X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8

Started Oct 5, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
inasir1971
inasir1971 OP Senior Member • Posts: 3,462
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
1

Einst Stein wrote:

Look at the trees at about 1~3 o'clock of "C" and at about 9~"12 o'clock of B.

The picture on the left is significantly clearer in both sharpness and color depth.

The tonal rendition is also much pleasing.

Post-processing effect?

IMO, they're both just as capable - it comes down to processing of the raw files...

 inasir1971's gear list:inasir1971's gear list
Sony RX1R II Nikon D810 Nikon D4
Red G8R
Red G8R Senior Member • Posts: 1,731
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
1

Since my first comment on this forum an hour ago, I went out an bought the XA1(black) from my local dealer. I have a two week trial to decide and I will take it on my Miami trip this week. I'm not one to buy and return but he knows I've been searching for a compact camera for travel. Battery is being charged now and really looking forward to playing with this little gem.

-- hide signature --

Peter
Ontario, Canada

 Red G8R's gear list:Red G8R's gear list
Nikon D4 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +11 more
Absolutic
Absolutic Veteran Member • Posts: 5,083
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
2

Xtrans provides Fuji with marketing advantage so it won't go anywhere even though many of us wish the new X cameras came with bayer.

They cannot change it. It will be a marketing suicide. If they switch to bayer the marketing advantage will be lost. It will be just another ilc with same 16mp Sony sensor. How would u differentiate ur self from Sony then? That u have Fuji colors? That u have better lenses? This would be lost on 95% of targeted audience. Then u would compete strictly on price.

On the other hand if u put xtrans in, ur salesperson can say: this camera has special sensor while that other one has a regular sensor. We r different. Consumer says oh that's different and must be better

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Panasonic ZS100/TZ100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Nikon D750 Fujifilm X-T2 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR +12 more
forpetessake
forpetessake Senior Member • Posts: 4,892
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8

inasir1971 wrote:

Another surprising find are the muted colors with the X-Trans. For example, the yellow of the construction workers' hard hats and the red of the crane.

I'm surprised no reviews mentioned the obvious color issues. When I got my X-E1 the first thing that was clearly noticeable was faded colors in some places, strange color shifts in other, disappearing colors in small details and at high ISO, and sometimes the small details take on the colors of the surrounding objects.

To my eyes the X-A1 is better and predictable in its results.

The test images from X-A1 look a lot like from Sony NEX cameras, but with less visible noise. I wonder if Fuji used the latest Sony sensor.

forpetessake
forpetessake Senior Member • Posts: 4,892
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
3

Absolutic wrote:

Xtrans provides Fuji with marketing advantage so it won't go anywhere even though many of us wish the new X cameras came with bayer.

The Trans marketing advantage will be lost after lots of reviews state the obvious. The Trans cameras will be perceived as more expensive and less capable.

They cannot change it. It will be a marketing suicide.

It's hard to make a quick turn, people will feel they were duped by previous claims. Fuji did a big mistake by releasing X-M1 and X-A1 identical bodies with different sensors. That made it possible to evaluate the Trans vs Bayer claims. They themselves created this predicament.

If they switch to bayer the marketing advantage will be lost. It will be just another ilc with same 16mp Sony sensor. How would u differentiate ur self from Sony then?

Actually Sony's NEX cameras are really good. I did a number of NEX vs X-E1 tests and Sony in most of them was a winner. The weak spot of Sony is the lack of good lenses, the latest Zeiss was a big disappointment. The Trans sensor is Fuji's imaginary advantage, the only real advantage Fuji has is some good lenses, and they should build on that.

Absolutic
Absolutic Veteran Member • Posts: 5,083
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
2

forpetessake wrote:

Absolutic wrote:

Xtrans provides Fuji with marketing advantage so it won't go anywhere even though many of us wish the new X cameras came with bayer.

The Trans marketing advantage will be lost after lots of reviews state the obvious. The Trans cameras will be perceived as more expensive and less capable.

However, common reviews these days are not stating it.

The Nikon guy Matt Granger did a review on youtube where he compares XM1 and XA1, XM1 wins in his opinion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DZL7aM3ZmI&feature=c4-overview&list=UUL5Hf6_JIzb3HpiJQGqs8cQ but I think he is comparing jpegs.

They cannot change it. It will be a marketing suicide.

It's hard to make a quick turn, people will feel they were duped by previous claims. Fuji did a big mistake by releasing X-M1 and X-A1 identical bodies with different sensors. That made it possible to evaluate the Trans vs Bayer claims. They themselves created this predicament.

+1 it is easy to compare these two and it might have been a marketing mistake by the Fuji.

If they switch to bayer the marketing advantage will be lost. It will be just another ilc with same 16mp Sony sensor. How would u differentiate ur self from Sony then?

Actually Sony's NEX cameras are really good. I did a number of NEX vs X-E1 tests and Sony in most of them was a winner. The weak spot of Sony is the lack of good lenses, the latest Zeiss was a big disappointment. The Trans sensor is Fuji's imaginary advantage, the only real advantage Fuji has is some good lenses, and they should build on that.

I owned NEX-5n and then Nex7, and while Nex7 had incredible detail rendering at base ISO, the (1) lack of lenses, (2) relatively poor af in low light , and (3)noise in low light, made me switch at the time, I believe to m43 with OMD EM5, which took care of issues (1) and (2). The Fuji clearly wins in ergonomics in my opinion. In fact, I remember when my friend bought NEX5 and showed me that marvel when it came out, I spend 15 minutes and still could not figure out how to change ISO (they put it in some completely illogical place in the menu). I like the Fuji's ergonomics with the Q button and ability to change aperture on the lens.

In any case, I don't believe that you can win a marketing war on Lenses alone. You've got to have more than that. Sony sells more Nex cameras that Fuji X I am sure (at least I see more of Nex around, times more) with crappiest kit lens on planet (16-50).

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Panasonic ZS100/TZ100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Nikon D750 Fujifilm X-T2 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR +12 more
briny Regular Member • Posts: 275
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8

Photo Ninja rendering. Same default sharpening for both files. There are colour differences - for the A1, blues are more turquoise, yellows are more orange, greens are more muted, reds are more vivid. Detail looks about the same.

High ISO. No noise reduction. There's a little more colour noise in the A1 file.

 briny's gear list:briny's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
DonSantos Senior Member • Posts: 1,145
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8

High ISO. No noise reduction. There's a little more colour noise in the A1 file.

Color noise is easy to get rid of without any added artifacts.

For the luminance noise the x-a1 has a tiny bit more but it's also sharper.  In lightroom when I turn the noise reduction to only around 15 the images match in sharpness and noise levels.  x-a1 still being the better because it still retains more local color than the x-e1 file.

 DonSantos's gear list:DonSantos's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D600 Sony Alpha 7 Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G +3 more
Norm N New Member • Posts: 19
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8

+1

Looking at the original, I would also say that the color purity is significantly better on the X-E1. (Compare the cream colored wall below the circular roof and grey walls else ware.

Jim Evidon
Jim Evidon Contributing Member • Posts: 743
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8

What you see as greater sharpness in the X-A1 images looks to me to be higher contrast giving the appearance of more sharpness. Additionally, the XA-1 has more artifacts, so the X-E1 is actually cleaner which was it's big selling point in  the first place. Check out the lines in the roof top shot.
Same details but a difference in contrast and artifacts.

Jim

 Jim Evidon's gear list:Jim Evidon's gear list
Fujifilm XF1 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Leica M9-P Leica T +2 more
Beat Traveller Contributing Member • Posts: 744
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
3

Two years of endless discussion about the shortcomings of the X-trans sensor, and this is the final proof? A few slightly mushier background trees?

If anyone seriously is going to use that as an excuse to go back to a Bayer sensor, then I pay my respects, as you're clearly a much greater pixel-peeper than I.

 Beat Traveller's gear list:Beat Traveller's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon D60 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro
Tom Schum
Tom Schum Veteran Member • Posts: 5,541
Re: different raw converter
2

DMillier wrote:

Come on, there is always going to be something better, no matter what you use, 10 x 8 film is still better. But ask yourself this, how much better than absolutely fantastic does your camera have to be before you can feel content with your camera as you snap the cat and the kids.

