Is X-trans sensor adequate for landscapes?

spencerda said:

Tirpitz666 wrote:

I tend to be in the camp that "X-landscapes" are very good up to 50% magnification (which is usually more than enough for 90% of viewing/printing needs IMHO), and that higher than that a certain softness of distant details is clearly apparent, no matter what RAW converter one can use (of course with ACR/LR the issue is exacerbated).

Would you consider prints on 13 x 19 sheets, with close inspection, eyes only within that 50% range? New XT-1 owner. Coming from a Canon 40D and G10. my view is if detail is at least equal to those two camera for landscapes, I'm happy. AS I never felt gee 10-14mp was not enough.

If I did my part and nailed everything from the tech side to the composition.

Certainly a 24-36 MP camera all things being equal will produce better landscape prints, but all things are seldom equal!

Besides how far does one want to go with this? Medium and large format digital have 50-100MP

Clearly better than any Sony!

Dave

Click to expand...

papillon_65 said:

georgehudetz said:

papillon_65 said:

...unless you accept it as an 8mp camera IMHO.

Click to expand...

LOL, one of the most absurd things I've read here in quite some time.

Click to expand...

So what you're actually saying is that all those people who use high resolution cameras and medium and large formats are wasting their time and should just use an X-T1 instead? I'm thinking that's pretty absurd myself.

Click to expand...

georgehudetz said:

papillon_65 said:

georgehudetz said:

papillon_65 said:

...unless you accept it as an 8mp camera IMHO.

Click to expand...

LOL, one of the most absurd things I've read here in quite some time.

Click to expand...

So what you're actually saying is that all those people who use high resolution cameras and medium and large formats are wasting their time and should just use an X-T1 instead? I'm thinking that's pretty absurd myself.

Click to expand...

I never said that. I simply refuted your assertion that X-cams are best thought of as 8 MP cameras when applied to Landscape. It's an absurd position that cannot be rationally defended.

Click to expand...

georgehudetz said:

I agree with you, however, that system choice is very personal and I can certainly see why you prefer a Merrill to a Fuji for landscape. And a pro will have different requirements from an amateur as well. 16 Mpix will not be enough for everyone. But comparing an X-Pro1 to a 8 Mpix camera? Come on. Get real.

Click to expand...

Unseelie said:

Is this for real guys?

Click to expand...

Colin46 said:

Unseelie said:

Hi there,

I'm currently a Canon DSLR user, mainly photographing mountaineering/hiking. I got fed up with the bulk of the 17-40L and the DSLR itself and started to look for a smaller solution.

I narrowed down my research to Sony A6000 with the crap kitlens and Fuji X-E2 with firmware 2.00.

My question goes here:

I read all the praising reviews of the Fuji X-trans sensor, and how amazing the kitlens is. But then I stumbled across this page:

http://www.michalography.com/blog/2...e2-a-landscape-photographers-perspective.html

He states that Fuji cannot handle small details and the pictures are "painting like". His pictures in his post are indeed intolerably smudged.

Then I started to verify if other sources are the same, and indeed here are sample photoes with the X-E1, and similarly sumdged and painting like:

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/783-fuji1855f284?start=2

Then the DPreview photo gallery is similarly bad with the landscapes:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-e2/16

Is this for real guys? I mean the Sony kitlens is worst of the worst and still sharper and has more detail than the Fuji? Can this problem somehow countered?

Click to expand...

I took the same shot yesterday with my D800 and 24 f1.4 in 1.5x crop mode (16mpixel) and compared it to the same shot with my friends X-t1 and 23 f1.4 prime (35 equivalent) so we efffectively had the same field of view.

We stopped both lenses down to F10 which is where i normally shoot landscapes and looking at 20x16 prints there is no difference at all between levels of detail so to answer your question yes the X-T1 is very capable of taking landscape shots.

Click to expand...

Daniel Lauring said:

Colin46 said:

Unseelie said:

Hi there,

I'm currently a Canon DSLR user, mainly photographing mountaineering/hiking. I got fed up with the bulk of the 17-40L and the DSLR itself and started to look for a smaller solution.

