The Fuji X-A1 does not have an X-Trans sensor like the X-T1, X-E1 and X-E2 so I don't know how relevant this is to this discussion.
Regards
Paul
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Regards
Paul
toomanycanons
Veteran Member
Same sensor, different array (X vs Bayer). That doesn't affect the "noise" of the sensor.
Then you probably purchased the wrong Fuji.
The X trans sensor is the one being discussed here, and it most certainly does have an advantage.
I don't think that is true. I compared the X-A1 and the X-M1 using the DPReview Studio Scene Comparison Tool. At ISO 6400, for instance, the X-M1 which has an X-Trans sensor clearly has less noise.
The DPReview indicates that the two cameras are the same except for the sensor, it is not the same sensor ity seems.
Regards
Paul
Fuji cameras are very pretty. I really like the look of the XT1/X1 Pro and wish I had a 56 f1.2 for Nikon DX mount but Fuji is not "all that", at least not yet. I prefer the rendering of noise/fine detail from my Nikon cameras. Especially from images run through ACR.
Read my post in this thread to see why comparing those samples is truly meaningless.
Noise depends on the sensor itself. The rest of the noise differences are due to processing. X-Trans forces a different sort of processing that you can think of as not being able to fully turn off noise reduction. Download the RAW samples you're looking at and process them with default ACR settings, without turning off colour noise reduction for Bayer sensors, then compare again.
Last edited:
This is another case of people assuming adobe is the last word in RAW processing. Go read the Fuji forums and discover how poorly ACR renders details in xtrans files. And why use default setting, you -really- believe the default settings of ACR on different RAW files is some sort of equalizer??
Then again if your goal is to cripple the fuji camera so your purchase choice looks better, you picked the correct way to do it.
I can say the OOC files from my little fuji are really clean at iso 3200 and show no signs of badly smearing details.
You are correct, if you insist on using ACR (and ignore it isn't the best RAW converter for every file type), you are better off not using a Fuji right now. I personally don't think ACR is that good for Nikon files either.
I do, it's what I am most efficient with. I can't imagine banging out 1400 images in 2 days using any other software.
toomanycanons
Veteran Member
As a Lightroom 5.6 user for all my Nikon DSLR images (hundreds a week), I've also been using LR5.6 for my X-A1 jpegs and raws. I'd never used the Raw Convertor bundled with the Fuji ("powered by Silkypix!") until just a few minutes ago.
I took three interior X-A1 raws into "Silkypix" (which I've heard pros and cons about---some say it's not so good and slow to boot, others swear it's the only convertor for their Fuji raws (both X Trans and Bayer). I just did some minor adjusting then exported them as jpegs.
I took those jpegs into LR5.6 and did the same tweaking on them as I did on the same Fuji raws I'd imported and exported as jpegs only using LR from start to finish. So, tweaked raws>jpegs from Silkypix>exported from LR5.6 vs raws>jpegs>exported from LR5.6.
The problem in outlining any one person's workflow will always result in cries of "faulty methodology!!" but the results were: The Lightroom only conversion was superior in more ways than one. Sharpness/color/yes noise...I was surprised the ones that originated in Silkypix looked so bad in comparison.
I actually wanted the Silkypix ones to look better, if only a bit, just to give me more options. But I'm convinced now that using LR only is the way to go. YMMV.
It find the tone of this post rather off-putting. It also misses the point entirely. The "raw" samples of dpreview are supposed to be a comparison which take processing differences out of the equation. That's why they all use ACR.
Stephan Def
Forum Enthusiast
Does Fujifilm officially certify third party software for raw developement? Does fujifilm put their official stamp of approval on them certifying that a 3rd party Raw processing software is good enough to meet their quality standards for image rendering tightly coupled to their hardware?
Does Nikon do it? Does Canon do it?
Araldite
Leading Member
Are we really losing our way with all this post processing, surely the aim of a camera whatever make it is is to get the best picture we can without all this post processing. Fuji as some reports have suggested does not need RAW. One report suggested that Fuji JPEG was good enough. I enjoy my photography, I like the results I get with my two X-E2's and surely this is what photography to the majority of people is all about. Look at some of the winners of the challenges and the equipment they use. I rest my case.
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORD, NO PICTURE IS WORTH NOTHING NO EVEN A ***
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORD, NO PICTURE IS WORTH NOTHING NO EVEN A ***
How can you take advantage of 13 stops of dynamic range without post processing? There are a dozen other perimeters you can tweak without much effort to get your specific desired output.
Regarding challenges, I've never put much weight in them. To be quite honest, A LOT of photography subjects do not interest me. Landscapes and wildlife are the two I care about least... literally, I have zero time for them.
I suppose if I was worried about what everyone else was shooting I would own a 5D MKII or D810. Those guys seem to be winning all the competitions.
Ok, here is another approach, go and read the reviews of these fuji cameras by the skilled staff from DPR who know more about this sort of thing than you, I, or the next guy. They seem to be very impressed.
The Fuji cameras are remarkably good in certain scenarios, and ironically, if you aren't interested in landscapes or wildlife then they probably wouldn't be a bad option for you.
Sorry, you've got me wrong. I did not mean to imply that Fuji cameras are terrible or their output isn't any good (unless we are talking about video). To be honest, I nearly purchase the XT1 and 56mm f1.2 instead of my D610. Earlier this month I put an X-M1 16-50mm kit in my shopping cart... there is also an Panasonic GX7 in there as well. I'm not sure what I'll end up with. Maybe the gx7 for better video... it has really good video.
Regarding Fuji cameras... The output is salable. F-Sunny and others seem to be getting along just fine photographing people. It's good BUT is X-Trans clearly better than the Sony/Toshiba sensors in Nikons. No. Head over to dxomark for more info.
Are they bad cameras? NO. I don't believe you can purchase a bad camera anymore.
Last edited:
Agreed.
I have been very tempted by the fuji cameras, but Nikon still does it by a whisker for me, and because I like landscapes and wildlife Nikon has more to offer me at the moment.
Of all the manufacturers though, I think Fuji are making very steady progress, and I would expect some very interesting things from them in the future. The lenses they are producing are outstanding, and as their cameras become more capable I think they will be a very serious player in the future.
Steve Bingham
Veteran Member
A photographer without PP skills is like a photographer of yesteryear without a darkroom. Years ago, many famous professionals simply hired a very talented printer. I can think of at least 6.
Did the average amateur have a darkroom? Probably not, and his images often reflected that.
Did the average amateur have a darkroom? Probably not, and his images often reflected that.
Steve Bingham
Veteran Member
My first serious digital camera was a Fuji S2 . . . a Fuji sensor in a Nikon body. I also pointed out (to Thomas Knoll) that the native Fuji raw converter did a better job than his ACR. Fuji had a different sensor way back then - and claimed their 6 mp sensor was really a 12 mp sensor. It wasn't, but the Fuji raw converter gave resolution much higher than a normal 6 mp sensor. (like around 8 mp)
Fuji has always gone their own way with sensors. Innovators for sure. Your point is well taken.
Fuji has always gone their own way with sensors. Innovators for sure. Your point is well taken.
ArtAlt
Veteran Member
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum