Is Old Fuji Color Better? Or Even Different?

This just came up in another thread, and has often come up in the past - People going on about how much better the color was from the older sensor cameras, especially the X-Trans 1 models. All but one of these are SOOC jpegs (a couple with a teeny brightness adjustment, and the higher res. images were down-scaled so they are all consistent in those respects). Do they really look that different to you?

It seems to me that "Fuji Color" really hasn't changed much at all over the years, the differences here are quite subtle to my eyes.. I suspect that the differences in color that people see between cameras mostly has to do with exposure and Auto-WB discrepancies. I don't think the color profiles have changed much, if at all.

Can you tell which image is from which camera? Do you have a preference? The images below are from the - X-Pro1, Xpro2, X-E1, X-E2, X-T1, and a RAW conversion from the X-T2 with a custom profile to match the X-T1 SOOC jpeg.

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

I'm sure you're correct, but I've only had XTrans3(X-E3 and X-H1) I've read that the film simulations have been tweaked with every new processor giving the engineers more processing power to work with.
BTW: I want to thank you for all your posts,especially those involving post processing, they have been invaluable to me.

These test images look remarkably similar. Its hard to assign any of them to any particular camera, although Image #5 looks on my monitor to be the most saturated and I would guess that it came from one of the older sensors.

Having done some direct comparisons myself between older and newer Fuji sensors during the past few days, I would say that the differences when looking at the files on a high quality monitor, are more apparent than when they are reduced and posted online. However the differences remain small and its quite easy to make an image from a current sensor resemble an image taken from an older sensor (as I perceive it to be), even with my extremely limited skills with Photoshop.

TheWhiteDog wrote:

I'm sure you're correct, but I've only had XTrans3(X-E3 and X-H1) I've read that the film simulations have been tweaked with every new processor giving the engineers more processing power to work with.

They have certainly expanded beyond the original simulations with the sophisticated grain simulation of Acros and new options like the new Color Chrome effect and Clarity etc., but the standard jpeg  “color science” has remained remarkably consistent to my eye. Looking at these jpegs side by side, I fail to see any shortcomings in the newer ones, nor “special” qualities in the older ones.
Resolution differences aside, with a few minor tweaks, any of these images would be nearly indistinguishable from any of the others (if you don’t look really closely).
I know some people have ditched newer cameras to return to the preferred image quality of older ones, but I seriously doubt there’s any magic that can’t be reproduced in a newer model with a relatively simple WB/exposure/contrast adjustment in-camera for a jpeg, or in post for a RAW file.

BTW: I want to thank you for all your posts,especially those involving post processing, they have been invaluable to me.

I am glad I was able to help in some way.

No and therefore no.

People on here ruminate about the minutiae of equipment because it means they need not face the fact that (and I don't mean anyone from this thread) any shortcomings in their output is almost wholly in their own hands.

enigmatico wrote:

These test images look remarkably similar. Its hard to assign any of them to any particular camera, although Image #5 looks on my monitor to be the most saturated and I would guess that it came from one of the older sensors.

* Below is an edit from an earlier reply where I got the images mixed up

Actually no, #5 is the jpeg from the X-Pro2, an X-Trans III camera, Here with #2 (the X-T1, an X-Trans II camera), with the slight exception of the yellows, the color appears very similar to me.

Considering that some of these images were shot years apart and not all with the same lens, I think they are remarkably consistent, a lot more so than most other brands.

#2 (L), #5 (R)

Having done some direct comparisons myself between older and newer Fuji sensors during the past few days, I would say that the differences when looking at the files on a high quality monitor, are more apparent than when they are reduced and posted online. However the differences remain small and its quite easy to make an image from a current sensor resemble an image taken from an older sensor (as I perceive it to be), even with my extremely limited skills with Photoshop.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

This just came up in another thread, and has often come up in the past - People going on about how much better the color was from the older sensor cameras, especially the X-Trans 1 models. All but one of these are SOOC jpegs (a couple with a teeny brightness adjustment, and the higher res. images were down-scaled so they are all consistent in those respects). Do they really look that different to you?

It seems to me that "Fuji Color" really hasn't changed much at all over the years, the differences here are quite subtle to my eyes.. I suspect that the differences in color that people see between cameras mostly has to do with exposure and Auto-WB discrepancies. I don't think the color profiles have changed much, if at all.

Can you tell which image is from which camera? Do you have a preference? The images below are from the - X-Pro1, Xpro2, X-E1, X-E2, X-T1, and a RAW conversion from the X-T2 with a custom profile to match the X-T1 SOOC jpeg.