Honestly.

My cat deserves the best, and now I know my X-E1 is simply not up to the job!

Relax your vigilance and the world will relegate you to the dustbin of history.  We must upgrade, and the sooner the better!

I'm slipping, slipping away into yesteryear...

When they put that Nokia 41 megapixel sensor in an X-20, then it will be time to upgrade!

-- hide signature --

Tom Schum

 Tom Schum's gear list:Tom Schum's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma DP2 Ricoh WG-4 GPS Sigma dp0 Quattro Fujifilm X30 +8 more
panpen Contributing Member • Posts: 956
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8

How did you equalize the WB in post processing? Did you pick the same Kelvin number? The slight difference in color could be very well be a slight difference of only a few K degrees

DonSantos Senior Member • Posts: 1,145
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
1

Two years of endless discussion about the shortcomings of the X-trans sensor, and this is the final proof? A few slightly mushier background trees?

If anyone seriously is going to use that as an excuse to go back to a Bayer sensor, then I pay my respects, as you're clearly a much greater pixel-peeper than I.

You can continue paying the 200$ premium for a sensor without any gains

 DonSantos's gear list:DonSantos's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D600 Sony Alpha 7 Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G +3 more
Fujix New Member • Posts: 4
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
1

I have a far better result with X-E1 ( Photo Ninja Raw converter ) With PN X-Trans have more fine details than Bayer. Finally.

100% crop

Charles2 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,739
Fuji RFC -> Raw Therapee -> Picture Window Pro

The XE-1 file.

Fuji RFC (by Silkypix): demosaic, keep contrast low
Raw Therapee - LAB curves and initial sharpen by RL deconvolution
Picture Window Pro - levels and sharpen; convert from AdobeRGB to sRGB

Result

Randy Benter
Randy Benter Veteran Member • Posts: 3,148
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8

Fujix wrote:

I have a far better result with X-E1 ( Photo Ninja Raw converter ) With PN X-Trans have more fine details than Bayer. Finally.

100% crop

It looks like you used default settings for both. Is that the best you could do with the X-A1 in LR? I think a slight boost of saturation, clarity and sharpening in LR would make them identical.

BTW, I also prefer how C1 and PN handle X-Trans. Unfortunately, neither of those applications are as versatile as LR, nor do they support 3rd party plug-ins, like NIK.

 Randy Benter's gear list:Randy Benter's gear list
Fujifilm X100T Fujifilm X-T10 Nikon D7200 Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 Apple Aperture +18 more
ballwin12 Regular Member • Posts: 303
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8

ChicagoRob wrote:

Thank you for doing this test. The X-A1 is definitely superior in fleshing out detail in the distant foliage. The yellow color rendering is quite a surprise - it's virtually impossible to see in the helmets of the X-E1 photo.

Rob

I don't see any difference.

 ballwin12's gear list:ballwin12's gear list
Leica X (Typ 113) Sony Alpha 7 II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 24-70mm F4 OSS Zeiss Batis 25mm F2
tecnoworld
tecnoworld Veteran Member • Posts: 6,861
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8

X-a1 is better imo. I think fuji has to abandon x-trans in the next gen of x cameras.

 tecnoworld's gear list:tecnoworld's gear list
Samsung TL500 Samsung NX200 Samsung NX100 Samsung NX300 Samsung NX1 +15 more
Emacs23 Regular Member • Posts: 453
Re: X-E1 vs X-A1 raws with 14/2.8
1

Fujix wrote:

I have a far better result with X-E1 ( Photo Ninja Raw converter ) With PN X-Trans have more fine details than Bayer. Finally.

100% crop

Try rawtherapee with amaze demosaic and deconvolution sharpening. You'll end up with more fine details than Xtrans+PN.

 Emacs23's gear list:Emacs23's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Super-Elmar-M 18mm f/3.8 ASPH Leica APO-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 ASPH +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads