Previous news story    Next news story

Fujifilm X-T1 images added to studio test scene

By dpreview staff on Feb 6, 2014 at 21:25 GMT

We just added studio test scene images to our First Impressions Review of the Fujifilm X-T1. The X-T1 takes many familiar elements we've seen before in X-Series cameras but incorporates them in more DSLR-like shape and with even more external control. We also got a version of Adobe Camera Raw that supports the camera and have added it to our test scene comparison tool.

343
I own it
542
I want it
53
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 66
UnChatNoir
By UnChatNoir (2 months ago)

The reality is that the Fuji RAF files contain in all mainstream RAW-tools artifacts. I performed a lot of comparing between almost every tool available in the market, and the X-trans has always traces of color bleeding, pixels with wrong colors, differences in sharpness,... a real perfect conversion is just impossible. The story that this sensor is better than the best FF-sensors is just a hoax, it isn't. The X-T1 won't also be different vs. the X-Pro1, the X-E1 or X-E2, even in 14bit This sensor isn't showing the kind of detail you'll see in a 24MP or 36MP sensor. Nevertheless, I like the X-series for something completely different: the lightweight vs. IQ, the excellent Fujinon glass (really beating quite a few DSLR-lenses) and the overall color setting. DSLR or MLIC... I'm still confused and the major reason why I grap my D800 in so many cases is because my Fujis just don't provide that kind of stability & reliability. Oh yes, they are also still missing a serious flash range.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Ranford Stealth
By Ranford Stealth (2 months ago)

If you use flash off camera anything will do. I've used my friend's Metz 70 & a cheap Chinese flash (Yongnuo i think) fired by Cactus triggers & it works fine with my Fujis. Shot a wedding last Nov with X-E1 & 35 f1.4 and had no problems at all. English pro Damien Lovegrove just did a studio.shoot with an X-T1 and he was thrilled with the results, so those pics should be available to view soon. Maybe the X series is just not for you? Certainly I'm using my Nikons less & less.

0 upvotes
xeriwthe
By xeriwthe (2 months ago)

when comparing fuji x-series (X-T1, X-E1, X-E2, X-Pro1) series cameras to other cameras (sony, canon, samsung, etc.) ,it is important to note that fuji requires almost twice as much time exposing the image to reach the same level of brightness. thus you should be comparing fuji at double the ISO of other brands (e.g. fuji x-T1 at ISO6400 and Samsung NX300 at ISO3200), to get a better idea of equivalent sensor performance.

with ISO accounted for, there are aspects of the x-trans image quality that one could still argue are superior. compare the detail in the hair of the pictures of the women, between the x-t1 at ISO6400 and the Samsung NX300 at ISO3200. There is more dimensionality to the hair on the X-T1, where it is mostly flat with a bit of noise on the NX300. Or compare detail in the paintbrushes bristles. There's just a smidgen more detail, and a more natural look, to the detail on the fuji images.

anyway, x-trans is not always better, but it does have real advantages.

1 upvote
Usee
By Usee (2 months ago)

Did you notice the following:

true vertical details in the robe below the easel, right above the floor, with the NX300, but not with the X-T1...

...instead, you will see false details on the floor (diagonal lines) with the X-T1 (see Phase One IQ180 for reference)...

...and a special x-trans artefact in the red/blue color resolution section.

However,
neither ACR is the best for both of them,
nor OOC JPG.

Finally every camera has it's true strength...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
xeriwthe
By xeriwthe (2 months ago)

yep, i was actually calling you out, was going to reference your criticisms and comparisons of nx300 vs x-t1 but ran out of words.

as long as we are playing this game, other things to note: the way details are rendered in general, on the nx300 vs x-t1, or more generally bayer vs x-trans. the x-trans image has a slightly different appearance, a little more water colory yes, but also slightly less artifact-ed due to lower sharpening. the nx300 image is pretty coarse and chunky, in area around the easel, while it is more natural and smooth on the x-t1.

don't get me wrong i i love bayer images, but the sharpening artefacts can get obnoxious. i learned new appreciation for the art of sharpening after seeing how x-trans has a different, not better, just different look

0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (2 months ago)

I thought so.

But I wouldn't call it game, because there are facts that matter - not only me.

B.t.w. I think that X-trans could really shine if it's used with better suited software than ACR and with higher pixel count.
No need to create "special" ISO numbers.

Some early examples with satisfying X-trans output:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4164548502/photos/1756664/fuji-x-pro-1-ru-raw-iso_6400-100-crop-exif

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4164548502/photos/1669539/ff_x_pro1_008-crop100-mod-silkypix_pro_4

-

However, if you look at the Phase One IQ180 reference,
you will see, that the reality is (in the case of the studio scene) closer to the NX300 than to the X-T1.

If you use the NX300 with a better lens, than dpreview did with the 50 mm Pentax (I would choose the 45 mm Samsung...) and
with better RAW processing than dpreview did,
the X-T1 would need another RAW converter to catch up.

-

Some have just another taste:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3212886?page=2

0 upvotes
xeriwthe
By xeriwthe (2 months ago)

i don't see how you can call the flatness of the texture on hair, paintbrushes, hair, etc. of nx300 at ISO 3200 vs Fuji XTrans at ISO6400, closer to the 'reality' of the scene. at ISO100, yes NX300 is closer to reality, but not as ISO increases.

ok, i'm not really in this to fight, only want to point out the advantages/disadvantages of xtrans, especially in terms of camera JPEG output and equivalent ISO (accounting for fuji's ISO trickery) processing. as much as people like to poo-poo xtrans it does have real advantages. you don't have to admit it, fine

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (2 months ago)

If you are not in this to fight, why do you pick a single combination, where your claim fit?

...and ignore that one can remove the flatness - even in this single combination - if one makes a proper post processing of the RAW file...

0 upvotes
xeriwthe
By xeriwthe (2 months ago)

I'm sorry if I came off like I am trying to make one sided claim. I don't ignore or deny what you say, regarding raw. I am sorry I did not specifically mention that with proper RAW processing, the NX300 and equivalent bayer sensor cameras will produce superior images to the Fuji X-trans. It is true and I hope everyone understands this.

But I am trying to point out the real advantages of xtrans, even with ISO inflation accounted for. For example, hair texture at high ISO is preserved better in the JPEG produced by the camera.

Please try to understand I see benefits in both and am trying to make this clear for people who want to understand what the actual benefits are.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
piratejabez
By piratejabez (2 months ago)

The X-T1 is resolving more detail with lower noise than its neighbors here, and using very efficient compression for both RAW and JPEG. Very impressive.

0 upvotes
ZoranHR
By ZoranHR (2 months ago)

...and actual ISO value lower than you might think.
I made comparison of my two cameras, X100 and Ricoh GR. With same apertures and same shutter speeds for same level of brightness Ricoh's ISO is 800-1000,while Fuji's ISO 1600.

I like Fuji and I still think it's a nice camera.
But there is some serious dishonest marketing wich should be told about.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

the X-Trans is very unique so no neighbor here (Foveon may be similar?). other companies won't go that far for cost cutting at a relatively high cost of image quality.

0 upvotes
Rocky ID Olympian
By Rocky ID Olympian (2 months ago)

I wonder why people who had it more than people who has it.

2 upvotes
Esign
By Esign (2 months ago)

This is some of my ratings, if only based on this test scene:
Fuji X-T1 compared to fullframe cameras Nikon D800, Sony Alpha 7R, Canon EOS 5Diii:
Nikon wins everything, low ISO second Sony, third Canon, high ISO second Canon, third Fuji (!).
Fuji X-T1 compared to APS-C cameras Nikon D7100, Canon EOS 70D and M34 Olympus OM-D E-M1:
low ISO first Canon, second Nikon, third Fuji, medium and high ISO first Fuji, second Olympus (!), third Nikon.

0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (2 months ago)

The studio test scene is sadly a source of misinformation, as long as one doesn't compare pictures which had the same exposure...

...actually you have to set the ISO of Fuji and Oly cameras one stop higher, to get the same exposure, because they use the wrong numbers for the ISO sensitivity (pls read the comment):

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4164548502/photos/2331009/

dpreview should fix this issue asap, otherwise they lose even more credibility:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53034923

It should be pretty easy for dpreview:

Use the same light source, measure the intensity of the target and adjust to a common base.

Use lenses with the same properties.

Use all cameras in manual mode and set the same aperture and shutter speed, to avoid misinformation due to unreliable ISO numbers from manufactures.

Adjust the contrast curve according the known values of the grey patches of a color checker chart.

At the moment it is just misinformation for the (uninformed) public.

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

@Usee - I disagree that the scene is a source of misinformation - just because it's not the information you want.

It's reasonable to assume the majority of people judge their exposure by whether their JPEG is the correct brightness. That's what the ISO standard is based on and that's what the logic of our test is based on.

If a camera is needing a different shutter speed to achieve this, we report it, so that you can see which cameras need more exposure than you'd expect.

The alternative is to apply fixed exposure parameters and then present images of different brightnesses - which would be hard to interpret and wouldn't answer the question 'how would they look if they were all the same brightness?'

The question is whether we're trying to model real-world usage for the majority of our readers or conduct tests that end up appearing esoteric to the point of irrelevance.

3 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (2 months ago)

The proof that it leads to misinformation are the many posts, where people claim that the Fuji has exeptional high ISO performance - no?

A shutter speed difference of one stop can make the difference between blur or not to blur in low light conditions...

...which are high ISO conditions and the conditions where fast lenses are needed.

Those are the conditions where the cameras have their biggest difference - therefore the most interesting conditions for tests.

In good light one can also use a smartphone, isn't it?

-

You mentioned the alternative, which IS an alternative,
if one presents the images with the same brightness,
adjusted to the gray patches of a CC-target.

In this case the noise could be seen, which is otherwise hidden in the shadows of a manufacturer (marketing) contrast curve.

In my opinion it makes more sense to compare the hardware capabilities of a camera and not the JPG engines...

...if the test is aimed at photographers, who want to use RAW and not OOC JPG.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

I sincerely hope the scene could be redesigned, maybe outsourced to someone else (a target and a good procedure). it will save money and thousands of hours that DPReview staffs will spend with it during the coming years, and benefit all the readers.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (2 months ago)

I think the target is a good one , however its emphasis on a flat picture plane robs some of its charm and "photographic" properties of depth etcetera. The head shots are a weakness because the flesh tones are very unrealistic (copy shots essentially) and are not a reliable guide to the rendering to be expected of this crucial parameter, on the other hand I have no idea how you fix that consistently with a real flesh tone in a chart that will be used for at least a year or two. The ISO thing is important, and I think that DPR would do well to publish a figure for each of the cameras they test stating their effective ISO rating for the camera in question. Of course you need a standard to test against hmmmmm?

1 upvote
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (2 months ago)

Another thing I like about this test scene is the green fuzzy stuff and the plastic foliage. It gives me information about sensor performance revealing texture and fine detail in that "zone". An improvement might be to include similar materials to cover red and blue as well - the threads are a little small and the fuzzy balls do not do it either.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

the test scene has two obvious issues at a glance:

(1) sensors of different apect ratios are systematically shifted apart and not directly comparable.

(2) the most valualbe estate at the center is wasted (should put high frequency and tricky color subjects there as much as possible, things that readers check most often).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Arpad Lukacs
By Arpad Lukacs (2 months ago)

I could only find full frame models that beat the X-T1 at 12500 ISO. That's pretty impressive.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (2 months ago)

dont get too excited, check the shutter speeds first.

9 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (2 months ago)

There's a lot of APS-C cameras that beat the X-T1 at ISO 100

1 upvote
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (2 months ago)

High-iso RAW's look mushy as heck. Even the Nkon D3200 beats this thing in detail retention..

6 upvotes
snuffalufagus
By snuffalufagus (2 months ago)

The X-T1 kills the Nikon 3200 in ISO performance. Not even close.

4 upvotes
whtchocla7e
By whtchocla7e (2 months ago)

This bad boy rivals the world greatest watercolor paintings... and still loses.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
13 upvotes
TakePictures
By TakePictures (2 months ago)

Ever been to a museum?

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (2 months ago)

it looks like Fuji has taken an option on the ancient Sony Bionz engine. Already at 800 iso the shots look water paint like and show a lot of loss in details.

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/fujifilm_x_t1_review/sample_images/

look that picture in full size:

http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/fujifilm_x_t1/photos/fujifilm_x_t1_49.jpg

look at every detail on it, the people, their cloth, the walls of the brown building, the trees left of the number 9, the wall over this number 9, the top of the church's bell tower. Once yous see this and study the details on this photo, you will lose any interest in this camera and Fuji's x-trans trash sensor. This photo is a watercolor painting, and most others are as well. Even at base ISO it is to my eyes a disaster.

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (2 months ago)

I'm starting wondering how useful the new studio test tool is.
There are so little visible differences between various cameras, that one may think they all produce the same image quality, until you start shooting them side by side or even look at various sample photos to understand how vastly image quality varies between them. Just last year I tested 6 different cameras, all of them look very similar on this test scene, all of them have very different image quality in real shooting.
I think the old comparison tool was a lot more representative.

12 upvotes
tramptime
By tramptime (2 months ago)

I really just don't like the new test scene. The old one was near perfect for me. It had those large labels on the bottles.. And wording on the film.. And the watch in the corner was just great to use. I actually wanted to go compare various cameras just for the fun of it. This new one.. I don't know.. There is nothing that grabs me like the old one.. I am not sure how to describe it best, but the words boring and uninspiring comes to mind.

8 upvotes
FujiCanNikon
By FujiCanNikon (2 months ago)

Totally agree. Based on the test scenes I would have bought the E-M1. My own comparison in a shop was totally different and showed the limitation of M43 in low light (and also the limitation of APS-C vs FF). Fuji X is not so good in high iso as marketed. And even not so superior to my D90. Currently it seems that the quality of a camera depends mainly on its low light capabiliies. I think not. I chose the X-E2 over the D610 - you can bet it was not for it's superior low light capability

3 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (2 months ago)

Is the old test scene on ebay yet?

4 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (2 months ago)

There seems to be both moire AND chromatic aberration (on bright-dark interfaces) in the RAW shots in most cameras BUT the Fuji. Well-done Fuji.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 20 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
ForeignerOnEarth
By ForeignerOnEarth (2 months ago)

Compare RAW X-T1, 70D, D7100 and OMD E-M1, ISO 200, 1600, 6400.
Fuji is total syntethic picture, in RAW too. No noise in ISO 200, 1600, 6400, the same images in ISO 200, 1600, 6400, Nikon, Canon, Olympus changes ISO 200 -> 6400, Fuji no change :-D New definition of RAW. There is no signal from sensor, but mathematic fiction only. In some parts of the picture the amazing fiction. The colors are far from accurate, the blue is terrible. The skin is O.K.
We are seeing the revolution, new postprocessing into RAW. Synthetic picture. Maybe in 3-5 years will Fui do the amazing job. Not now.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Kurt_K
By Kurt_K (2 months ago)

Looking at the raw comparisons (between ISO 800 and 3200), the detail appears faintly smeared to my eyes. It's subtle, but it looks as though Fuji might be applying slightly more RAW NR than its competitors. With that being said, though, the results still look great. This X-T1 is a very nice addition to the mirrorless world.

3 upvotes
MayaTlab0
By MayaTlab0 (2 months ago)

It's just the way Lightroom handles X-trans files.

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (2 months ago)

Still unreliable ISO numbers from Fuji,
which should be mentioned and taken into account...

Fuji: 1/60 @ F5,6

Canon / Samsung: 1/100 @ F5,6

...at the same scene with ISO 200 setting!

-

Again, the Fuji ISO numbers are sadly nearly one stop beside reality...
...otherwise probably a fine camera. ;-)

7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

camera advertised ISO doesn't mean much, not something that an educated photographer should rely on.

1 upvote
jyhfeei
By jyhfeei (2 months ago)

So the Fuji is pushing the ISO 3/4 stop. Penalize it with 1 full stop in the comparator, and it still looks better than the others at extreme high ISO. And don't forget to penalize the E-M1 a 1/2 stop as well, because Fuji is not the only one who is pushing the ISO numbers.

8 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (2 months ago)

You do have to question what the point of an ISO dial is if the ISO isn't close to standard. Makes using an external meter or even Sunny 16 unreliable.

5 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (2 months ago)

Camera manufacturers follow the ISO standard, which is defined with respect to final output, i.e. JPEG brightness. Even so, the standard allows the manufacturers to decide the "correct" exposure that results in a given output brightness. Therefore, the manufacturer can choose to state the Standard Output Sensitivity and/or the Recommended Exposure Index.
The so called "measured ISO" of DxO, is completely different, and has to do with exposure at the sensor. It has nothing to do with the ISO standard or the ISO values stated by the camera manufacturer, and it's therefore incorrect to say that a manufacturer misstates the ISO.

0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (2 months ago)

@jyhfeei

have you really done this?
Compare the Samsung NX300 @ 6400 with the X-T1 @ 12800 in JPG...

...you will still see true vertical details in the robe below the easel, right above the floor, with the NX300, but not with the X-T1...

...instead you will see false details on the floor (diagonal lines)with the X-T1 (see Phase One IQ180 for reference).

However, you are right to penalize the E-M1 also.

0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (2 months ago)

@ Revenant

a big car manufacturer who used the outcome of the standard NEFZ (NEDC) for fuel consumtion was sued because of misleading marketing...

...because it was obvious, that the car would need far more fuel in real life conditions.

-

Why does a manufacturer with the roots in the 'sunny 16 rule' era use the ISO instead of the shutter speed at a given aperture setting, to obtain the wanted exposure?

-

We are here on a test site, with the goal to compare cameras - no?

Therefore we need a normalized base, like the measured ISO used by DxO (GH2 and NX1000 are spot on b.t.w.).

I think that a photographer want's to know, whether he is able to shoot a satisfying picture in a given scene with his camera, or with a better suited camera...

He knows the aperture of the lens he would use.
He knows the shutter speed he needs, to get a blur free picture.

What he wants to know is the noise that the camera produces in those circumstances and not wether the ISO figures are allowed.

0 upvotes
souk1501
By souk1501 (2 months ago)

I don't see any waxy extreme skin smoothing on the X-E2 JPEG 3200 ISO images. Has that been fixed?

0 upvotes
TakePictures
By TakePictures (2 months ago)

Looks great, as we have come to know from Fuji. For me, however, AF speed is going to be the decisive factor.

1 upvote
TakePictures
By TakePictures (2 months ago)

Are we from the same planet?

19 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (2 months ago)

Yabukkie is a ignorant troll. Just ignore his posts or you could do like me and laugh at complete lack of any education guy shows over and over again here on forums.

13 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

I think that's the plan. Fujifilm did it intentionally and will redesign all the lenses sometime later, with planned excuses.

the sensor issue will be improved when we have more pixels 30MP, 60MP, 120MP, that whatever funny filter patterns will taste flat.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
lxcellent
By lxcellent (2 months ago)

I hope I don't get banned asking for this, but is there a way that I can ask to have yabokkie banned? He/she really is not constructively adding to the discussion. Just seems hell-bent on being negative about the Fuji-X system. Problem is, it leads to me doing exactly what I am doing now - getting distracted and off topic. Shoot.

36 upvotes
Underdog 3000
By Underdog 3000 (2 months ago)

Just say something nice about Canon and he'll go away.
I can't think of anything so you try.

2 upvotes
woodmen
By woodmen (2 months ago)

+1

0 upvotes
BorisAkunin
By BorisAkunin (2 months ago)

@lxcellent
Would you mind terribly if I asked for you to be banned?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

I was slow but I think I understand Fujifilm now that they had limited budget to design and make good lenses at startup (X-Trans costs little if any). and it's an old wisdom that a maker better not make products that last long.

not difficult to see or is it?

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
sik_photos
By sik_photos (2 months ago)

I would suggest that yabokkie's comments are computer program generated, as they elevate the non-sequitur to comic level.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
7 upvotes
backayonder
By backayonder (2 months ago)

Yes I agree

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (2 months ago)

Everyone has a right to their opinion even Yabokkie, Dont think he only posts negative comments on Fuiji, its pretty much on anything that is not FULL FRAME.

2 upvotes
Ranford Stealth
By Ranford Stealth (2 months ago)

Yes; after his previous bout of Fuji bagging he moved on to Olympus & Sony, bagging all the way. "Canon dual pixel lots of fun in sandbox engineers like children other brands no good for pictures of baby strength training" etc. But you have to admire Japanese efficiency. Logic, truth, common sense & the language raped in one fell swoop.

2 upvotes
lxcellent
By lxcellent (2 months ago)

@BorisAkunin
In response to your post above, of course you are welcome to ask for me to be banned. However, if you figure out how to do it, might you let me know how you got it done as that is what I asked in my original message. Thanks and have a good evening.

2 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (2 months ago)

There is a highly specialised weapon for this kind of thing:

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/344311

Definately works for firefox, not sure about chrome.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (2 months ago)

Weird isn't it. A new camera and every time people are cheering or slating. I like Fuji, and I'd chose the xt1 over a dslr simply because I want something to have with me. Really though, any camera; is it not about the fun of taking pictures? I rate Fuji lenses. The 23 and 35 are fantastic. Adobe are releasing a new lightroom which addresses their slowness in adapting to their sensors...ah can't be bothered. Get a disposable film camera and take some photos!

2 upvotes
AstroStan
By AstroStan (2 months ago)

(deleted)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
b craw
By b craw (2 months ago)

I think yabbokie is working on a very ambitious project to reduce photography to sheer theory, such that taking the photograph is unnecessary.

3 upvotes
Ranford Stealth
By Ranford Stealth (2 months ago)

A book & a movie must surely follow : "In a time long ago - in a land far away - one man - one dual pixel af - together - would change everything". If only Jerry Lewis was younger. Maybe Jim Carrey?

2 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (2 months ago)

Yabokkie's posts are about as useful as tits on a boar. This is a guy who says all zeiss(& Fuji) lenses are garbage lol. Infact the only positive thing I've ever heard him say about anything is those silly canon dual-pixels.
Everything else gets the yabokkie mumbo-jumbo hammer of disapproval!
I'd bet my car that he spends more time talking about cameras on the forum than actually using one, and has absolutely no first hand experience with anything he criticizes.

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (2 months ago)

"Yabokkie's posts are about as useful as tits on a boar. "

Quite useful, then. :)

Perhaps you mean the particular case of a male domesticated pig.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 66