fuji_phil_e
Leading Member
- Messages
- 627
- Reaction score
- 1,119
And 0.1% skill
.-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Feeling frustrated with Fuji
- Thread starter EthanSLC
- Start date
.Well I guess you still need to know how to compose an image, but I take your point.And 0.1% skill
Jim in Hudson
Senior Member
As a "set it and forget it" option to produce better SOOC JPEGs more akin to the iPhone output, would simply setting DR to "Auto" be a step in the direction the OP is looking for?
My suggestions for landscape JPEGs:
- Set Highlight Tone to -2
- Set Shadow tone to +1 if more contrast is desired.
- Set Dynamic Range to 200% or Auto.
- Set Film sim to Provia/Standard
- Avoid shooting beyond f8 to avoid diffraction softening
- Replace your XF 16-80 lens with a XF 16-50 f 2.8-4.8 or XF 16-55 f2.8 or XF 10-24.
Erik Baumgartner
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,236
- Solutions
- 39
- Reaction score
- 14,241
I don’t think so. Just setting DR-AUTO without any exposure compensation will typically result in either the same SOOC jpeg, or one that looks much the same with flatter highlight contrast and noisier shadows. DR-AUTO might occasionally protect against some highlight clipping, but that’s only if it actually automatically switches to DR200 when it ought to (not a given, and it doesn’t even let you know when it does). I’m of the opinion that the DR modes are best only used when there is a good reason for doing so (and when you do, there’s almost always going to be some positive exposure compensation involved for the best results).
With an eyeball and the highlight blinkies on, exposure compensation is exceptionally easy - lighter/darker to taste > if the lightness is where you want it, but some important highlights are blinking, the scene has too much DR > bump up the DR mode and adjust EC again, you now have an extra stop to work with before blinking/clipping.
BeatX
Senior Member
Main problem with images from Your X-T4 is lens used.I used to be quite active in photography and was always a Canon shooter. A few years back I switched to a XT-4 but then kinda dropped out of the hobby for a bit and didn't use it much. I’ve recently picked it back up, but I’m feeling pretty frustrated with the SOOC JPEGs I am getting. Part of the reason I switched to Fuji was because of the reputation for great out of camera JPEGs, but that is not what I am getting at all. Images are underexposed with poor details and poor dynamic range. I am using a couple different recipes (Reggie’s Portra), but when I use all default settings I think the results are even worse.
For exposure, I'm using auto shutter speed and ISO, and manually setting aperture. Here is a similar shot (slightly different focal lengths) with the Fuji and an iPhone 15 Pro. The fuji JPEG is underexposed with poor detail on the cliff. The iPhone shot is much better.
Here is another comparison of an iPhone and Fuji shot. To be clear, I don't love the iPhone shot either, it feels over sharpened, but at least the dynamic range is better and the sky has much better detail.
Here is a zoomed in view. The iPhone has much more detail in the rocks. The iPhone has more megapixels, but I would still expect the better lens and larger sensor to do better than this.
A lot of these images were shot with the 16-80 f/4 which doesn’t have the greatest reputation, but I’m surprised it would be this dramatic. I know that amazing things can be done with raw files, but again part of the reason for switching to Fuji is because I don't love hours of post processing. Really curious to hear if I am missing something obvious here.
Fujinon XF 16-80/4 is one of worst performing lenses in whole Fuji X system lineup (if not worst)
But for sure worst zoom lens from XF lineup (not XC)
Lab test confirms that:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-fujinon-xf-16-80mm-f-4-r-ois-wr-review-34410/performance
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/fujinon-xf-16-80mm-f4-r-ois-wr-review#section-lab-data
As it has been shown in Your comparison, even tiny tiny lens from iPhone outperforms hard Fuji 16-80/4
If You want to take full advantage from You X-T4 sensor in SOOC .jpg at least pair Your camera with good lens.
Here, take a look at these two examples, both are SOOC .jpg with DR200 setting (zero edits).
First image is with Classic Neg, second is with Provia
This amount of fine details in above images is beyond reach of any smartphone sensor/lens combo.
