Almost identical results with x-pro1 as with x-pro3. In-camera JPG Profiles overrated?

Hi!

I have had the X-Pro 1 for 7 years. Now I have ordered the X-Pro 3 and I have somewhat mixed feelings.

It took me a long time to understand the concept of the X-Pro series. After a long excursion into analog photography, I now understand what Fuji wanted to achieve with this series. Shooting with the OVF feels very analog. I turn off the image review and only take a look at the results at home on the PC.
This now leads me from my X-Pro 1 to X-Pro 3...

Capture 1 provides all the curves for Fuji cameras. I just set the metadata of the images from camera type X-Pro 1 to X-Pro 3. After that all curves like Classic Chrome, Acros etc. are also available for the X-Pro 1 images. The pictures do not look 100% the same, but it comes very close. I think in a blind test you would not be able to distinguish the images.

When importing into Capture 1, I apply my preset right away.
That means it actually makes all the in Camera JPG profiles useless.

When I look at it that way, I don't really see any significant advantage that speaks for the X-Pro 3 over the X-Pro 1.

How do you see it? I would be interested to hear what you think about it.

Here are 2 examples. Not the best pictures, but I will try to make more tomorrow.

Thanks!

Thomas


X-Pro3


X-Pro1

You know this is heresy? 99.9% of users see no benefit from 99.9% of upgrades. We just like shopping and need construct a reason for it.

I have an A2 print taken on an X-E1 and I can’t fault it, technically.

Still, I’d keep quiet if I were you, you’ll bumped on the forum. No one wants the boat rocking

The X-Pro 1 has 16 Mp to the 26 of the X-Pro 3. The X-Pro 3 should be better at high ISOs, also.

But if you post process the raw files, the differences in the output jpeg that Capture 1 is going to produce are minimal

In all honesty, I think that what you're seeing has little bearing upon differences between the X-Pro1 and x pro 3. If I understand you correctly, both of these are X-Pro1 images. You have simply supplied a curve that's similar by suggesting through the exif data that one of the raw files is from an X-Pro3. It's difficult to say how close this would be to an actual X-Pro 3 raw file. What is more, these are simply Capture One simulations of Fuji film simulations.

It would seem to me that if what you're interested in are jpeg differences, you'd need to generate the jpegs in an X-Pro1 camera and then in an X-Pro3 from their own respective raw files. Beyond the film simulations, there are many jpeg settings in the x-pro 3 that simply don't exist in the x-pro 1: the color chrome setting, the blue chrome setting, more degrees of shadow and tone control, clarity control, the ability to save white balance shifts in custom settings, etc.

But the jpeg settings are only a piece of the story. The major differences are in the shooting experience: a much better evf, an ovf that's brighter but has only one magnification setting, faster camera responsiveness, better autofocus, etc.

Much to consider.

Sensors have been awesome for a pretty long time now. And so have raw processors.

Speaking for myself, I bought an X-T3 for two reasons, first because I wanted the body shape and option for a battery grip for pairing with the 100-400 and second I wanted the autofocus improvements it offered over the X-Pro 2, specifically the AF Custom mode that is user adjustable.

The output from these two cameras in terms of colors and image quality is basically the same for all practical purposes.

I think you are right that C1 and other raw converters have done such a good job matching Fuji jpg output that it doesn't make sense to shoot in camera jpgs unless you have a very specific personal reason for doing so. Fuji needs to elevate its jpg game again to change that but I have no idea what they could do to achieve that and I'm skeptical about their strategy of just adding more film sims that are only available in new camera models.

Honestly, the film sims are vaguely inspired by film anyway. The film sims are basically just manufacturer made presets. And that's fine. A lot of people clearly love them.

tomasography said:

Hi!

I have had the X-Pro 1 for 7 years. Now I have ordered the X-Pro 3 and I have somewhat mixed feelings.

It took me a long time to understand the concept of the X-Pro series. After a long excursion into analog photography, I now understand what Fuji wanted to achieve with this series. Shooting with the OVF feels very analog. I turn off the image review and only take a look at the results at home on the PC.
This now leads me from my X-Pro 1 to X-Pro 3...

Capture 1 provides all the curves for Fuji cameras. I just set the metadata of the images from camera type X-Pro 1 to X-Pro 3. After that all curves like Classic Chrome, Acros etc. are also available for the X-Pro 1 images. The pictures do not look 100% the same, but it comes very close. I think in a blind test you would not be able to distinguish the images.

When importing into Capture 1, I apply my preset right away.
That means it actually makes all the in Camera JPG profiles useless.

When I look at it that way, I don't really see any significant advantage that speaks for the X-Pro 3 over the X-Pro 1.

How do you see it? I would be interested to hear what you think about it.

Here are 2 examples. Not the best pictures, but I will try to make more tomorrow.

Thanks!

Thomas


X-Pro3


X-Pro1

Click to expand...

But did you really expect a difference here? IQ at small sizes on a computer screen is not the big differentiator amongst cameras in the last 5-8 years...but everything else has improved. Some things drastically, others incrementally.

--
Instagram = @johngellings0 and @nycrandomjg

Edit: Sorry nevermind. I misread the part with the curves....

The EXIF shows both images shot by X-Pro3.

John Gellings said:

tomasography said:

Hi!

I have had the X-Pro 1 for 7 years. Now I have ordered the X-Pro 3 and I have somewhat mixed feelings.

It took me a long time to understand the concept of the X-Pro series. After a long excursion into analog photography, I now understand what Fuji wanted to achieve with this series. Shooting with the OVF feels very analog. I turn off the image review and only take a look at the results at home on the PC.
This now leads me from my X-Pro 1 to X-Pro 3...

Capture 1 provides all the curves for Fuji cameras. I just set the metadata of the images from camera type X-Pro 1 to X-Pro 3. After that all curves like Classic Chrome, Acros etc. are also available for the X-Pro 1 images. The pictures do not look 100% the same, but it comes very close. I think in a blind test you would not be able to distinguish the images.

When importing into Capture 1, I apply my preset right away.
That means it actually makes all the in Camera JPG profiles useless.

When I look at it that way, I don't really see any significant advantage that speaks for the X-Pro 3 over the X-Pro 1.

How do you see it? I would be interested to hear what you think about it.

Here are 2 examples. Not the best pictures, but I will try to make more tomorrow.

Thanks!

Thomas


X-Pro3


X-Pro1

Click to expand...

But did you really expect a difference here? IQ at small sizes on a computer screen is not the big differentiator amongst cameras in the last 5-8 years...but everything else has improved. Some things drastically, others incrementally.

Click to expand...

Check exif. ;-)

IQ in decent light hasn't changed much in last 8 years or so...it's incrementally better. The upgrades are elsewhere... WR/Tilt/Faster AF/Better EVF, IBIS, 4k60 video, cleaner high iso, f-log video, etc...

jjz2 said:

IQ in decent light hasn't changed much in last 8 years or so...it's incrementally better. The upgrades are elsewhere... WR/Tilt/Faster AF/Better EVF, IBIS, 4k60 video, cleaner high iso, f-log video, etc...

Click to expand...

BOTH images are from an X-Pro3!! One taken at ISO2500 the other at ISO3200 ...

deednets said:

jjz2 said:

IQ in decent light hasn't changed much in last 8 years or so...it's incrementally better. The upgrades are elsewhere... WR/Tilt/Faster AF/Better EVF, IBIS, 4k60 video, cleaner high iso, f-log video, etc...

Click to expand...

BOTH images are from an X-Pro3!! One taken at ISO2500 the other at ISO3200 ...

Click to expand...

I see... but point still stands.

The set up post was kind of confusing but I see the EXIF now.

Scaling the larger X-Pro 3 image (L) down to the size of the X-Pro 1 image (R) shows a clear resolution advantage for the newer camera. Of course the color is about the same, the color from a RAW file is determined almost entirely by the color profile used in the RAW editor.


X-Pro 3 (L), X-Pro 1 (R)

well of course you're correct.

With each camera I've purchased there was a (to me) compelling operational reason. The facts the way I see them is that almost all digital cameras have been better than photographers for years. The X-Pro series in particular offers a unique set of characteristics which completely dwarf changes in sensor pixel counts, particularly if OOC JPG;s are not in your process.

For instance, I changed from FF Nikon gear to the X Pro2 to get an OVF with competent auto focus. I was surprised and happy that I didn't lose image quality as I expected.

You can save yourself a bit of money.

Erik Baumgartner said:

Scaling the larger X-Pro 3 image (L) down to the size of the X-Pro 1 image (R) shows a clear resolution advantage for the newer camera. Of course the color is about the same, the color from a RAW file is determined almost entirely by the color profile used in the RAW editor.


X-Pro 3 (L), X-Pro 1 (R)

Click to expand...

One was taken at ISO2500 the other at ISO3200. You took that into account?

Deed ;-)

deednets said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

Scaling the larger X-Pro 3 image (L) down to the size of the X-Pro 1 image (R) shows a clear resolution advantage for the newer camera. Of course the color is about the same, the color from a RAW file is determined almost entirely by the color profile used in the RAW editor.


