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

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...

Scrufftie said:

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.

Click to expand...

Scrufftie said:

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

Click to expand...

tomasography said:

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

Click to expand...

biza43 said:

Why would you expect different results for same scene if you apply same preset?

Click to expand...

tomasography said:

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

Click to expand...

ikaika777 said:

tomasography said:

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

Click to expand...

Fuji tweaks their film simulations for every generation of sensor/processor they release so you’ll only notice it if you shoot jpeg. If you process the raw’s in Capture One/Lightroom then those are those companies versions of Fuji’s film simulations. They are using just one version of the simulations, so for example they aren’t using 2012 X-Pro1 Provia and Velvia and 2016 X-Pro2 Provia and Velvia and 2019 X-Pro3 Provia and Velvia. They’re just using they’re own one version of Provia and Velvia which would be the updated version. In your two examples you gave they don’t look identical but that has to do more with the different white balance, one looks warmer and one cooler.

Click to expand...

tomasography said:

to welcome new members like this
I do not know what should be so inappropriate about my question. i think it's a valid question. In the end, i get a very similar result from both cameras. Only in a different way. My core statement is that the X-Pro 1 should not be underestimated in 2021 either.

Click to expand...

Emile Dorkheim said:

tomasography said:

to welcome new members like this
I do not know what should be so inappropriate about my question. i think it's a valid question. In the end, i get a very similar result from both cameras. Only in a different way. My core statement is that the X-Pro 1 should not be underestimated in 2021 either.

Click to expand...

He's making a joke that this whole forum and website relies on people obsessing over tiny differences in quality, so if you say out loud that the differences aren't important then we're all in trouble!

Click to expand...

EOS GUY said:

EOS GUY said:

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

Click to expand...

Possibly a fake film winder, a trilby hat and a pair of Henri Cartier Bresson spectacles?



Just a joke I love my Fuji!

Click to expand...

tomasography said:

biza43 said:

Why would you expect different results for same scene if you apply same preset?

Click to expand...

I didn't expect the image quality and colors to be so similar. The X-Pro3 images are SOOC Jpgs. The X-Pro1 images RAW development with Capture 1.

Click to expand...

Papa48 said:

tomasography said:

biza43 said:

Why would you expect different results for same scene if you apply same preset?

Click to expand...

I didn't expect the image quality and colors to be so similar. The X-Pro3 images are SOOC Jpgs. The X-Pro1 images RAW development with Capture 1.

Click to expand...

That’s a very positive comment for using Capture One. A number of people here also like it. I should try it again. Found it a bit difficult to get on with, a few years ago.

Click to expand...

John Gellings said:

Papa48 said:

tomasography said:

biza43 said:

Why would you expect different results for same scene if you apply same preset?

Click to expand...

I didn't expect the image quality and colors to be so similar. The X-Pro3 images are SOOC Jpgs. The X-Pro1 images RAW development with Capture 1.

Click to expand...

That’s a very positive comment for using Capture One. A number of people here also like it. I should try it again. Found it a bit difficult to get on with, a few years ago.

Click to expand...

May i ask why? For matching a jpeg?

Click to expand...

Papa48 said:

John Gellings said:

Papa48 said:

tomasography said:

biza43 said:

Why would you expect different results for same scene if you apply same preset?

Click to expand...

I didn't expect the image quality and colors to be so similar. The X-Pro3 images are SOOC Jpgs. The X-Pro1 images RAW development with Capture 1.

Click to expand...

That’s a very positive comment for using Capture One. A number of people here also like it. I should try it again. Found it a bit difficult to get on with, a few years ago.

Click to expand...

May i ask why? For matching a jpeg?

Click to expand...

I tried the Express version, and had a little trouble working with its interface. The library thing, and all the keyboard shortcuts seemed a bit disorienting. I’m an Apple Photos user who still misses Aperture. Raw Power is my current preferred Photos extension. C1 seems complicated for this old brain.

Click to expand...

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...

tomasography said:

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

Click to expand...

Erik Baumgartner said:

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.

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).

Click to expand...

William Loney 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...

First, to reply to your header question, 'are in-camera jpegs overrated?'

No, I don't think so. There are plenty of people out there who will never touch a raw file. Jpegs give them a good enough results, and Fuji is very well known for the quality, and diversity of their jpegs.

Click to expand...

William Loney said:

A couple of points about Capture1:

-You're only going to be able to get those jpeg sims IF you are using a Fuji camera. The reasoning for that is to give Fuji owners the option to convert their raw files to images that look quite similar to Fuji jpegs. Convert the raw file to look like a Fuji jpeg, but with more control over sharpening, noise reduction, contrast, etc.

-Contrary to what some people here might have you believe, as soon as the new model in a particular line appears, the previous models don't magically become useless.

Click to expand...

William Loney said:

I still have my original X100 that I bought over 10yrs ago. Surprise! It still produces as fantastic images as the day I bought it. It still performs as well as the day I bought it. The only thing 'wrong' with it, is that newer models appeared, that did some things better. Higher buffering speeds, faster AF, better high ISO...

I'm sure there are folks out there who bought an X100, and that was that for their gear acquisition. They then spent the rest of their time taking pictures -not debating the pros and cons of technical minutia.

Click to expand...

tomasography said:

biza43 said:

Why would you expect different results for same scene if you apply same preset?

Click to expand...

I didn't expect the image quality and colors to be so similar. The X-Pro3 images are SOOC Jpgs. The X-Pro1 images RAW development with Capture 1.

Click to expand...