<snip the test scenes>

I find most test scenes are pretty poor for judging colors. They tend to go for very vibrant, pure colors. Especially that test scene.

Objects with subtle variations in hue and in more neutral palettes would be better. Like - why not include a few wood blocks of different sorts? That would much more closely simulate human skin tones.

Color swatches are great in that you can go to a store and buy them yourself, but being such vibrant hues it's a bit too easy to match - all the colors are on the outside of the HSV wheel. What about all the colors on the inside?

I've tested the X-Pro1 vs X-Pro2 on humans and posted the results here. You can judge for yourself. I chose Astia as more subtle than Provia, and I didn't see much difference in Pro-Neg Hi.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4493802

Also check out the first thread in my sig, which has a more complete set of Fuji JPGs (vs other cameras too).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSL_and_HSV

It's easy to get colors to match on the outside of the HSV wheel, large changes in tonality can get you there. But what about the colors on the inside of the HSV wheel? Those large changes can have outsized effects on the inner colors.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

TheWhiteDog wrote:

I'm sure you're correct, but I've only had XTrans3(X-E3 and X-H1) I've read that the film simulations have been tweaked with every new processor giving the engineers more processing power to work with.

They have certainly expanded beyond the original simulations with the sophisticated grain simulation of Acros and new options like the new Color Chrome effect and Clarity etc., but the standard jpeg “color science” has remained remarkably consistent to my eye.

Provia has become cooler (bluer) over the years; I now use Astia instead of Provia as my default simulation.

Beyond that, the shadows have become heavier and blacker after the X-Trans1 cameras.

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

TheWhiteDog wrote:

I'm sure you're correct, but I've only had XTrans3(X-E3 and X-H1) I've read that the film simulations have been tweaked with every new processor giving the engineers more processing power to work with.

They have certainly expanded beyond the original simulations with the sophisticated grain simulation of Acros and new options like the new Color Chrome effect and Clarity etc., but the standard jpeg “color science” has remained remarkably consistent to my eye.

Provia has become cooler (bluer) over the years; I now use Astia instead of Provia as my default simulation.

Beyond that, the shadows have become heavier and blacker after the X-Trans1 cameras.

I agree about the shadows - at least with the X-Pro1, but I doesn’t seem to me as though Provia/Standard has changed - although the AUTO-WB may very well be cooler on the newer models (these examples were all pretty well matched for WB).
I shoot RAW, but I never found Astia to be good all purpose jpeg choice, it can look great with some images, but the blues are oversaturated and the greens are often too yellow for my liking.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

TheWhiteDog wrote:

I'm sure you're correct, but I've only had XTrans3(X-E3 and X-H1) I've read that the film simulations have been tweaked with every new processor giving the engineers more processing power to work with.

They have certainly expanded beyond the original simulations with the sophisticated grain simulation of Acros and new options like the new Color Chrome effect and Clarity etc., but the standard jpeg “color science” has remained remarkably consistent to my eye.

Provia has become cooler (bluer) over the years; I now use Astia instead of Provia as my default simulation.

Beyond that, the shadows have become heavier and blacker after the X-Trans1 cameras.

I agree about the shadows - at least with the X-Pro1, but I doesn’t seem to me as though Provia/Standard has changed - although the AUTO-WB may very well be cooler on the newer models (these examples were all pretty well matched for WB).
I shoot RAW, but I never found Astia to be good all purpose jpeg choice, it can look great with some images, but the blues are oversaturated and the greens are often too yellow for my liking.

I disagree.

Shooting with all three generations of sensors, Provia is slightly warmer on the X-Pro1. If you are a Raw shooter it won't matter that much, but for people who shoot JOGs or don't like to spend much time processing the differences are more noticeable.

Of course, when people say they prefer the first gen cameras, they are often talking about color, noise, shadows, highlights, etc. so just focusing on color doesn't address everything that goes into "image quality".

a_c_skinner wrote:

No and therefore no.

People on here ruminate about the minutiae of equipment because it means they need not face the fact that (and I don't mean anyone from this thread) any shortcomings in their output is almost wholly in their own hands.

More or less agree.  I don't know if colors have changed but since virtually every image is post-adusted, does it matter?  Minor color shade differences don't make or break a great shot.  I pursue the shot, color can be modified later if needed.

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

TheWhiteDog wrote:

I'm sure you're correct, but I've only had XTrans3(X-E3 and X-H1) I've read that the film simulations have been tweaked with every new processor giving the engineers more processing power to work with.

They have certainly expanded beyond the original simulations with the sophisticated grain simulation of Acros and new options like the new Color Chrome effect and Clarity etc., but the standard jpeg “color science” has remained remarkably consistent to my eye.

Provia has become cooler (bluer) over the years; I now use Astia instead of Provia as my default simulation.

Beyond that, the shadows have become heavier and blacker after the X-Trans1 cameras.

I agree about the shadows - at least with the X-Pro1, but I doesn’t seem to me as though Provia/Standard has changed - although the AUTO-WB may very well be cooler on the newer models (these examples were all pretty well matched for WB).
I shoot RAW, but I never found Astia to be good all purpose jpeg choice, it can look great with some images, but the blues are oversaturated and the greens are often too yellow for my liking.

I disagree.

Shooting with all three generations of sensors, Provia is slightly warmer on the X-Pro1.

Are you sure it isn’t just an AutoWB/exposure difference? It doesn’t look much different in these examples (although if one is warmer here, it is the X-Pro1). The X-E1, which is also 1st generation, looks more like the others.

If you are a Raw shooter it won't matter that much, but for people who shoot JOGs or don't like to spend much time processing the differences are more noticeable.

Of course, when people say they prefer the first gen cameras, they are often talking about color, noise, shadows, highlights, etc. so just focusing on color doesn't address everything that goes into "image quality".

All those things are represented in this comparison, not just color. I don’t any significant differences that an in-camera Jpeg settings tweak shouldn’t be able to iron out.

I haven’t  used any of these older cameras regularly, and I am primarily a RAW shooter, but if one desires the “look” of the early cameras, It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to get there with a newer model, including with jpegs.

#3 is my preference! Wonder what sensor that is?

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

TheWhiteDog wrote:

I'm sure you're correct, but I've only had XTrans3(X-E3 and X-H1) I've read that the film simulations have been tweaked with every new processor giving the engineers more processing power to work with.

They have certainly expanded beyond the original simulations with the sophisticated grain simulation of Acros and new options like the new Color Chrome effect and Clarity etc., but the standard jpeg “color science” has remained remarkably consistent to my eye.

Provia has become cooler (bluer) over the years; I now use Astia instead of Provia as my default simulation.

Beyond that, the shadows have become heavier and blacker after the X-Trans1 cameras.

I agree about the shadows - at least with the X-Pro1, but I doesn’t seem to me as though Provia/Standard has changed - although the AUTO-WB may very well be cooler on the newer models (these examples were all pretty well matched for WB).
I shoot RAW, but I never found Astia to be good all purpose jpeg choice, it can look great with some images, but the blues are oversaturated and the greens are often too yellow for my liking.

I disagree.

Shooting with all three generations of sensors, Provia is slightly warmer on the X-Pro1.

Are you sure it isn’t just an AutoWB/exposure difference? It doesn’t look much different in these examples (although if one is warmer here, it is the X-Pro1). The X-E1, which is also 1st generation, looks more like the others.

Like I said, I have plenty of experience with X-Trans1 and Provia is warmer on those two cameras.

If you are a Raw shooter it won't matter that much, but for people who shoot JOGs or don't like to spend much time processing the differences are more noticeable.

Of course, when people say they prefer the first gen cameras, they are often talking about color, noise, shadows, highlights, etc. so just focusing on color doesn't address everything that goes into "image quality".

All those things are represented in this comparison, not just color. I don’t any significant differences that an in-camera Jpeg settings tweak shouldn’t be able to iron out.

Look at the leaf to the left of the coffee cup; on X-Trans2/3 cameras it's just a heavy mess of dark shadows. Without using a selective mask, you won't be able to lighten that leaf up without affecting the rest of the photo. People with wrinkles tend to look younger on X-Trans1 cameras.

I haven’t used any of these older cameras regularly, and I am primarily a RAW shooter, but if one desires the “look” of the early cameras, It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to get there with a newer model, including with jpegs.

You can get close, and good enough is often enough for some people.

I find it fascinating how often this comes up. It's almost always owners of newer cameras who are compelled to prove how good their cameras are.

I find it fascinating how often this comes up. It's almost always owners of newer cameras who are compelled to prove how good their cameras are.

I posted this more for folks with newer cameras who feel the image quality is somehow lacking compared to the early sensor "look", I'm really not seeing it.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

I find it fascinating how often this comes up. It's almost always owners of newer cameras who are compelled to prove how good their cameras are.

I posted this more for folks with newer cameras who feel the image quality is somehow lacking compared to the early sensor "look", I'm really not seeing it.

It's ok, you don't need to see the difference. Just be happy with your newer cameras and don't worry about if they have the same IQ as an eight year old camera.

I upgraded to an X-Pro2 and accepted the trade off to get a functionally better camera.

As a former XE-1 and X100 user, I prefer the overall look of my current X-T3 files. Including color.