X-Pro 3 (L), X-Pro 1 (R)

Click to expand...

One was taken at ISO2500 the other at ISO3200. You took that into account?

Deed ;-)

Click to expand...

Both are from RAW files at 1/60” and f/4, same exposure, same brightness here. What the shooting ISO was doesn’t really matter. The X-Pro 3 shot definitely has superior detail viewed at the same size.

Erik

Erik Baumgartner said:

deednets said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

Scaling the larger X-Pro 3 image (L) down to the size of the X-Pro 1 image (R) shows a clear resolution advantage for the newer camera. Of course the color is about the same, the color from a RAW file is determined almost entirely by the color profile used in the RAW editor.


X-Pro 3 (L), X-Pro 1 (R)

Click to expand...

One was taken at ISO2500 the other at ISO3200. You took that into account?

Deed ;-)

Click to expand...

Both are from RAW files at 1/60” and f/4, same exposure, same brightness, what the shooting ISO was doesn’t really matter. The X-Pro 3 shot definitely has superior detail viewed at the same size.

Erik

Click to expand...

BOTH shots were taken with the X-Pro3. Check the EXIF please!!! ;-)

deednets said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

deednets said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

Scaling the larger X-Pro 3 image (L) down to the size of the X-Pro 1 image (R) shows a clear resolution advantage for the newer camera. Of course the color is about the same, the color from a RAW file is determined almost entirely by the color profile used in the RAW editor.


X-Pro 3 (L), X-Pro 1 (R)

Click to expand...

One was taken at ISO2500 the other at ISO3200. You took that into account?

Deed ;-)

Click to expand...

Both are from RAW files at 1/60” and f/4, same exposure, same brightness, what the shooting ISO was doesn’t really matter. The X-Pro 3 shot definitely has superior detail viewed at the same size.

Erik

Click to expand...

BOTH shots were taken with the X-Pro3. Check the EXIF please!!! ;-)

Click to expand...

Nope. Did you not read the original post? He changed the X-Pro 1 metadata in order to use the same Capture One X-Pro3 profile with it. They aren’t the same pixel dimensions (except above where I downscaled the X-Pro-3 image to match).

bowportes said:

In all honesty, I think that what you're seeing has little bearing upon differences between the X-Pro1 and x pro 3. If I understand you correctly, both of these are X-Pro1 images. You have simply supplied a curve that's similar by suggesting through the exif data that one of the raw files is from an X-Pro3. It's difficult to say how close this would be to an actual X-Pro 3 raw file. What is more, these are simply Capture One simulations of Fuji film simulations.

It would seem to me that if what you're interested in are jpeg differences, you'd need to generate the jpegs in an X-Pro1 camera and then in an X-Pro3 from their own respective raw files. Beyond the film simulations, there are many jpeg settings in the x-pro 3 that simply don't exist in the x-pro 1: the color chrome setting, the blue chrome setting, more degrees of shadow and tone control, clarity control, the ability to save white balance shifts in custom settings, etc.

But the jpeg settings are only a piece of the story. The major differences are in the shooting experience: a much better evf, an ovf that's brighter but has only one magnification setting, faster camera responsiveness, better autofocus, etc.

Much to consider.

Click to expand...

The 2 images are taken with...

X-Pro 1 - Raw - Processed with Capture 1
X-Pro 3 - JPG - SOOC

I also think that the sensors have all been so good for a few years that they are not a criterion for a camera purchase.
In general, the technical specifications are no longer an issue for me. All current cameras bring a very good image quality.

I think it's more about the feeling you get when you hold the camera in your hand. And even if it's just small things like the great shutter sound of the X-Pro 3, which is probably the reason why I will keep the camera

Nevertheless, it surprised me how well the X-Pro 1 after 7 years still performed. And don't get me wrong, the JPGs are fantastic what come out of the camera, but honestly.... isn't it a bit of a hype?
If I import the images anyway it doesn't matter if I import the JPGs, or RAW (to which I apply a preset in the import).
Maybe the JPG appeal is when I view the images on the LCD screen right after shooting them.

Fuji has advertised the topic JPG - SOOC very well.
Canon has long offered for the EOS series a PC software in which you can create your own color profile and load it on the camera. Works very good and you have a lot more settings. But maybe it is the simplicity of the setting directly in the camera, which makes Fuji so successful in this topic.

I'm also curious what Fuji will come up with for the next X-Pro. Even better specs, even more film simulations ... would not be a reason for me to switch to the next generation.

thank you for your time and answers

Thomas