At least in 2025
And those are just simple SOOC .jpg, where in post You can bring images to next level with good demosaic and sharpening tools.
Not to mention about potential of highligh/shadows recovery in post edit.
.jpg's from iPhone are nothing more just heavy postprocessed/edited RAW files - including HDR merge, long exposure tricks for "night" mode etc
iPhone is just doing edits for You, so You don't have too.
And I have to say that it doing it quite impressive.
Take a closer look at new Fuji kit lens at least:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4777856
Or Tamron 17-70/2.8 if You want zoom lens in similar range and price tag as XF 16-80/4
Both of these lenses will give You much, much better results when it comes to acutance in Your images
--
My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maciej_k/
Last edited:
BeatX
Senior Member
To OP.. see how much you could gain if you spent literally a few minutes to process Your photos in just Lightroom for demosaicing and sharpening.
Take a look at the images below in 100% magnification and pay attention to fine details in the corners of the frame.
I assure you that this level of acutance is easily on par with best full frame primes:
Only condition is to use best available lenses.
Currently in Fuji X lineup in UWA range (like on Your photo examples), only two lenses has such resolution across the frame: Fujinon XF 18/1.4 R WR LM and Viltrox 13/1.4
Even my beloved XF 16/1.4 has to admit superiority of both the Viltrox 13/1.4 and the XF 18/1.4 in terms of the level of acutance in corners of the frame at landscape apertures (f/5.6-8)
Although XF 16/1.4 is also very sharp even in the corners of the frame when stopped down to f/5.6, but XF 18/1.4 and 13/1.4 are a notch sharper.
And the best thing about Viltrox 13/1.4 is when You will compare its current price vs Sony 20/1.8 G, Nikkor Z 20/1.8 S, Sigma C 20/2 DG DN or Sigma A 20/1.4 DG DN lens prices.. Viltrox is bargain.
Viltrox 13/1.4 combined with X-Trans V 40Mpix sensor is just peak design in whole aps-c world when it comes to price to performance ratio for ultra wide angle photography. Period
--
My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maciej_k/
Take a look at the images below in 100% magnification and pay attention to fine details in the corners of the frame.
I assure you that this level of acutance is easily on par with best full frame primes:
Only condition is to use best available lenses.
Currently in Fuji X lineup in UWA range (like on Your photo examples), only two lenses has such resolution across the frame: Fujinon XF 18/1.4 R WR LM and Viltrox 13/1.4
Even my beloved XF 16/1.4 has to admit superiority of both the Viltrox 13/1.4 and the XF 18/1.4 in terms of the level of acutance in corners of the frame at landscape apertures (f/5.6-8)
Although XF 16/1.4 is also very sharp even in the corners of the frame when stopped down to f/5.6, but XF 18/1.4 and 13/1.4 are a notch sharper.
And the best thing about Viltrox 13/1.4 is when You will compare its current price vs Sony 20/1.8 G, Nikkor Z 20/1.8 S, Sigma C 20/2 DG DN or Sigma A 20/1.4 DG DN lens prices.. Viltrox is bargain.
Viltrox 13/1.4 combined with X-Trans V 40Mpix sensor is just peak design in whole aps-c world when it comes to price to performance ratio for ultra wide angle photography. Period
--
My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maciej_k/
Last edited:
Hi all, thanks again for the replies and the suggestions, lots of good things for me to try. One interesting note on lenses, I actually purchased a 16-55mm f/2.8 mk II this week and did some "brick wall tests" against the notorious(?) 16-80 and I have to say I was not impressed at all. Maybe I got a defective copy, but for now it's going back.
At 16mm the 16-55 was sharper in the corners, but not amazingly so (at least to my eye). The real disappointment was center image sharpness. The 16-80 beat it almost every time. These shots were taken from a fixed position on a tripod. The crops below are from the center of the image at 100%.
At 16mm, they looked pretty similar (I didn't include samples of these), but at 34mm the expensive lens started to exhibit issues. At f/4 they look pretty similar:
But for some reason the 16-55 got worse at 5.6 and worse still at f/8 (only included the f 5/6 crop)
At 55mm, the fancy lens was worse at f/4 and stayed soft at 5.6 and 8 (only f/4 image shown):
So if anything this makes me feel better about the 16-80 and helped save me some money. So my next plan is to do some more experiments with the lenses I have and try many of the suggestions offered in this thread.
At 16mm the 16-55 was sharper in the corners, but not amazingly so (at least to my eye). The real disappointment was center image sharpness. The 16-80 beat it almost every time. These shots were taken from a fixed position on a tripod. The crops below are from the center of the image at 100%.
At 16mm, they looked pretty similar (I didn't include samples of these), but at 34mm the expensive lens started to exhibit issues. At f/4 they look pretty similar:
But for some reason the 16-55 got worse at 5.6 and worse still at f/8 (only included the f 5/6 crop)
At 55mm, the fancy lens was worse at f/4 and stayed soft at 5.6 and 8 (only f/4 image shown):
So if anything this makes me feel better about the 16-80 and helped save me some money. So my next plan is to do some more experiments with the lenses I have and try many of the suggestions offered in this thread.
Processed crops without EXIF, in and of themselves, are pretty useless for lens comparisons. It's SOP to post full-size unprocessed JPEGS with EXIF intact. Some folks even make the raw files available for download.
For high dynamic range shots, for actually taking the shot, I would
- play with the metering mode
- I assign a button on my X-T3 to show a live histogram
- while histogram is showing play with exposure compensation to not blow out highlights
- Prior to taking the shot, use Fuji's dynamic range (DR100, DR200, DR400) setting to get your JPG compressed in camera (heck, you can even choose to do a dynamic range bracket)
- Or shoot Raw and once you download your taken shot onto a computer, use HDR software to make the dark areas acceptable (which is what I do
Last edited:
Erik Baumgartner
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,236
- Solutions
- 39
- Reaction score
- 14,241
These genuinely don't look that great, far worse than I would expect out of my mk1 16-55. Honestly, being uniformly soft across the entire frame, they look OOF, how did you focus these? And why ISO 400? That certainly isn't helping.By all means, have a look (I didn't include all of them, but are a few). Also, I noticed I had a typo on that last image. The one on the right was mislabeled but it's from the 16-80mm
Lens tests aside, in real world conditions the 16-80, unless you have a duff copy, is capable of good all round results. It has its well known limitations at the corners etc. I’ve used it for nearly five years, happily, although I do now have and prefer the 16-55 MkII, also for its f2.8. Its my default lens, but I’ve not yet sold the 16-80.Hi all, thanks again for the replies and the suggestions, lots of good things for me to try. One interesting note on lenses, I actually purchased a 16-55mm f/2.8 mk II this week and did some "brick wall tests" against the notorious(?) 16-80 and I have to say I was not impressed at all. Maybe I got a defective copy, but for now it's going back.
At 16mm the 16-55 was sharper in the corners, but not amazingly so (at least to my eye). The real disappointment was center image sharpness. The 16-80 beat it almost every time. These shots were taken from a fixed position on a tripod. The crops below are from the center of the image at 100%.
At 16mm, they looked pretty similar (I didn't include samples of these), but at 34mm the expensive lens started to exhibit issues. At f/4 they look pretty similar:
But for some reason the 16-55 got worse at 5.6 and worse still at f/8 (only included the f 5/6 crop)
At 55mm, the fancy lens was worse at f/4 and stayed soft at 5.6 and 8 (only f/4 image shown):
So if anything this makes me feel better about the 16-80 and helped save me some money. So my next plan is to do some more experiments with the lenses I have and try many of the suggestions offered in this thread.
However, I don’t think changing your lens is necessary or the priority for overcoming your frustrations. As others have commented, comparing SOOC jpegs with iPhone output is hardly a fair contest. I use my iPhone frequently for convenience and it’s nearly always with me. I prefer using my Fuji cameras, and get satisfaction when I do it well.
