Fuji better than Nikon or Canon?

twamers · Feb 24, 2015

May be of interest to know that Fuji in the last month offered me (obviously an offer to fuji uk customers) a discounted membership of adobe creative cloud (LR5.7 & Photoshop CC 2014). That's because I registered the purchase of my X-M1 with Fuji.

Whatever the arguments of how good a converter of Fuji RAF files adobe is the manufacturer of the camera is hardly going to make offers to it's customers like this if the software is no good for their files. I mean that would really be shooting themselves in the foot!!

I use LR/Photoshop 2014 for my X-M1 files without any issues at all just as many fuji users do and some professionals. Having said that there is a core of users on dp review who much prefer capture 1 and photo ninja and the mac users delight in Iridient too.

Simply there is no one answer to this - everyone sees things differently - it's a bit like the question 'which is the best lens' !!

Whitesands · Feb 26, 2015

John Szeto said:
Why do the the Fuji X Series APS-c sensors seem to produce much better image quality than their Nikon and Canon counterparts....almost noiseless all the way to iso 3200. Granted, image quality may not be the only reason to buy a camera, but after reviewing countless images of all three with APS-c sensors, Fuji seems to have an edge.

I have to agree here even having owned a Nikon d7100....Canon APSC is not even close in terms of image quality...In isolation it's o.k. But compare side by side the difference is striking.....Having said that a camera like the Canon 70d has some good features...But image quality is noticeably lacking....The Nikons are far better than the canons and much closer to the Fujis but I do agree with you camera like the Fuji X-T1 have an edge even on the stellar Nikons.....

Why is this? Fujis white balance is SPOT on.....Fuji colors are amazing.

Perhaps it also the sensor but the biggest reason is the Fuji lenses....The Fuji 56mm f1.2 set a record for measured image sharpness...Even the Fuji kit lens is probably the best you can get of any system.

arrr · Feb 26, 2015

Whitesands said:
John Szeto said:

Why do the the Fuji X Series APS-c sensors seem to produce much better image quality than their Nikon and Canon counterparts....almost noiseless all the way to iso 3200. Granted, image quality may not be the only reason to buy a camera, but after reviewing countless images of all three with APS-c sensors, Fuji seems to have an edge.

Click to expand...

Is this flame-bait? Well Faststone is currently resizing 1488 images so I'll bite...

Whitesands said:
I have to agree here even having owned a Nikon d7100....Canon APSC is not even close in terms of image quality...In isolation it's o.k. But compare side by side the difference is striking.....Having said that a camera like the Canon 70d has some good features...But image quality is noticeably lacking....The Nikons are far better than the canons and much closer to the Fujis but I do agree with you camera like the Fuji X-T1 have an edge even on the stellar Nikons.....

But not better than the Micro Four Thirds EM1 ? Where are the hard measurements?

Dynamic Range?

Color Depth?

Lowlight ISO?

Resolution? Is 15 still less than 18, 24, 28 and 36?

Whitesands said:
Why is this? Fujis white balance is SPOT on.....Fuji colors are amazing.

But not greens ? They are mushy and lack detail and skin can appear waxy ? This is common discussion in the Fuji forum.

You can get any colors you like with filters from VSCO / Camerabag and similar... they are truly amazing and work with any camera even my iphone and android. There is even an App.

Whitesands said:
Perhaps it also the sensor but the biggest reason is the Fuji lenses....The Fuji 56mm f1.2 set a record for measured image sharpness...Even the Fuji kit lens is probably the best you can get of any system.

No that is the Zeiss Otus 85mm f1.4 . The Fuji 56mm f1.2 is a super nice lens though.

Here are a list of Fuji X System cons... I'd like to know what you think.

1) Flash system not as good as Nikons.

2) Not nearly as many lens choices as Nikon. Nikon has better 3rd party support. Some lenses completely missing.

3) Video is completely unusable. Seriously it is horrid. Really it is very bad.

4) 15mp is a bit low for highend cameras. 24, 28, 36 and now 50mp cameras will resolve more detail, crop tighter and print larger.

5) Short battery life at around 350 shots. Compare to 950.

6) Average high iso performance, just about every camera can put down a good iso 3200 image now.

mistermejia · Feb 26, 2015

arrr said:
Whitesands said:

John Szeto said:

Why do the the Fuji X Series APS-c sensors seem to produce much better image quality than their Nikon and Canon counterparts....almost noiseless all the way to iso 3200. Granted, image quality may not be the only reason to buy a camera, but after reviewing countless images of all three with APS-c sensors, Fuji seems to have an edge.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Is this flame-bait? Well Faststone is currently resizing 1488 images so I'll bite...

arrr said:

I have to agree here even having owned a Nikon d7100....Canon APSC is not even close in terms of image quality...In isolation it's o.k. But compare side by side the difference is striking.....Having said that a camera like the Canon 70d has some good features...But image quality is noticeably lacking....The Nikons are far better than the canons and much closer to the Fujis but I do agree with you camera like the Fuji X-T1 have an edge even on the stellar Nikons.....

Click to expand...

But not better than the Micro Four Thirds EM1 ? Where are the hard measurements?

Dynamic Range?

Color Depth?

Lowlight ISO?

Resolution? Is 15 still less than 18, 24, 28 and 36?

arrr said:

Why is this? Fujis white balance is SPOT on.....Fuji colors are amazing.

Click to expand...

But not greens ? They are mushy and lack detail and skin can appear waxy ? This is common discussion in the Fuji forum.

You can get any colors you like with filters from VSCO / Camerabag and similar... they are truly amazing and work with any camera even my iphone and android. There is even an App.

arrr said:

Perhaps it also the sensor but the biggest reason is the Fuji lenses....The Fuji 56mm f1.2 set a record for measured image sharpness...Even the Fuji kit lens is probably the best you can get of any system.

Click to expand...

No that is the Zeiss Otus 85mm f1.4 . The Fuji 56mm f1.2 is a super nice lens though.

Here are a list of Fuji X System cons... I'd like to know what you think.

1) Flash system not as good as Nikons.

EVERYBODY knows this. But is okay because fuji customers don't buy their cameras for the best flash systems.

arrr said:
2) Not nearly as many lens choices as Nikon. Nikon has better 3rd party support. Some lenses completely missing.

Not as many as nikon, but with plenty top notch lenses as we speak. And there are still more coming out after the new 18-55 2.8.

arrr said:
3) Video is completely unusable. Seriously it is horrid. Really it is very bad.

I shoot video with my XE1, but I'm not talking about PRO video for a business or something like that, just basic stuff. Then again, nikon's video AF and external manual controls suck as well.

arrr said:
4) 15mp is a bit low for highend cameras. 24, 28, 36 and now 50mp cameras will resolve more detail, crop tighter and print larger.

It doesn't sound like you have ever used a Fuji camera with Fuji lenses. They are so sharp and crisp that I see photos with 24MP sensors and the pictures look poor. Then again for me 16 is PLENTY. But you are right, with 24MP you can print way larger. I mean WAY larger.

99% of the people here DON'T print that large. Most only pixle peep

arrr said:
5) Short battery life at around 350 shots. Compare to 950.

I agree. Some day that might get resolved. The suggestions I have been given is to buy a couple of batteries.

arrr said:
6) Average high iso performance, just about every camera can put down a good iso 3200 image now.

Mmmm. There is something different about Fujis. The low light is pretty impressive and I like the way the files behave. Not to mention the color output. The jpegs are FANTASTIC as well. I'm gonna have to say that there is more to an image than just high ISO.

But I'm not arguing there, yes, there are lots of good cameras with good output at 3200.

These are not professional shots, but they are hand held. Not with a fuji prime but with my 18-55 "kit lens":

arrr · Feb 26, 2015

mistermejia said:
Not as many as nikon, but with plenty top notch lenses as we speak. And there are still more coming out after the new 18-55 2.8.

How many good primes can you get for $200 a pop? The Nikon 35mm and 50mm f1.8 are awesome lenses for not a lot of money. You can really slum it and get some outstanding older AF/AFD lenses for a song. Example 85mm f1.8 and the 80-200mm F2.8 push pull can both be had for about $300 used. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina also make some outstanding value priced lenses. You're not going to get any of that with Fuji. I had a Sigma 150mm F2.8 macro that was stupid sharp. I keep telling myself I'm going to buy another.

mistermejia said:
mistermejia said:

3) Video is completely unusable. Seriously it is horrid. Really it is very bad.

Click to expand...

I shoot video with my XE1, but I'm not talking about PRO video for a business or something like that, just basic stuff. Then again, nikon's video AF and external manual controls suck as well.

Video AF sucks period for professional stuff. I don't believe there is a single AF system out there that can match the smoothness and accuracy of someone pulling focus manually. You can't change aperture when recording unless your are using a full manual or cine lens. You should probably be using a manual lens anyway.

Fuji video quality is what I was talking about not the controls.

mistermejia said:
mistermejia said:

4) 15mp is a bit low for highend cameras. 24, 28, 36 and now 50mp cameras will resolve more detail, crop tighter and print larger.

Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like you have ever used a Fuji camera with Fuji lenses. They are so sharp and crisp that I see photos with 24MP sensors and the pictures look poor. Then again for me 16 is PLENTY. But you are right, with 24MP you can print way larger. I mean WAY larger.

99% of the people here DON'T print that large. Most only pixle peep

I rarely print but the people I make my images for always do. There is a difference in detail after the crop between 16mp and 24mp. I see it everytime I work files from my D7000, D3200 and D610.

mistermejia said:
mistermejia said:

5) Short battery life at around 350 shots. Compare to 950.

Click to expand...

I agree. Some day that might get resolved. The suggestions I have been given is to buy a couple of batteries.

mistermejia said:

6) Average high iso performance, just about every camera can put down a good iso 3200 image now.

Click to expand...

Mmmm. There is something different about Fujis. The low light is pretty impressive and I like the way the files behave. Not to mention the color output. The jpegs are FANTASTIC as well. I'm gonna have to say that there is more to an image than just high ISO.

I shot a S5 Pro for a couple years... it was a great camera with good color and DR but photoshop and my D300 edged it out.

mistermejia said:
But I'm not arguing there, yes, there are lots of good cameras with good output at 3200.

These are not professional shots, but they are hand held. Not with a fuji prime but with my 18-55 "kit lens":

They look good but honestly they could have come from anything.... Olympus, Panasonic, Pantax and even Canon or Nikon.

If you want to talk "ultimate low-light" it's Nikon FX. Nothing can touch Nikon FX for low-light shooting. The DF and D810 are even better.

ISO 12800 Taken with a shitty $80 50mm f1.8 AF-D prime. >>>>>

ISO 25600

arrr · Feb 26, 2015

Both these images show a "Salty Pixel Problem". Look in the black areas of the photo, you will see white pixels that look like stars. This bugged the stuff out of me with my D3200. AFAIK it was the only Nikon that did this... maybe the D5100 did it too. I don't remember. The D7000 and the D7100 do not do it. Samples I've seen from the D3300 look clean as well.

Anyway, here is a fix if you are using Photoshop.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52711102

mistermejia said:

arrr · Feb 26, 2015

I've mentioned a few times that you can get whatever colors you want in post. Well this is an example of that. A bunch of random filters pulled from a $20 desktop program (windows and mac). Gave me this much color variation. These few filters are just the tip... there are so many filters that I want to delete more than half of them. Also you are free to create and customize filters as you please. Really a great app for the price.

historianx · Feb 27, 2015

Brev00 said:
An interesting topic for the Nikon DX Forum. I think it is more suited to Open Talk since you are seeking to compare three separate brands with no specific mention of Nikon dx. It is unlikely too many folks here also own a Fuji camera to draw a knowledgeable comparison and debate the issue. Maybe a few.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

I have three of them, see gear list. My main complaint is flaky autofocus that's simply not dependable enough for bread-and-butter shooting, esp in tricky lighting situations.

Plus the QC and BQ is inconsistent at best; I bought a Fujinon 35 F1.4 that literally fell apart when I took it out of the box. Its replacement had a loose aperture ring and decentered elements. I returned that and bought the Zeiss 32 F1.8, which is a MUCH better built lens...

That being said, I still love these quirky cameras, esp. the X100S and its terrific mechanical leaf shutter and crazy fast flash sync. If I were to pick one Fuji to keep, that'd be the one.

joebat · Feb 27, 2015

A time ago a pro shooter told me that you don't more then 12 to 15 megan p. Only a pro who lives from his work and only if you makes large prints .....

J.

arrr · Feb 27, 2015

joebat said:
A time ago a pro shooter told me that you don't more then 12 to 15 megan p. Only a pro who lives from his work and only if you makes large prints .....

J.

Sensor output can be measured and graded, stick to numbers and facts. Don't throw around words like best and romanticise about color. Best is a score, it's not a feeling. Color can be duplicated or simulated.

There is nothing wrong with 16mp UNTIL you start saying it's best. Clearly 16mp can't be better than 36mp when you are talking about output. Sure you can make a nice print from 16. I have very nice prints from 6mp, even 20x30 inches but I wouldn't dare say 6mp is going to be as detailed as 16, 36 or 50.

joebat · Feb 27, 2015

I would not make claims which are the best, I only repeat the words that have been said to me by a professional photographer.

Each must decide for themselves what is the "best".

J.

arrr · Feb 27, 2015

joebat said:
I would not make claims which are the best, I only repeat the words that have been said to me by a professional photographer.

Each must decide for themselves what is the "best".

J.

Shooting for pay doesn't necessarily mean you are good or even know a lot about imaging. I'd admit that I am an average photographer but people pay me to photograph them. I'm even worse at video but that doesn't stop me from making a few bucks doing it. I do nothing else and pay taxes, carry insurance so that makes me a professional. :-|

I agree as long as you mean "best" for that particular individual.

Example the Hennessey Venom GT is the best - fastest car in the world but my Nissan Qwest minivan is the most AWESOME-BEST vehicle for my family.

joebat · Feb 27, 2015

arrr said:
joebat said:

I would not make claims which are the best, I only repeat the words that have been said to me by a professional photographer.

Each must decide for themselves what is the "best".

J.

Click to expand...

Shooting for pay doesn't necessarily mean you are good or even know a lot about imaging. I'd admit that I am an average photographer but people pay me to photograph them. I'm even worst at video but that doesn't stop me from making a few bucks doing it. I do nothing else and pay taxes, carry insurance so that makes me a professional. :-|

I agree as long as you mean "best" for that particular individual.

Yes, I mean that but how do you define a good photographer?

Has that nothing to do with the personal taste?

So according to me, nothing guarantees that a photographer that you like, that I will say : wow fantastic pictures.

J.

arrr · Feb 27, 2015

joebat said:
arrr said:

joebat said:

I would not make claims which are the best, I only repeat the words that have been said to me by a professional photographer.

Each must decide for themselves what is the "best".

J.

Click to expand...

Shooting for pay doesn't necessarily mean you are good or even know a lot about imaging. I'd admit that I am an average photographer but people pay me to photograph them. I'm even worst at video but that doesn't stop me from making a few bucks doing it. I do nothing else and pay taxes, carry insurance so that makes me a professional. :-|

I agree as long as you mean "best" for that particular individual.

Click to expand...

Yes, I mean that but how do you define a good photographer?

Has that nothing to do with the personal taste?

So according to me, nothing guarantees that a photographer that you like, that I will say : wow fantastic pictures.

J.

You are correct but that is a different conversation. A photographers' greatness can't be measured. It can be ranked by popularity but that's about it. Cameras on the other hand can be measured very precisely.

ProstheticEmpathy · Feb 27, 2015

They don't, I have both. Fuji overstate their ISO more for one thing, which means the Fuji needs a higher set in camera than the Nikon does for the same exposure. The Fuji is good for an APS-C sensor, but it's not better than the best Sony APS-C sensors currently being used by Nikon. The RAW files are also harder to process, so it's not supported by DxO Optics Pro and Lightroom isn't great at handling them either. I had to shell out for Photoninja just to have an equivalent quality RAW processing software for my Fuji gear.

OceanFroggie · Feb 27, 2015

John Szeto said:
Why do the the Fuji X Series APS-c sensors seem to produce much better image quality than their Nikon and Canon counterparts....almost noiseless all the way to iso 3200. Granted, image quality may not be the only reason to buy a camera, but after reviewing countless images of all three with APS-c sensors, Fuji seems to have an edge.

As a user of Nikon gear since 1981 I would agree with you.

Easy Rider · Feb 27, 2015

Terrible noise. My D5300 can make as good or better than that. No offense, just saying.

Stacey_K · Feb 27, 2015

szhorvat said:
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.

Seriously -think- about what you just wrote. If you want to take processing out of the equation, compare OOC jpegs not processed RAW files. You do understand you -must- process a RAW file to even be able to view it and various RAW converters will end up with a different looking image (for better or worse) from the same file.

You are not taking processing differences out of the equation using ACR, again think about why when a new camera comes out do they have to update ACR to process the file? And why many times an ACR update will cause it to produce better results from the same RAW files the last version "supported" as they fine tune the processing. I hope you notice the pattern here, the word "processing"..

If you seriously want to compare cameras, you don't process them all in the same 3rd party converter using defaults, as the converter you pick either a) works better with one manufacturers files than another or b) the default settings work better with one type of file than another.

What you need to do is compare the best results you can get using whatever software works best for each camera (even if it is the in camera processing). And from everything I have read and personally seen, ACR is still a work in process dealing with xtrans sensor files.

Stacey_K · Feb 27, 2015

arrr said:
Stacey_K said:

arrr said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

arrr · Feb 27, 2015

Stacey_K said:
arrr said:

Stacey_K said:

arrr said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

--
Stacey

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I guess that is where we differ. I'm more concerned about image quality than "banging out 1400 images in 2 days". And seriously, what are you shooting 1400 images of in 2 days that even requires shooting RAW?

--
Stacey

RAW is for White Dresses and Black Tuxedos. I know, everyone is a wedding photographer.

2 Photographers / 4 Cameras - Covering 12+ hours at a Wedding. ~1400 images is what we give to the client. It sounds like a lot but it really isn't. It roughly equals 350 images per segment... Prewedding (bride and groom), Ceremony, Formals and Reception. Some parts get more pictures than the others etc...

Banging them out is culling, color/exposure correction and cropping. The rest of the photoshopping happens per image as needed and I look at each image, that's what I am dong now @ 12:30 am.

I like IQ too but I can't spend 1 hour on a single image to get it. Well unless it's a portrait.

Fuji better than Nikon or Canon?

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Attachments

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Attachments

historianx

Guest

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts