low-light performance question about X-E2

Why do we need to convince you of anything? There are plenty of photo examples showing how these cameras do at ISO3200-6400. The only thing to be wary of is how X-E2 renders skin-tones at high ISOs (6400); the noise reduction is a little excessive, but if you shoot RAW its not an issue.

PS. Fujis go higher than 6400, but the quality starts to fall apart.

Seems that Fuji ISO is a little bit cheating with ISO (2/3 stop).

But ISO performance is quite good anyway.

My X-E1 sometimes fail to focus in dark situation but it seems that it's better with new models.

You should compare Fuji ISO 6400 to other cameras at ISO 3200. Fuji ISO is only 1/3 stop overstated at low ISO, but a full stop overstated at high ISO. When viewing raw files in DPR tool, Fuji files will look cleaner than they actually are due to the smoothing/NR that is inherent in Adobe's X-Trans demosaic algorithm. If you properly compare the files, then you will find that Fuji APS-C is no better than other APS-C. This makes sense because the base sensor is the same as many other cameras (like D7000) . If you down-res the A6000 to the same MP as the X-E2, then it is slightly better than Fuji, but there is more to a camera than just sensor performance. Fuji lenses are much better than Sony.

[No message]

Kevin Layer said:

I used the really nice comparison feature on dpreview.com to compare the X-E2 and Sony a6000. I threw in the Canon 5D3 because I own it, to see how the 3 cameras compared. Yes, I'm looking at getting either the X-E2 or a6000.

For me, low-light performance is really important. And AF speed and accuracy.

The X-E2 looks really nice, and has some nice lenses. Question:

The low-light performance of the X-E2 is almost that of the 5D3 and much better than the a6000. That's a little confusing since the max ISO of the X-E2 is 6400 and much higher on the other two cameras. Why is that?

Now, I don't git a darn about ISO above 6400. I rarely go even that high on my 5D3.

Convince me the low-light performance of the X-E2 is better than the a6000.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

According to DPreview staff they have re evaluated the RAW comparison tool to account for Fuji's ISO implementation. However i still dont recommend this tool as the only way to compare.

Me I'm quite satisfied with my X-e2 and its low light performance. I generally think most cameras in this range will perform rather close to each other and it's not the chasm of difference that it can be made out to be.

Saying that after learning about the in camera settings such as the DR mode and how fuji have implemented RAW in camera its worth a look for sure as getting the most out of any tool can more often deliver the actual results you see in your mind.

Although this article is not focussed solely on low light performance it does shed some light on how Fuji approaches ISO Dynamic range and exposure which all will play a part

fujirumors.com/exposing-right/ (add the www prefix)

DP review also have a good bit on the DRmode in the X-E1 or X-E2 review

I use a few apps to develop Raw I find PhotoNinja to be excellent at getting the best balance of low noise and high detail, but many apps can do this. Capture One ver 8 has about the best highlight and shadow retention i have seen yet simply incredible!

Read a bit and if you like the Fuji Handling and system then I think you will be very happy. For me even if the A6000 was better in low light by a bit this would not sway me as again good results come from a combination of things and is never automatic.

Good luck

Roger

djezraj said:

I use a few apps to develop Raw I find PhotoNinja to be excellent at getting the best balance of low noise and high detail, but many apps can do this. Capture One ver 8 has about the best highlight and shadow retention i have seen yet simply incredible!

Click to expand...

I prefer RAW format. Does Lightroom handle the X-E2 RAW files well? I'm pretty wedded to LR now and would not want to switch.

Kevin Layer said:

djezraj said:

I use a few apps to develop Raw I find PhotoNinja to be excellent at getting the best balance of low noise and high detail, but many apps can do this. Capture One ver 8 has about the best highlight and shadow retention i have seen yet simply incredible!

Click to expand...

I prefer RAW format. Does Lightroom handle the X-E2 RAW files well? I'm pretty wedded to LR now and would not want to switch.

Click to expand...

Whether or not it handles the files "well" is very much a matter of personal opinion. There have been hundreds of threads about Adobe's (poor IMO) handling of X-trans files. Some people find it perfectly acceptable, but I think the general consensus of forum members is that other raw converters do a much better job with Fuji raw.

MrFresno said:

Whether or not it handles the files "well" is very much a matter of personal opinion. There have been hundreds of threads about Adobe's (poor IMO) handling of X-trans files. Some people find it perfectly acceptable, but I think the general consensus of forum members is that other raw converters do a much better job with Fuji raw.

Click to expand...

Well, thanks for the answer. It led me to an interested trip through the various forums.

It would seem that LR is subpar in handling of X-Trans files. This has definitely thrown a monkey wrench into the works for me. I was pretty much all set to make the jump into Fuji land.

It looks like LR 6 is coming out next month, so I think I'll wait and see if it improves things at all. It will also give me time to see if the Samsung NX500 is a player, and if Fuji releases an X-E3.

Thanks, all.

Kevin Layer said:

djezraj said:

I use a few apps to develop Raw I find PhotoNinja to be excellent at getting the best balance of low noise and high detail, but many apps can do this. Capture One ver 8 has about the best highlight and shadow retention i have seen yet simply incredible!

Click to expand...

I prefer RAW format. Does Lightroom handle the X-E2 RAW files well? I'm pretty wedded to LR now and would not want to switch.

Click to expand...

Hi Kevin. Im not sure I would consider the difference between converters as a pro/con for the main advantages of Fuji. While I did not mention Lightroom I have seen outstanding work done with it and Fuji. So I would not rule out using LR with a potential Fuji Camera in your future.

Im not disagreeing with the tone of the forums you mentioned but they only illustrate one aspect of a very specific attribute of the Raw image. In my opinion this attribute does not interfere with or dictate good photography. In short LR works fine but others may be able to get finer detail yet at 100% which is likely not your final crop.

Don't take this the wrong way your method is your own however I do caution some to not become to married to your software vs your vision. Its not wrong to like or even love Lightroom at all but I would not base my camera choice on Lightroom over the actual feel and operation of the camera and system.

I don't think anyone here bought their Fuji for AF speed or RAW file compliance and compatibility. I speak for myself as my X-E2 did not even work with Apple Raw decode and Aperture when I got the camera. I knew it would eventually and I was correct. But still I was prepared to use a workaround and in doing so discovered some amazing apps. Interestingly enough you can for example use Photoninja within both Aperture and Lightroom as an editor or decode the Raw with one app then import into Lightroom.

You could easily choose sony or Olympus etc no problem there but they are not the same photographic connection as Fuji in my opinion (some may differ of course)

I recommend to download some Fuji Raw and see if they are good enough. Then Go hold all of these cameras and see which one you connect to best. If you look at the big picture and consider the whole experience this might give you some clarity and perspective.

This is just my 2 cents FWIW

Cheers

Roger

Thanks. Yeah, I think downloading some RAW X-Trans files would be a good idea.

OK, I downloaded some RAW and jpg samples from photographyblog.com (search for "fuji x e2 raw samples" and it's the first link).

I must say, in LR 5.7.1 (Mac) I was really disappointed in the rendering of the unprocessed RAW images, in comparison to their jpg counterparts.

For example, fujifilm_x_e2_12.raf vs fujifilm_x_e2_25.jpg. The RAW render in LR looks blurry and lackluster compared to the jpg. A single adjustment to the RAW, Clarity +49, made it look much better than before and even better than the jpg. auto WB made it look even better (than both).

There are 3 other images that have a RAW and jpg counterparts, and I felt all of them needed a boost on Clarity.

I never have to do this with my Canon (5D3) RAW files. What's the explanation?

Thanks.

Kevin Layer said:

OK, I downloaded some RAW and jpg samples from photographyblog.com (search for "fuji x e2 raw samples" and it's the first link).

I must say, in LR 5.7.1 (Mac) I was really disappointed in the rendering of the unprocessed RAW images, in comparison to their jpg counterparts.

For example, fujifilm_x_e2_12.raf vs fujifilm_x_e2_25.jpg. The RAW render in LR looks blurry and lackluster compared to the jpg. A single adjustment to the RAW, Clarity +49, made it look much better than before and even better than the jpg. auto WB made it look even better (than both).

There are 3 other images that have a RAW and jpg counterparts, and I felt all of them needed a boost on Clarity.

I never have to do this with my Canon (5D3) RAW files. What's the explanation?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Adobe doesn't handle X-Trans files very well compared to bayer files. It's either something you get used to, or use another converter, or use another camera.

Go rent/borrow get your hands on it yourself. Only you know what's right for you.

Try Irident or Capture One.

darngooddesign said:

Try Irident or Capture One.

Click to expand...

Would those be used to convert from .raf to .dng then use LR for adjustments, or would I have to do all adjustments in them? I really hope it's the former.

Randy Benter said:

If you properly compare the files, then you will find that Fuji APS-C is no better than other APS-C.

Click to expand...

Disagreed. The X-Trans RAW's are much-much more devoid of color(!) noise even if you compare ISO3200 to 6400 shots and with all kinds of demosaicing algorithms (C1, Iridient, Photo Ninja and all the rest).

Note: this only applies to color noise. Luminance noise is far harder to compare.

Kevin Layer said:

darngooddesign said:

Try Irident or Capture One.

Click to expand...

Would those be used to convert from .raf to .dng then use LR for adjustments, or would I have to do all adjustments in them? I really hope it's the former.

Click to expand...

Hi Keven. Yes most converters will allow you to export back to Lightroom although DNG is not necessary you can easily use a high quality TIFF.

Generally speaking a RAW file such as Canon's is pre processed before arriving in LR, this means Canon has a set of embedded data that is decoded by ACR to tell it what tone curve was used and basic exposure. So in the case of Fuji Adobe may not fully support .RAF including DR modes as automatically (depending on the version) so it just requires more tweaking compared to other converters. So some Files may look more flat than others upon import. Your results may vary.

However Humor me for a moment. If you are on mac and looking for a quick way to get the most detail and quick results out of your converted Fuji files, Give Photo Ninja a try. This app has a very cool way of automatically adjusting levels and curves with sliders that are linked (can also be un-linked) So one move with a slider will move them all to get the exposure balance you want.

Other highlights include

- Good highlight retention and shadow recovery

- Great Color control an manipulation

- great Noise reduction with an anti Fringing tool

X-Trans support is current and has great detail even in the shadows. Lens corrections including CA is auto corrected as well.

PN will work also within LR and an external editor, Once the road trip is made you can then use LR for local adjustments or other processing.

They have a trial version, however watch the tutorials first as to get the gist of the controls.

I have a feeling you might like this program, call it a hunch.

Cheers

Roger

www.picturecode.com

Kevin Layer said:

darngooddesign said:

Try Irident or Capture One.

Click to expand...

Would those be used to convert from .raf to .dng then use LR for adjustments, or would I have to do all adjustments in them? I really hope it's the former.

Click to expand...

I use Photo Ninja as external editor within LR. Works perfectly for me.

djezraj said:

Give Photo Ninja a try.

Click to expand...

djezraj said:

X-Trans support is current and has great detail even in the shadows. Lens corrections including CA is auto corrected as well.

Click to expand...

Does Photo Ninja automatically correct lens distortion in the latest version? The last version of PN I used ignored the lens correction data in the raw file and this was one of the main reasons I stopped using PN.