I narrowed down my research to Sony A6000 with the crap kitlens and Fuji X-E2 with firmware 2.00.

My question goes here:

I read all the praising reviews of the Fuji X-trans sensor, and how amazing the kitlens is. But then I stumbled across this page:

http://www.michalography.com/blog/2...e2-a-landscape-photographers-perspective.html

He states that Fuji cannot handle small details and the pictures are "painting like". His pictures in his post are indeed intolerably smudged.

Then I started to verify if other sources are the same, and indeed here are sample photoes with the X-E1, and similarly sumdged and painting like:

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/783-fuji1855f284?start=2

Then the DPreview photo gallery is similarly bad with the landscapes:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-e2/16

Is this for real guys? I mean the Sony kitlens is worst of the worst and still sharper and has more detail than the Fuji? Can this problem somehow countered?

Click to expand...

I took the same shot yesterday with my D800 and 24 f1.4 in 1.5x crop mode (16mpixel) and compared it to the same shot with my friends X-t1 and 23 f1.4 prime (35 equivalent) so we efffectively had the same field of view.

We stopped both lenses down to F10 which is where i normally shoot landscapes and looking at 20x16 prints there is no difference at all between levels of detail so to answer your question yes the X-T1 is very capable of taking landscape shots.

Click to expand...

If you stopped the X-T1 down to F10 you actually did it a disservice because you entered into the zone where diffraction starts degrading the image (above F8 for APSC.) F10 is where it just starts becoming a factor for FF.

Click to expand...

Colin46 said:

Colin46 said:

If you stopped the X-T1 down to F10 you actually did it a disservice because you entered into the zone where diffraction starts degrading the image (above F8 for APSC.) F10 is where it just starts becoming a factor for FF.

Click to expand...

Yes, i know but it takes a lot bigger print than 20x16 before diffraction actually becomes visible so its a non issue really and then its only a slight drop in contrast which is easily fixed in post these days anyway.

I use fast primes like the 23 fuji and the 24 and 35 F1.4 Nikons at F16 for great sunstars without issue.

Click to expand...

papillon_65 said:

georgehudetz said:

papillon_65 said:

georgehudetz said:

papillon_65 said:

...unless you accept it as an 8mp camera IMHO.

Click to expand...

LOL, one of the most absurd things I've read here in quite some time.

Click to expand...

So what you're actually saying is that all those people who use high resolution cameras and medium and large formats are wasting their time and should just use an X-T1 instead? I'm thinking that's pretty absurd myself.

Click to expand...

I never said that. I simply refuted your assertion that X-cams are best thought of as 8 MP cameras when applied to Landscape. It's an absurd position that cannot be rationally defended.

Click to expand...

Of course it can, plenty of people will take that view and do, as I said google around and see how many people see it the way I do, there are plenty.

papillon_65 said:

I agree with you, however, that system choice is very personal and I can certainly see why you prefer a Merrill to a Fuji for landscape. And a pro will have different requirements from an amateur as well. 16 Mpix will not be enough for everyone. But comparing an X-Pro1 to a 8 Mpix camera? Come on. Get real.

Click to expand...

I didn't compare it to an 8mp camera, I said what you see at 50% makes it much better for landscape detail, in effect if you print you certainly won't want to print at 100% or near it. Many cameras are similar in that respect. The shot you showed had clear detail loss and smearing in parts, even though overall it was ok. As I've clearly stated, some will be happy with that, you clearly are, for me it means reduced print and display sizes. I wouldn't display any shot from my X-T1 at 100%. It's all about your own quality criteria and what you're happy with, many landscape photographers wouldn't be (and clearly aren't) happy with the results from the X-trans sensors. I am, up to a point, as I've said. I repeat, nothing I've said is new or even controversial, plenty of people notice the same as me, it doesn't invalidate the camera, it just means that not everyone will be happy with it for certain things.

Click to expand...

Marco Cinnirella said:

papillon_65 said:

georgehudetz said:

papillon_65 said:

georgehudetz said:

papillon_65 said:

...unless you accept it as an 8mp camera IMHO.

Click to expand...

LOL, one of the most absurd things I've read here in quite some time.

Click to expand...

So what you're actually saying is that all those people who use high resolution cameras and medium and large formats are wasting their time and should just use an X-T1 instead? I'm thinking that's pretty absurd myself.

Click to expand...

I never said that. I simply refuted your assertion that X-cams are best thought of as 8 MP cameras when applied to Landscape. It's an absurd position that cannot be rationally defended.

Click to expand...

Of course it can, plenty of people will take that view and do, as I said google around and see how many people see it the way I do, there are plenty.

Marco Cinnirella said:

I agree with you, however, that system choice is very personal and I can certainly see why you prefer a Merrill to a Fuji for landscape. And a pro will have different requirements from an amateur as well. 16 Mpix will not be enough for everyone. But comparing an X-Pro1 to a 8 Mpix camera? Come on. Get real.

Click to expand...

I didn't compare it to an 8mp camera, I said what you see at 50% makes it much better for landscape detail, in effect if you print you certainly won't want to print at 100% or near it. Many cameras are similar in that respect. The shot you showed had clear detail loss and smearing in parts, even though overall it was ok. As I've clearly stated, some will be happy with that, you clearly are, for me it means reduced print and display sizes. I wouldn't display any shot from my X-T1 at 100%. It's all about your own quality criteria and what you're happy with, many landscape photographers wouldn't be (and clearly aren't) happy with the results from the X-trans sensors. I am, up to a point, as I've said. I repeat, nothing I've said is new or even controversial, plenty of people notice the same as me, it doesn't invalidate the camera, it just means that not everyone will be happy with it for certain things.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

papillon_65 said:

georgehudetz said:

papillon_65 said:

georgehudetz said:

papillon_65 said:

...unless you accept it as an 8mp camera IMHO.

Click to expand...

LOL, one of the most absurd things I've read here in quite some time.

Click to expand...

So what you're actually saying is that all those people who use high resolution cameras and medium and large formats are wasting their time and should just use an X-T1 instead? I'm thinking that's pretty absurd myself.

Click to expand...

I never said that. I simply refuted your assertion that X-cams are best thought of as 8 MP cameras when applied to Landscape. It's an absurd position that cannot be rationally defended.

Click to expand...

Of course it can, plenty of people will take that view and do, as I said google around and see how many people see it the way I do, there are plenty.

papillon_65 said:

I agree with you, however, that system choice is very personal and I can certainly see why you prefer a Merrill to a Fuji for landscape. And a pro will have different requirements from an amateur as well. 16 Mpix will not be enough for everyone. But comparing an X-Pro1 to a 8 Mpix camera? Come on. Get real.

Click to expand...

I didn't compare it to an 8mp camera, I said what you see at 50% makes it much better for landscape detail, in effect if you print you certainly won't want to print at 100% or near it. Many cameras are similar in that respect. The shot you showed had clear detail loss and smearing in parts, even though overall it was ok. As I've clearly stated, some will be happy with that, you clearly are, for me it means reduced print and display sizes. I wouldn't display any shot from my X-T1 at 100%. It's all about your own quality criteria and what you're happy with, many landscape photographers wouldn't be (and clearly aren't) happy with the results from the X-trans sensors. I am, up to a point, as I've said. I repeat, nothing I've said is new or even controversial, plenty of people notice the same as me, it doesn't invalidate the camera, it just means that not everyone will be happy with it for certain things.

Click to expand...

georgehudetz said:

Which 16 MP systems do you think offer more detail than an X-trans system? Not trying to be argumentative. Genuinely curious.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

Click to expand...

liquid stereo said:

georgehudetz said:

Which 16 MP systems do you think offer more detail than an X-trans system? Not trying to be argumentative. Genuinely curious.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

Click to expand...

With all due respect this is a bit off topic, no? I thought folks shopped for competitive cameras. Sony A6000 is 24MP and US $600. That, and m43, is what I think people shop.

What some fail to realize is the Fuji X-trans is better at low light and high ISO shooting. That is it's strength. That being said, that was some 3 years ago. Fuji hasn't really updated the sensor while other companies have updated theirs.

Click to expand...

liquid stereo said:

georgehudetz said:

Which 16 MP systems do you think offer more detail than an X-trans system? Not trying to be argumentative. Genuinely curious.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

georgehudetz said:

liquid stereo said:

georgehudetz said:

Which 16 MP systems do you think offer more detail than an X-trans system? Not trying to be argumentative. Genuinely curious.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

Click to expand...

With all due respect this is a bit off topic, no? I thought folks shopped for competitive cameras. Sony A6000 is 24MP and US $600. That, and m43, is what I think people shop.

What some fail to realize is the Fuji X-trans is better at low light and high ISO shooting. That is it's strength. That being said, that was some 3 years ago. Fuji hasn't really updated the sensor while other companies have updated theirs.

Click to expand...

No, it's not off topic. There is an assertion here that X-trans images, as a rule, cannot be viewed at over 50% magnification without revealing IQ problems, and that there are other systems that do not suffer from this. That is independent of pixel count. So I'd like to know what 16 MP systems do not have this problem.

The only reason I harp on this is that it is completely contrary to my experience. I understand that somebody might choose a higher resolution body for landscape work, but, again, that wasn't the observation - the observation was that X-trans can only deliver on half it's promised resolution, and that other systems don't have that problem. So I ask again - which systems are we talking about?

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

Click to expand...

georgehudetz said:

liquid stereo said:

georgehudetz said:

Which 16 MP systems do you think offer more detail than an X-trans system? Not trying to be argumentative. Genuinely curious.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Keit ll said:

This a topic which has been discussed many times before , why is that ? Is it because that it is a real issue ? Despite the protests from Fuji supporters that all any user has to do is buy a new converter ( or a new computer ! ) , it is a very real issue for folk who have used Bayer sensors for years.

It is no good blaming the user , it is down to decision made by Fuji & they have to accept the fact that as a result many potential buyers are holding back from buying their cameras. They may well be content with the fact that they have an image as a niche camera company but if they want to move forward & greatly expand their market share they will either have to change their sensor CFA or produce a RAW converter which matches or betters Adobe.

Other options involve more money or learning a new workflow every time Fuji decides to use a new sensor. The alternatives suggested do not have the ease of use that LR has in my & others considered opinion.

Click to expand...

georgehudetz said:

papillon_65 said:

georgehudetz said:

papillon_65 said:

georgehudetz said:

papillon_65 said:

...unless you accept it as an 8mp camera IMHO.

Click to expand...

LOL, one of the most absurd things I've read here in quite some time.

Click to expand...

So what you're actually saying is that all those people who use high resolution cameras and medium and large formats are wasting their time and should just use an X-T1 instead? I'm thinking that's pretty absurd myself.

Click to expand...

I never said that. I simply refuted your assertion that X-cams are best thought of as 8 MP cameras when applied to Landscape. It's an absurd position that cannot be rationally defended.

Click to expand...

Of course it can, plenty of people will take that view and do, as I said google around and see how many people see it the way I do, there are plenty.

georgehudetz said:

I agree with you, however, that system choice is very personal and I can certainly see why you prefer a Merrill to a Fuji for landscape. And a pro will have different requirements from an amateur as well. 16 Mpix will not be enough for everyone. But comparing an X-Pro1 to a 8 Mpix camera? Come on. Get real.

Click to expand...

I didn't compare it to an 8mp camera, I said what you see at 50% makes it much better for landscape detail, in effect if you print you certainly won't want to print at 100% or near it. Many cameras are similar in that respect. The shot you showed had clear detail loss and smearing in parts, even though overall it was ok. As I've clearly stated, some will be happy with that, you clearly are, for me it means reduced print and display sizes. I wouldn't display any shot from my X-T1 at 100%. It's all about your own quality criteria and what you're happy with, many landscape photographers wouldn't be (and clearly aren't) happy with the results from the X-trans sensors. I am, up to a point, as I've said. I repeat, nothing I've said is new or even controversial, plenty of people notice the same as me, it doesn't invalidate the camera, it just means that not everyone will be happy with it for certain things.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...