C&C: Butterfly loves X-A1

My wife's first date out with her RED X-A1.

First imiage taken by X-T1 + 60mm f2.4 MACRO and the rest taken by X-A1 + 16-50 kit lens.

always best to view it in 100%

always best to view it in 100%

always best to view it in 100%

always best to view it in 100%

Bx100 wrote:

My wife's first date out with her RED X-A1.

Hi B, These are lovely photos. I am a happy owner of a X-A1, too, and I am in the process of improving my skills and knowledge to use X-A1 to its limits. I noticed that all your images have rather high ISO values. Have you or your wife used flash for these photos?

First image taken by X-T1 + 60mm f2.4 MACRO and the rest taken by X-A1 + 16-50 kit lens.

On the 1st photo the shutter was insanely high: 1/1800, hence ISO 2000 at F4, I guess. Did you use S or M mode here with auto ISO?

always best to view it in 100%

I did, and honestly at high ISO when pixel peeping with full resolution, the images from X-A1 are not that stunning . I found the same problem/issue/fact/phenomenon with my images (remember I've just started using X-A1)

Here is an example from my recent experimenting: when you opened the photo in full size, the girl's face near the window is smeared. This is a cropped out-of-the camera JPEG.

Taken on a dark train without flash, of course.

I had a look at your flickr photostream and those photos are gorgeous even when opened full size; no high-ISO problems.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61350233@N02/

How can we improve the image quality with the X-A1 at high ISO? Or, shall we simply accept the fact that the high-ISO X-A1 images are better viewed unmagnified?

I am just a beginner fun-photographer seeking for the knowledge, I might be totally wrong.

The red X-A1 looks awesome, BTW. All the best and thank you, Miki

Thanks for viewing Mike !!!

My wife is very happy with XA1. She came from a point & shoot Sony WX5 (it is a good small camera she has been with 3 years) and now start using X-A1.

~~~ For my X-T1 shoots I tried to use higher ISO to prevent hand shaking problem that I have. Plus the place we went was an indoor butterfly conservatory like a green house and the light was not very bright as outdoor The butterflies were flying and most of them never stand still for long. Using a higher shutter speed might have a better chance to freeze any moment --- thats what I thought.

~~~ Both of us did not use flash (I did no teach my wife how to activate XA1 flash so I am 100% sure she didn't use it LOL). I am not sure if flash is allow at the park I never saw anyone using it. I personally do not use on insect as I always think flash will blind insect !!! LOL

~~~ For the XA1 images, maybe me and my wife are not picky we are happy with the result on XA1 + kit lens 16-50. Actually the 16-50 performance was above my expectation!!! I think my wife's skill surely have space to improve --- I can tell the images that she took were not the sharpest. Oh well she has only been using XA1 for few days I think she did a better job than I did with the same amount of time with XT1

~~~ I am not sure about the problem that you have on XA1, since we just start using it for a few days and we are not professional photographer Maybe we should try NR-2 next time. I think the problem might come from Fuji Noise Reduction algorithm on jpeg

~~~ We highly recommend this butterfly conservatory for anyone who live in Toronto area:

http://www.niagaraparks.com/niagara-falls-attractions/butterfly-conservatory.html

Me and my wife had so much fun there taking photos + sharing lenses by using XT1 and XA1.

Nice work. Looks like a butterfly house or incredible luck. I remember getting my first macro lens, a Used Nikon 105 micro lens in early 2005 and my first play was a butterfly exhibit which. I returned to a few times to enjoy shooting with that lens. ISO control was poor in those days so it was all with flash.

Al Valentino wrote:

Nice work. Looks like a butterfly house or incredible luck. I remember getting my first macro lens, a Used Nikon 105 micro lens in early 2005 and my first play was a butterfly exhibit which. I returned to a few times to enjoy shooting with that lens. ISO control was poor in those days so it was all with flash.

Thanks

~~~ We might wanna go back again too, maybe in late summer time

It took 2 hours for us to get there so we cannot go too often as we wish.

~~~I wanna test XT1 amd XA1 again at the same place by using them with the same 16-50 lens. I do agree with Mike about XA1 iso performance. XA1 does provide less detail with higher iso, or it called painting effect does by messive noise reduction on jpeg files

~~~ Al how was your Tamron 90mm f/2.8 MACRO perform with XE1? If you have time please show us some of your work with this lens

Me and my wife are shopping for a better MACRO lens, or might try Raynox DCR-250 Super Macro lens

afragisk wrote:

I like the butterflies but love your colors. Keep it up BX!
--
Apollon
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apollonas/
http://500px.com/Apollon
Fuji XE-2, Canon FD 300 4L, Fuji 55-200, Fuji 56 1.2, Canon FD 50 3.5 macro, Fuji 27 2.8, Fuji 23 1.4, Fuji 14 2.8, Rokinon II 8 2.8

Thanks alot

Nice photos B.

Looks like you guys were having fun.  I never had a butterfly reviewing my camera that closely. Your XA1 must be very special. I m still trying to enjoy that 16-50 mm . May be i just need to find some butterfies.

Great photos on your flickr.

....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/94649161@N08/

Bx100 wrote:

Thanks

~~~ Al how was your Tamron 90mm f/2.8 MACRO perform with XE1? If you have time please show us some of your work with this lens

Me and my wife are shopping for a better MACRO lens, or might try Raynox DCR-250 Super Macro lens

-- hide signature --

Bx100

The Tamron adaptall (a manual version of their macro lens designed to fit/adapt to any type of camera with the appropriate adaptall mount) is superb. razor sharp with smooth bokeh. A joy to use and the perfect size/weight for my Fuji camera. You also always know what the DOF is since the aperture is adjusted on the lens.

I use it mostly for flower and the occasional bug shot. Below are a few, the flower shots are between f/2.8 and f/4 to get that sweet bokeh, and the insects mating is around f/5.6 or f/8? All hand held

handheld closeup

Very nice Al !!!! 

My only concern might be the size. It seems to be bigger than XF 60mm f2.4 MACRO, but obviously your Tamron 90mm f2.8 MACRO will perform much better on MACRO photo.

I might need more practice on MACRO photo with XF 60mm before I decide on buying any other MACRO lens I think the lens should have more potential, and I might add on a Raynox 250 to boost its performance (and this might be a cheaper solution too since Ray

Thank for sharing AL you are the best !!!

Bx100 wrote:

Very nice Al !!!!

My only concern might be the size. It seems to be bigger than XF 60mm f2.4 MACRO, but obviously your Tamron 90mm f2.8 MACRO will perform much better on MACRO photo.

Yes it is. This is mostly because any SLR lens was designed for a camera with a mirror. Without a mirror that space needs to be accommodated  - and it is by the adapter which is a couple of inches long. So any longer macro you consider with require the same extension to compensate for the focus.

I might need more practice on MACRO photo with XF 60mm before I decide on buying any other MACRO lens I think the lens should have more potential, and I might add on a Raynox 250 to boost its performance (and this might be a cheaper solution too since Ray

I would recommend you play around and master what you have. If it does not focus close enough then consider the Raynox. But remember, a closeup lens/filter means you need to get closer to the subject to focus. A longer FL means you can work further away. There are other considerations but the Fuji 60mm is excellent closeup lens. I rarely do 1:1, even though I can, but unless I need to make a large print there is always cropping

Al Valentino wrote:

Bx100 wrote:

Very nice Al !!!!

My only concern might be the size. It seems to be bigger than XF 60mm f2.4 MACRO, but obviously your Tamron 90mm f2.8 MACRO will perform much better on MACRO photo.

Yes it is. This is mostly because any SLR lens was designed for a camera with a mirror. Without a mirror that space needs to be accommodated - and it is by the adapter which is a couple of inches long. So any longer macro you consider with require the same extension to compensate for the focus.

I might need more practice on MACRO photo with XF 60mm before I decide on buying any other MACRO lens I think the lens should have more potential, and I might add on a Raynox 250 to boost its performance (and this might be a cheaper solution too since Ray

I would recommend you play around and master what you have. If it does not focus close enough then consider the Raynox. But remember, a closeup lens/filter means you need to get closer to the subject to focus. A longer FL means you can work further away. There are other considerations but the Fuji 60mm is excellent closeup lens. I rarely do 1:1, even though I can, but unless I need to make a large print there is always cropping

Yep Now I will enjoy what I have with my wife and practice more

Since I dont have stable hands I might need to try taking close up photos with flash or monopod so I can use lower ISO. I think I will start from here

Tom Zimmer wrote:

Miki Nemeth wrote:

How can we improve the image quality with the X-A1 at high ISO? Or, shall we simply accept the fact that the high-ISO X-A1 images are better viewed unmagnified?

Miki,

The smearing you see in your image of the two ladies, looks typical to me of the examples I have seen of Fuji's jpeg processing in low light on the X-A1.

I have seen similar results on my X-E1 when shooting jpeg, and I found pretty quickly that the amount of detail I could get from the camera was significantly higher when I shoot RAW. People seem to come to Fuji X cameras for either the in camera color processing, and never bother with RAW, or they are like me and discover the detail of X RAW files and just decide to give up on jpeg. I'm not sure which you are, but I have heard, as was already mentioned by someone else, that turning noise reduction down to -2 helps reduce the smear you are seeing.

I hope this helps,

Yeah I agree with you too NR -2 might work better.

I also email fuji canada about xa1 high ISO problem. I will keep you guys update if they reply anything useful

Bx100 wrote:

Tom Zimmer wrote:

Miki Nemeth wrote:

How can we improve the image quality with the X-A1 at high ISO? Or, shall we simply accept the fact that the high-ISO X-A1 images are better viewed unmagnified?

Miki,

The smearing you see in your image of the two ladies, looks typical to me of the examples I have seen of Fuji's jpeg processing in low light on the X-A1.

I have seen similar results on my X-E1 when shooting jpeg, and I found pretty quickly that the amount of detail I could get from the camera was significantly higher when I shoot RAW. People seem to come to Fuji X cameras for either the in camera color processing, and never bother with RAW, or they are like me and discover the detail of X RAW files and just decide to give up on jpeg. I'm not sure which you are,

Hi Tom, Thank you for the comment and explanation. I started with RAW on the X-A1, but then I started taking JPEG files, and now you have confirmed that it's much better to use RAW. I use Lightroom 5 to process my image files.

but I have heard, as was already mentioned by someone else, that turning noise reduction down to -2 helps reduce the smear you are seeing.

I might give it a try. I am still in the process of experimenting and collecting knowledge. The RAW files are so big and since I took a lot of photos, I have to figure out ways to reduce the total size of my images. Maybe, after I am complete with the post-processing of RAWs, I simply export them to JPEG, delete the RAWS and import back the JPEGs.

Yeah I agree with you too NR -2 might work better.

I also email fuji canada about xa1 high ISO problem. I will keep you guys update if they reply anything useful

Excellent, Bx100 and Thank You, too.
PS: Here is my bonus photo.

Window reflections combined with Bratislava's panorama from the 13th floor of the hotel. Taken with FD 24/f1.4L. RAW post-processed in Lightroom 5.

Miki

miro3 wrote:

you should sell the first image to Fuji!

If Fujifilm is interested I do not mind LOL

I have one more for XE2 lovers

Me & my wife went to this park with 2 other friends and we are all "Fuji guys": We used XT1, XE2, XA1 and X100

Miki Nemeth wrote:

Bx100 wrote:

My wife's first date out with her RED X-A1.

Hi B, These are lovely photos. I am a happy owner of a X-A1, too, and I am in the process of improving my skills and knowledge to use X-A1 to its limits. I noticed that all your images have rather high ISO values. Have you or your wife used flash for these photos?

First image taken by X-T1 + 60mm f2.4 MACRO and the rest taken by X-A1 + 16-50 kit lens.

On the 1st photo the shutter was insanely high: 1/1800, hence ISO 2000 at F4, I guess. Did you use S or M mode here with auto ISO?

always best to view it in 100%

I did, and honestly at high ISO when pixel peeping with full resolution, the images from X-A1 are not that stunning . I found the same problem/issue/fact/phenomenon with my images (remember I've just started using X-A1)

Here is an example from my recent experimenting: when you opened the photo in full size, the girl's face near the window is smeared. This is a cropped out-of-the camera JPEG.

Taken on a dark train without flash, of course.

I had a look at your flickr photostream and those photos are gorgeous even when opened full size; no high-ISO problems.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61350233@N02/

How can we improve the image quality with the X-A1 at high ISO? Or, shall we simply accept the fact that the high-ISO X-A1 images are better viewed unmagnified?

I am just a beginner fun-photographer seeking for the knowledge, I might be totally wrong.

The red X-A1 looks awesome, BTW. All the best and thank you, Miki

It doesn't look to bad for iso 1600 at all! But the second girl is out of focus, that is why it looks the way it does. Plus the in camera noise reduction. You could try lowering the noise reduction in camera to -2 (I believe) or shoot raw and use a program like lightroom which will let you process exactly the way you like it on a picture to picture basis. Most JPG engines are a little aggressive with noise reduction and create an unnatural look that way, I don't mind a little noise or grain.

Email Fuji Canada few days ago with sending some JPEG photos taken with XA1 and XT1 at iso 2000 at the same place, simlar timing and they replied:

Dear Customer,

Thank you for your inquiry.

The sample pictures taken at high ISO 2000 do not indicate an issue. The X-A1 does not have the X-trans sensor that benefits low noise at high ISO. If you set your iPhone to the same sensitivity the images would be incredibly noisy.

Thank you for choosing Fujifilm digital cameras.

Sincerely,

Digital Camera Technical Support

Somehow they are telling the true but nothing really useful. In the email I mentioned that the photo that taken by my friend's iphone was providing more detail than XA1.

Maybe my expectation is too high on Fuji? I think an APS-C camera should perform much better at iso 2000. At least my 3 years old X100 perform much better than that. I think the noise recuction on XA1 is too heavy and XA1's NR0 is now performing like other X camera at NR+2.