Can't stop loving my precious Fuji X-E1

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

vratnik said:

It's been over a year since I own this beast inside a beauty - mirrorless CSC Fujifilm X-E1. Now that X-E2 is out, my loyalty to the first model is surprisingly unaltered. This must be some sort of addiction. I'm just perfectly happy with X-E1 and feel no need to upgrade.
Fujifilm's Kaizen strategy keeps competitors crucified to the back seat of the last car of the train to the future. They might have even disconnected that last car.
Shooting with the X-E1 is entirely new experience, every day. You get portability, comfort and appreciation of that posh style. You are a new kind of person.
What fuels this love story? The designers' craft? The constant improvement of firmware? That insane image quality? Is it just my fetish?
I don't know.
I don't care.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you.

The X-E1 is sharper than the X-E2 to start with, due to the X-E2 having two extra layers of elements in front of the photosites that the X-E1 doesn't have. I know me saying this will earn the ire of some but let them argue with the laws of physics on that one.

Click to expand...

Please post any credible proof for that statement, perhaps a comparison of sharpness.

Sal

Click to expand...

Better than that you can do your own experiment and see this for yourself on your own equipment. There is no better proof.

Take a pic and then take another pic with, say, a half dozen clear panes of glass in front of the lens. Now examine the difference between the two images. There will be a difference and that difference can be divided up between the number of panes thus giving a differential value per pane.

With a single pane it will be near impossible to spot the difference but there will be one.

Click to expand...

Again, please provide credible sources for that theory. I have tested the X-E2 extensively, sharpness is superb.

Sal

Click to expand...

Again, like I have explained to you very clearly you can do this and prove this for yourself on your own equipment.

Like gravity, you can let go of something yourself and it will fall towards the earth. That's you doing your own experiment to prove something to yourself.

Asking me for credible sources to prove added material elements in front of a sensor fractionally degrades the quality of light getting through is about as inept as asking me for "credible sources" to prove gravity.

Whether you like it or not the X-E1 is fractionally sharper than the X-E2 on account of the extra material elements in front of the X-E2's photosites that the X-E1 does not have.

Click to expand...

You continue to dodge the issue you presented. Please prove there is any extra material elements on the X-E2 vs the X-E1, then we can discuss the benefit, or not of any extra materials.

Sal

Click to expand...

There is no "issue".

When you place extra multiple layers of material in front of the photosites it degrades the quality of light getting to the photosites. This is not me "claiming" this, it is just a simple law of physics.

Click to expand...

BillyInya said:

I have suggested now twice for you to do your own very simple and easy experiment so you can see this for yourself. Try putting six of seven filters in front of your lens and see the difference between an image taken and one without filters. There will be a difference which should be easy to spot, harder to spot with only one or two filters but there will be a difference.

It's no big deal, unless you are really pixel peeping, the difference will be unnoticeable, but there is a difference. Don't get angry that your X-E2 is not as sharp as the X-E1. As you've mentioned previously your X-E2 is superbly sharp for you and this is what its all about.

Click to expand...

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

vratnik said:

It's been over a year since I own this beast inside a beauty - mirrorless CSC Fujifilm X-E1. Now that X-E2 is out, my loyalty to the first model is surprisingly unaltered. This must be some sort of addiction. I'm just perfectly happy with X-E1 and feel no need to upgrade.
Fujifilm's Kaizen strategy keeps competitors crucified to the back seat of the last car of the train to the future. They might have even disconnected that last car.
Shooting with the X-E1 is entirely new experience, every day. You get portability, comfort and appreciation of that posh style. You are a new kind of person.
What fuels this love story? The designers' craft? The constant improvement of firmware? That insane image quality? Is it just my fetish?
I don't know.
I don't care.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you.

The X-E1 is sharper than the X-E2 to start with, due to the X-E2 having two extra layers of elements in front of the photosites that the X-E1 doesn't have. I know me saying this will earn the ire of some but let them argue with the laws of physics on that one.

Click to expand...

Please post any credible proof for that statement, perhaps a comparison of sharpness.

Sal

Click to expand...

Better than that you can do your own experiment and see this for yourself on your own equipment. There is no better proof.

Take a pic and then take another pic with, say, a half dozen clear panes of glass in front of the lens. Now examine the difference between the two images. There will be a difference and that difference can be divided up between the number of panes thus giving a differential value per pane.

With a single pane it will be near impossible to spot the difference but there will be one.

Click to expand...

Again, please provide credible sources for that theory. I have tested the X-E2 extensively, sharpness is superb.

Sal

Click to expand...

Again, like I have explained to you very clearly you can do this and prove this for yourself on your own equipment.

Like gravity, you can let go of something yourself and it will fall towards the earth. That's you doing your own experiment to prove something to yourself.

Asking me for credible sources to prove added material elements in front of a sensor fractionally degrades the quality of light getting through is about as inept as asking me for "credible sources" to prove gravity.

Whether you like it or not the X-E1 is fractionally sharper than the X-E2 on account of the extra material elements in front of the X-E2's photosites that the X-E1 does not have.

Click to expand...

You continue to dodge the issue you presented. Please prove there is any extra material elements on the X-E2 vs the X-E1, then we can discuss the benefit, or not of any extra materials.

Sal

Click to expand...

There is no "issue".

When you place extra multiple layers of material in front of the photosites it degrades the quality of light getting to the photosites. This is not me "claiming" this, it is just a simple law of physics.

Click to expand...

You are claiming that there are multiple layers of image degrading material on the X-E2's sensor. Simply provide any credible proof other than you imagination. No one is going to test an imaginary theory. It's up to you to support your own statements.

Sal Baker said:

I have suggested now twice for you to do your own very simple and easy experiment so you can see this for yourself. Try putting six of seven filters in front of your lens and see the difference between an image taken and one without filters. There will be a difference which should be easy to spot, harder to spot with only one or two filters but there will be a difference.

It's no big deal, unless you are really pixel peeping, the difference will be unnoticeable, but there is a difference. Don't get angry that your X-E2 is not as sharp as the X-E1. As you've mentioned previously your X-E2 is superbly sharp for you and this is what its all about.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

vratnik said:

It's been over a year since I own this beast inside a beauty - mirrorless CSC Fujifilm X-E1. Now that X-E2 is out, my loyalty to the first model is surprisingly unaltered. This must be some sort of addiction. I'm just perfectly happy with X-E1 and feel no need to upgrade.
Fujifilm's Kaizen strategy keeps competitors crucified to the back seat of the last car of the train to the future. They might have even disconnected that last car.
Shooting with the X-E1 is entirely new experience, every day. You get portability, comfort and appreciation of that posh style. You are a new kind of person.
What fuels this love story? The designers' craft? The constant improvement of firmware? That insane image quality? Is it just my fetish?
I don't know.
I don't care.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you.

The X-E1 is sharper than the X-E2 to start with, due to the X-E2 having two extra layers of elements in front of the photosites that the X-E1 doesn't have. I know me saying this will earn the ire of some but let them argue with the laws of physics on that one.

Click to expand...

Please post any credible proof for that statement, perhaps a comparison of sharpness.

Sal

Click to expand...

Better than that you can do your own experiment and see this for yourself on your own equipment. There is no better proof.

Take a pic and then take another pic with, say, a half dozen clear panes of glass in front of the lens. Now examine the difference between the two images. There will be a difference and that difference can be divided up between the number of panes thus giving a differential value per pane.

With a single pane it will be near impossible to spot the difference but there will be one.

Click to expand...

Again, please provide credible sources for that theory. I have tested the X-E2 extensively, sharpness is superb.

Sal

Click to expand...

Again, like I have explained to you very clearly you can do this and prove this for yourself on your own equipment.

Like gravity, you can let go of something yourself and it will fall towards the earth. That's you doing your own experiment to prove something to yourself.

Asking me for credible sources to prove added material elements in front of a sensor fractionally degrades the quality of light getting through is about as inept as asking me for "credible sources" to prove gravity.

Whether you like it or not the X-E1 is fractionally sharper than the X-E2 on account of the extra material elements in front of the X-E2's photosites that the X-E1 does not have.

Click to expand...

You continue to dodge the issue you presented. Please prove there is any extra material elements on the X-E2 vs the X-E1, then we can discuss the benefit, or not of any extra materials.

Sal

Click to expand...

There is no "issue".

When you place extra multiple layers of material in front of the photosites it degrades the quality of light getting to the photosites. This is not me "claiming" this, it is just a simple law of physics.

Click to expand...

You are claiming that there are multiple layers of image degrading material on the X-E2's sensor. Simply provide any credible proof other than you imagination. No one is going to test an imaginary theory. It's up to you to support your own statements.

BillyInya said:

I have suggested now twice for you to do your own very simple and easy experiment so you can see this for yourself. Try putting six of seven filters in front of your lens and see the difference between an image taken and one without filters. There will be a difference which should be easy to spot, harder to spot with only one or two filters but there will be a difference.

It's no big deal, unless you are really pixel peeping, the difference will be unnoticeable, but there is a difference. Don't get angry that your X-E2 is not as sharp as the X-E1. As you've mentioned previously your X-E2 is superbly sharp for you and this is what its all about.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ANY extra layer of material/elements in front of the photosites reduces the quality of light to that photosite.This is just fact, I'm sorry.

Click to expand...

BillyInya said:

Now, either you genuinely don't understand this (which is why I suggested to you on three occasions to conduct your own simple experiment which will prove it to you) or you are purposely being unnecessarily argumentativ

Click to expand...

BillyInya said:

I've been as much help to you as I can, the rest is up to you.

Click to expand...

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

Sal Baker said:

BillyInya said:

vratnik said:

It's been over a year since I own this beast inside a beauty - mirrorless CSC Fujifilm X-E1. Now that X-E2 is out, my loyalty to the first model is surprisingly unaltered. This must be some sort of addiction. I'm just perfectly happy with X-E1 and feel no need to upgrade.
Fujifilm's Kaizen strategy keeps competitors crucified to the back seat of the last car of the train to the future. They might have even disconnected that last car.
Shooting with the X-E1 is entirely new experience, every day. You get portability, comfort and appreciation of that posh style. You are a new kind of person.
What fuels this love story? The designers' craft? The constant improvement of firmware? That insane image quality? Is it just my fetish?
I don't know.
I don't care.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you.

The X-E1 is sharper than the X-E2 to start with, due to the X-E2 having two extra layers of elements in front of the photosites that the X-E1 doesn't have. I know me saying this will earn the ire of some but let them argue with the laws of physics on that one.

Click to expand...

Please post any credible proof for that statement, perhaps a comparison of sharpness.

Sal

Click to expand...

Better than that you can do your own experiment and see this for yourself on your own equipment. There is no better proof.

Take a pic and then take another pic with, say, a half dozen clear panes of glass in front of the lens. Now examine the difference between the two images. There will be a difference and that difference can be divided up between the number of panes thus giving a differential value per pane.

With a single pane it will be near impossible to spot the difference but there will be one.

Click to expand...

Again, please provide credible sources for that theory. I have tested the X-E2 extensively, sharpness is superb.

Sal

Click to expand...

Again, like I have explained to you very clearly you can do this and prove this for yourself on your own equipment.

Like gravity, you can let go of something yourself and it will fall towards the earth. That's you doing your own experiment to prove something to yourself.

Asking me for credible sources to prove added material elements in front of a sensor fractionally degrades the quality of light getting through is about as inept as asking me for "credible sources" to prove gravity.

Whether you like it or not the X-E1 is fractionally sharper than the X-E2 on account of the extra material elements in front of the X-E2's photosites that the X-E1 does not have.

Click to expand...

You continue to dodge the issue you presented. Please prove there is any extra material elements on the X-E2 vs the X-E1, then we can discuss the benefit, or not of any extra materials.

Sal

Click to expand...

There is no "issue".

When you place extra multiple layers of material in front of the photosites it degrades the quality of light getting to the photosites. This is not me "claiming" this, it is just a simple law of physics.

Click to expand...

You are claiming that there are multiple layers of image degrading material on the X-E2's sensor. Simply provide any credible proof other than you imagination. No one is going to test an imaginary theory. It's up to you to support your own statements.

BillyInya said:

I have suggested now twice for you to do your own very simple and easy experiment so you can see this for yourself. Try putting six of seven filters in front of your lens and see the difference between an image taken and one without filters. There will be a difference which should be easy to spot, harder to spot with only one or two filters but there will be a difference.

It's no big deal, unless you are really pixel peeping, the difference will be unnoticeable, but there is a difference. Don't get angry that your X-E2 is not as sharp as the X-E1. As you've mentioned previously your X-E2 is superbly sharp for you and this is what its all about.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ANY extra layer of material/elements in front of the photosites reduces the quality of light to that photosite.This is just fact, I'm sorry.

Now, either you genuinely don't understand this (which is why I suggested to you on three occasions to conduct your own simple experiment which will prove it to you) or you are purposely being unnecessarily argumentative.

I've been as much help to you as I can, the rest is up to you.

Click to expand...