Last edited:
Mancunian0405
Member
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 41
„As it has been shown in Your comparison, even tiny tiny lens from iPhone outperforms hard Fuji 16-80/4“
That is physically impossible. As stated earlier, it is the AI that does all the work.
If your pictures look dull no matter what you do, sensor cleaning might help.
That is physically impossible. As stated earlier, it is the AI that does all the work.
If your pictures look dull no matter what you do, sensor cleaning might help.
BeatX
Senior Member
And yet, in real world use it is happening.. at least for 16mm in 16-80/4
Cleaning front element in 16-80/4 will not help this lens to bring on more crisp images in the corners.
I don't want to kick dead horse and elaborate more on 16-80/4 so I will only write this: in moment of introducing new kit lens XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 Fuji Imho should withdraw from production 16-80/4
Mancunian0405
Member
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 41
No, it isn’t because the iPhone doesn’t show you the real world.
I did not talk about front elements of the lens. I also thought the OP has problems with the overall image quality, not just with the corners.
BeatX
Senior Member
That's interesting. Do You know any place, where I could download .dng or any type of RAW file from recent iPhone camera, to evaluate image quality?
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
That my main issue with phone photography. I want to edit my files ! But the only way a phone is able to match a dedicated camera, even an older crop sensor one is by shooting JPEG and resorting to image stacking to fix both the noise and DR issues. But you only get a JPEG which really doesn't leave you a ton of room for proper image processing afterwards.
For that you'll need to shoot RAW, but then you give up all the computational features : AI noise reduction, image stacking, etc... so all you end up with is an image taken with a bright lens, sure (I think the lens on my phone is f/1.9, so not that bad), but with a super small sensor leading in tons of noise and mediocre DR
No matter what I do, I have to choose : I can't make a RAW file look as good when it comes to detail capture as a phone JPEG, but I can't edit the colors properly with JPEG files, so if I need a file for proper color grading, I'll need to deal with very high noise levels and poor DR.
That's why I ony use my phone for little snaps that will not require any editing, and why I always carry around a small camera (even if it's old) for more serious image capture.
…. leaving an obvious gap in the range, and for what reason exactly? To satisfy a small number of people on a camera gear forum who love to carp at every opportunity about how ‘totally useless’ the 16-80 f4 is.And yet, in real world use it is happening.. at least for 16mm in 16-80/4
Cleaning front element in 16-80/4 will not help this lens to bring on more crisp images in the corners.
I don't want to kick dead horse and elaborate more on 16-80/4 so I will only write this: in moment of introducing new kit lens XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 Fuji Imho should withdraw from production 16-80/4
I have no idea how many copies of the 16-80 f4 lens Fuji have sold, mainly in ‘kit form’. Or how many owners have later sold it, and how many kept it. But suggestions that Fuji should withdraw it are plain silly. It not a terrible lens, and if used within its limitations it delivers very satisfying results. Nobody is compelled to own it, and it’s boring listening to the same song.
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
They're still producing the XF 18-135. This lens wasn't great already when it released more than a decade ago.…. leaving an obvious gap in the range, and for what reason exactly? To satisfy a small number of people on a camera gear forum who love to carp at every opportunity about how ‘totally useless’ the 16-80 f4 is.And yet, in real world use it is happening.. at least for 16mm in 16-80/4
Cleaning front element in 16-80/4 will not help this lens to bring on more crisp images in the corners.
I don't want to kick dead horse and elaborate more on 16-80/4 so I will only write this: in moment of introducing new kit lens XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 Fuji Imho should withdraw from production 16-80/4
I have no idea how many copies of the 16-80 f4 lens Fuji have sold, mainly in ‘kit form’. Or how many owners have later sold it, and how many kept it. But suggestions that Fuji should withdraw it are plain silly. It not a terrible lens, and if used within its limitations it delivers very satisfying results. Nobody is compelled to own it, and it’s boring listening to the same song.
The only reason why they still make it is because it's profitable for them to make. If it's profitable, no reason wo withdraw it, as long as there is no replacement.
The 16-80 is in a similar situation.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum