera is marketed as the "X-Pro1" --it has "Pro" in the bleedin name! Pros need raw capability. Period.

I just blogged about this the other day: jpeg:raw::polaroid:film

Ansel Adams, held by most to be pretty decent, believed that post (aka darkroom) was important. OOC jpegs make post problematic and introduce artifacts. And worse, jpeg compression, even without manipulation, introduced artifacts.

If you're not an artist or a pro, then fine, be happy with a camera that can only make snapshots. Get a point and shoot. This is a more serious camera and the price and marketing say so. If it doesn't live up to the hype, the flak is well earned.

5 upvotes
RadPhoto
By RadPhoto (Apr 6, 2013)

@RStyga I totally agree with you. Cameras DO matter! Why else all PRO photographers have the expensive ones. They keep telling people that it's not the camera yet, they keep buying the best on market!!

0 upvotes
Reg Natarajan
By Reg Natarajan (Apr 6, 2013)

@masterofdeception Best comment I've seen here for a long time.

0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Apr 7, 2013)

Your post makes extremely good points, masterofdeception, as proven by the extremely defensive replies of those who, deep down inside, have a niggly that you are right.

0 upvotes
masterofdeception
By masterofdeception (Apr 10, 2013)

@micahmedia

Ansel Adams was a genius. Walker Evans was too and didn't make much of him. Guess which camp I'm in. The fact is, unless you're up to Ansel Adams' standards, all this pixel peeping is a load of nonsense.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 11, 2013)

Pixel peeping can be masturbatory time wasting, but it can also be learning. Ansel Adams didn't learn by reading internet threads. He learned by doing. And that required doing the equivalent of pixel peeping in the darkroom to do so. He had to make lots of prints, lots of negatives, and he had to scrutinize them critically. Evans images tell stories, but I don't find them as artful. In fact, it took me a long time to warm up to his work because of the technical weaknesses. Mostly because I had to learn what the difference was I was seeing. These days, the "darkroom" is easily accessible and there's not reason not to learn at least rudimentary tools. Just shooting raw and processing it with my presets gives me better results than anyone else's OOC jpegs. Period. YMMV.

Honestly, I don't make a lot of art these days. I just humor clients. I hold to my own standards and everybody seems happy.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 14, 2013)

masterofdeception:

Fine you don't need a raw capable camera, or good raw extraction software, but that suggests to me, that you never printed from your own negatives--that's you running the enlarger or doing the film scanning.

I'd also guess you never took a negative to a store for enlargement of something you'd originally got as a 4X6 print.

None of the great photographers you cite, decided to automatically throw out three quarters of the information in the negatives that they had decided to print. (Reproduction in books is a different story.)

If those Fuji jpegs work for you, that's fine, but it's sort of like saying the 1hour place processing my negatives is as good as getting a pro lab to to the development and printing of the same shot: That's wrong.

0 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Apr 5, 2013)

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... =)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 5, 2013)

We covered Capture One when Adobe first improved its output (and had written about C1 when X-Trans support was added).

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1550547764/adobes-fujifilm-x-trans-sensor-processing-tested/2

DxO doesn't support X-Trans and there isn't a Fujifilm converter - the version of Silkypix supplied with the cameras struggles even more with the fine detail than ACR:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro1/19

The engine underpinning ACR and Lightroom is by far the market leader and the disappointing early support for X-Trans was something that we raised in our review. It seems only fair that we'd follow that up as the situation improves. And that included an article about Capture One when it added support.

13 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Apr 5, 2013)

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.

6 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Apr 6, 2013)

I don't get the logic here. Just because other camera makers have second rate JPEG engines and need RAW conversion to get more detail does not make it a given that RAW should always provide greater detail.

Fujis JPEGs (S5 included) have always been good on detail. RAW is there in case you need more exposure latitude or more extreme tonal manipulation. Why turn a positive (JPEGS are really sharp) into a negative (RAWs are no sharper)?

Surely the argument should be that other cameras have inadequate JPEGs?

13 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 6, 2013)

SiliconVoid:

Why imply that DXO processes these Fuj XTrans filtered raws? DXO doesn't.

Silkypix 5 is horrid. (Now the free Silkypix from Fuji for XTrans raws is pretty good, but not at higher ISOs, like above 1000.)

ACR 7.4 has fixed the problem the previous ACR had with greenery shot with say the XPro1, so if you need to do raw extraction with the Fuji files, it's pick ACR 7.4 or buy CaptureOne, or use the free stuff for lower ISO work.

Yes, the XE-1 and XPro1 do very good incamera jpegs, but there are more artifact, WB, dynamic range, and exposure problems with those jpegs than with raws extracted with ACR 7.4 or CaptureOne.

Given the comments about detail, I have to assume you only shoot at ISO 100. Guess what, then a Sigma SD1 Merrill or one of the DP Merrills is the camera for you.

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 6, 2013)

HowaboutRAW nailed it!

But I'll add jpeg:raw::polaroid:negative

Some people like polaroids. Some people like P or AUTO mode. Some people like more control. Indeed, that's why this camera has knobs and dials, and the lenses have aperture rings. It's safe to say that some people who want control in capture will also want control in post. You don't have that control with JPEGs.

And I'll say that I think my processed raw files look better than any jpeg out of any camera. Even your precious Fujis. I remember shooting my D2x next to an S5 when it came out. The jpegs and raw were equally low resolution. And processed properly, there was no ISO advantage to the S5.

I'm glad that Fuji is still innovating. But the lack of proper raw support in the industry standard software is a non-starter. Especially this long after release. Adobe gave it a damn good shot. If it goes no further, it's on Fuji.

0 upvotes
spatz
By spatz (Apr 6, 2013)

Shooting Raw over jpeg is not about detail for me - jpegs from my cameras have enough detail for 99% of the shots I take, and for the rest, Raw rarely makes a truly significant improvement.

The big difference, and the reason I always shoot Raw, is dynamic range extension - I cannot judge exposure on a camera display well enough, and for some scenes with very high dynamic range, there just isn't a single setting that gives the correct exposure. In Raw, I can at least tweak the curves manually, using a high quality screen to judge the results. And, of course, for the images that don't require manual adjustments, I just batch-process them with a default profile, so there's hardly any extra work.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 6, 2013)

micahmedia--

But now ACR is good with these raws, as is CaptureOne.

They're not my "precious Fujis", I simply point out that these Fuji does good jpegs.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 9, 2013)

I disagree there--ACR isn't giving quality I expect from it with these Xtrans files. Go over to IR and look at the color star targets. Red/green, red/blue, and green/blue all have funky artifacts unless you turn sharpening way down. These artifacts don't happen with Bayer sensors. I like to have the option of adjusting sharpness, and I couldn't do that with Xtrans raws.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 11, 2013)

michah,

Do you mean that you're not actually extracting Xtrans raws yourself, only just looking at jpegs on websites? Or do you mean that you're simply getting raws from websites like DPReview and Imaging Resource and then extracting them?

I've certainly done the latter, I used that San Fran street car shot from DPReview as an outdoor greenery test of raw extraction; with both ACR 7.4 and 7.3. (And CaptureOne too.)

However I've also shot my own test shots with the XPro1 and XE1, and then extracted those raws with Silkypix 5, the Fuji Silkypix, CaptureOne, ACR 7.3 and ACR 7.4. So I'm pretty confident in saying that ACR 7.4 is good software for extraction of these Xtrans filtered raws from Fuji.

Is ACR 7.4 the best in all circumstances and conditions? I don't know. But it's plenty good for these raws.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Apr 5, 2013)

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...

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
SiliconVoid
By SiliconVoid (Apr 5, 2013)

-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

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Apr 6, 2013)

It depends which part of the image you look at. However, using the same sharpening settings for Xtrans as you do for Bayer is possibly not the best approach. Seems to work best if you add a little bit in ACR first.

1 upvote
max metz
By max metz (Apr 7, 2013)

Putting the dis fuji part of the op to one side, the x-trans system doesn't capture as little distinct dots like other camera sensor/processor combo's. The raw files clearly show that, the 6x6 matrix dictates that and fuji make no secret of it.

The x-trans output is stellar before post processing, to better that with post processing will obviously need to see change in method. I don't think that need be some big surprise.

For those having a life crisis event over having to change their processing ways, just buy a Canon or a Nikon and forgo the huge improvement in value and capability the new Fuji X-Trans system offers.

1 upvote
Expat Nomad
By Expat Nomad (Apr 5, 2013)

Any chance of an update to the X-10 review?

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Apr 5, 2013)

X-TRANS ≠ EXR

4 upvotes
Expat Nomad
By Expat Nomad (Apr 5, 2013)

*facepalm. When's that X20 review coming then?

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 5, 2013)

It's being worked on.

3 upvotes
Minh Ta
By Minh Ta (Apr 5, 2013)

It has nothing to do with the fact that X-TRANS ≠ EXR. The new version of Raw conversion ALSO has an updated demosaicing algorithm for the EXR sensors including X10 (check the list) and you guys promised in its review that the sample from X10 would be updated once this happened.

3 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Apr 6, 2013)

I second that. We need to see any improvements to EXR cameras including XF1!

0 upvotes
nonicks
By nonicks (Apr 5, 2013)

Anyone tried Capture One. To me that's a real engine for Xtrans sensor

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 5, 2013)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1887029702/capture-one-fujifilm-x-trans-raw-support-tested

Or, compared to a more recent version of Adobe Camera Raw:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1550547764/adobes-fujifilm-x-trans-sensor-processing-tested/2

5 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 6, 2013)

Anyone tried a website that reviews digital cameras? Maybe have objective analysis and side by side comparisons? Maybe with a fixed studio scene to compare cameras scientifically--like for like? Maybe pick a dark color scheme. Maybe introduce a comment system after a few years. Maybe somebody will surprise you and say something you've never thought of.

Nah, maybe no comment system. People will just say stupid sh!t.

Anyway, R Butler, you should totally make something like that! I bet it'd be a blast!

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 5, 2013)

On a purely superficial level (but who here does not care for aesthetics!!), these Fuji X-series models are -such- gorgeous cameras. Modern day rangefinders pure and simply. I was teethed on an old Pen EE-2 though I have always lusted for the beefy dial-laden control capable RF's. I wish I could justify buying one of these, heheh. Perhaps on the used market someday :) ...

3 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Apr 5, 2013)

They'll be completely obsolete by then. That's the problem with digital cameras... :(

2 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 5, 2013)

Manuel, I know that many many feel this way, but I personally do not. How to define obsolete? As a reference point, I regularly use an Olympus C-8080 still (that I bought used a few years back), and love the results it gives me for nature and landscape, even though I have a couple of newer cameras. To each their own, I guess!

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Apr 5, 2013)

I use an E-P1 myself, which is considered obsolete by this minute's standards. When I bought it, Olympus had already discontinued it. Need I say more?
The trouble I see with the Fujis is that they're so expensive that it will take years before they reach reasonable prices at the 2nd hand market. Hence my assertion.
That said I believe the concept of obsolescence is more marketing-induced than real. 'Planned obsolescence' has been widely used by the industry to make consumers get rid of goods they've bought recently in order to buy what is announced as the next big thing. (It works well with cameras!) Call it 'consumerism'...

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 6, 2013)

GX1s are running almost cheaper than the EVF for it. Quite competent gear. Lenses are good too. And SMALL! If you'd rather take pictures than wait, check that out.

...or just keep on with the 8080 if it makes you happy!

0 upvotes
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (Apr 5, 2013)

How I wish that this nonsense with Lightroom would just cease already. Version 7.4 still doesn't work with xtrans, it just doesn't work in a slightly different manner. Talk about procrustean bed....

Using LR output to compare camera brands amounts to partisan tactics, in my honest opinion. Its demosaicing engine is as bad as the user interface and color controls are good; and the output from different cameras is wildly inconsistent.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 5, 2013)

The raw engine underpinning Camera Raw and Lightroom is by far the most popular third-party software, according to all figures I've seen.

Adobe also tends to be the first company to support many cameras, which also supports our use of it. The last thing we need is any other factor slowing down our reviews.

8 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Apr 6, 2013)

@Imagefoundry:
I don't like/use LR either, but it is very widely spread.
Besides: DPR offers RAWs for download, so you can do your own comparisons with your preferred software.

3 upvotes
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (Apr 6, 2013)

McDonalds is by far the most popular restaurant chain in USA (if you can call it that). Shall we use McD burgers as a baseline for comparing quality of beef across the country?

Furthermore, LR popularity is almost a text-book example of monopoly abuse. It's starving smaller developers and it slows down the pace of innovation.

I understand the sentiment about needing some sort of common denominator for comparison purposes, and yes ACR is usually the first to support new cameras. It does not mean you should stop looking for a better solution.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 6, 2013)

Imagefoundry:

Then purchase CaptureOne, or if extracting Xtrans raws isn't important to you, Aftershot or DXO. (It's safe to rule out Silkypix 5 for purchase.) Or fight with Rawtherapee, etc.

Also stop equating ACR with Lightroom. ACR also runs in PhotoShop and PhotoShop Elements.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 6, 2013)

It's an industry standard. It is the software by which other software is measured. Everything in every magazine or newspaper you see today has passed through a piece of Adobe software.

Whether you realize it or not, support by Adobe, and it's underlying raw engine, are immensely important.

1 upvote
opticaloptimum
By opticaloptimum (Apr 7, 2013)

I don't care what other people use. I just want to use what's best for me. Because something is popular it does not mean it is the best, just that its followed by a lot of sheep.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Apr 7, 2013)

That's not necessarily true either (your sheep comment). What's best for one may not be best for others. In fact, when judging one's own needs, one not need even consider others- period. When you say the best, you are talking about you.. therefore the opinion should stop right there, saying others are sheep after only puts YOU back in the pool with them. Think on that.

1 upvote
joejack951
By joejack951 (Apr 8, 2013)

"McDonalds is by far the most popular restaurant chain in USA (if you can call it that). Shall we use McD burgers as a baseline for comparing quality of beef across the country?"

That's a poor analogy. You don't bring beef to McDonalds and have them cook it for you. McDonalds provides a finished product from their own ingredients, cooked their way. Adobe cooks your beef for you, and prepares it to your tastes.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 9, 2013)

Ok, if we're going for food analogies, Adobe makes ovens. Industry standard ovens. If Fuji's salad doesn't cook well in an oven, that's not Adobe's fault.

Or it's like Fuji makes a brand new type of tempeh, and everybody else is making traditional meat. Until somebody invents a novel way to cook cook Fuji's tempeh in an oven, you get Adobe's best shot. If Fuji shares their recipe, maybe we'll get somewhere.

0 upvotes
WT21
By WT21 (Apr 5, 2013)

Don't see any reason to come off my m43 kit based on this. I had the XE1 briefly and returned it. Glad I did. I loved the Fuji handling and styling, but the size, IQ and AF speed of m43 still bests it, IMO. And is a better compliment to my 6D.

6 upvotes
draschan
By draschan (Apr 5, 2013)

would be nice if m43 would bring something with more manual control. using the epl5 currently and it's fiddly. still very happy with it. especially with the size and also IQ. much better than my G3. phoblographer writes that fuji leaves omd in the dust. hm, maybe in high iso ?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 5, 2013)

WT21:

Which m43 camera are you using and which lens(es)?

And also, there's a m45 camera that will shoot at ISO 6400 as well as the Fuji XPro1 or XE1? Or isn't high ISO that important for your photos?

0 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Apr 5, 2013)

If I were to pick a mirror-less camera now it would probably be m43, but if high ISO is the goal, than XE-1 seems about a stop better than m43 to me (not a surprise really)

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Apr 5, 2013)

Draschan, I have an E-P1. Its controls are similar to any midrange DSLR, with two exposure dials that you can configure for aperture and shutter speed in M mode. And it's an outdated camera by now! The E-M5 is another camera with manual exposure controls handled by two dials, no fiddling with menus or pushing buttons while rotating a single dial as in the E-PL5. Ergonomics and size aside, both of the aforementioned cameras handle like DSLRs.

2 upvotes
WT21
By WT21 (Apr 5, 2013)

@draschan: agreed. I love my EPL5 for size, but I would like a little better manual controls. I teeter on the edge of an OMD (had one before), but as m43 is meant to be my "compact" camera, I keep it small.
@HowaboutRAW: I've used just about every m43 camera, and currently have an EPL5. Lenses currently are P14, O17/1.8, PL25 and P100-300 (and also lens cap lens). I have done a few pics at ISO6400, but not many. If I need high ISO, it's usually for action, and that's where the DSLR comes in, because you also need the focus speed. If you need ISO6400 on the Fuji, you are also doing MF, since the Fuji hunts terrible in low light.
@ ManuelVilardeMacedo - the EP1 is a great cam. I'm hoping the EP5 has the new sensor and the old EPx aesthetic, though I would also love a shutter speed dial :)

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 6, 2013)

WT21:

As a general rule manual focus isn't a problem, though specifically the XE-1 could use a better assistance system, see the Samsung NX system.

I don't think that ISO 6400 implies "action". But yes low light or high F stop number.

The Panasonic GH3 sure seems nice, but even there ISO 6400 is pushing things with that camera.

0 upvotes
cocopro
By cocopro (Apr 8, 2013)

M43 has some nice bodies and lenses, but this system is kinda overpriced imo, for the small optics and plastic build. Oly 60mm f2.8 is at the same price point as Fuji 60mm f2.4 despite plastic made body and not including a lens hood. The funny thing is, lots of M43 users are used to the high pricing and believe this lens is a bargain...

0 upvotes
quangzizi
By quangzizi (Apr 8, 2013)

Oly: $500
Fuji: $624

Oly: weather sealed
Fuji: not weather sealed

Check your facts again before making comparison.

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Apr 5, 2013)

For me, the EXR sensor of the X100 still more "mojo" -
  I do not need the "new".
Also, I think and I think the X100 is still the best Fuji-Cam

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 5, 2013)

Technically the X100 doesn't have an EXR sensor (it has a Bayer filter array), despite saying 'EXR Processor' on the top.

9 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Apr 5, 2013)

I do not see any artifacts, so this is a real progress. However fine detail seems slightly milky - in particular compared to NEX7 (I know it has more MPix), but it does look very natural to me.

I think this is a good news.

7 upvotes
Total comments: 87