Fujifilm X-Trans II film like qualities?

HI

I have been reading quite a bit about the Fuji xt1, x100s, x100t, xe2 that X-Trans II may be the  best sensor for achieving "film like quality" in their output. Also, some have written this is Fujifilm's best sensor.

Wanted to see if those with this sensor and other sensors found this to be the case and if their is a noticeable difference in the output of the sensors and also if not the same type of qualities could be achieved by using another of Fuji cameras with vintage lenses?

Thanks very much

Lou

lou Capeloto wrote:

HI

I have been reading quite a bit about the Fuji xt1, x100s, x100t, xe2 that X-Trans II may be the best sensor for achieving "film like quality" in their output. Also, some have written this is Fujifilm's best sensor.

Wanted to see if those with this sensor and other sensors found this to be the case and if their is a noticeable difference in the output of the sensors and also if not the same type of qualities could be achieved by using another of Fuji cameras with vintage lenses?

Thanks very much

Lou

I have an xt1. Imho, I can't see the "film" difference between it and my xt20 and xt3. But I guess it partly comes down to what film sim settings are used. If you look at fujixeekly recipes, I would think that you would be able to get all of the fuji x cameras to look like film in some way or another.

I do have some shots with the 35mm 1.4 and the xt1, where I used some portra and ectachrome recipes and I found them very nice indeed. And adapting some of the old vintage lenses can also give a different look.

Maybe others have investigated this in much more detail.

I think the most striking thing with the xt1 is, that it can be found really cheap and with the right eyes behind the camera, it will make images just as fine as any new camera. You have to live with slower autofocus among other things of course

Thank you

I appreciate it, very helpful for me

There are many types of film. So, "film like" is many things for many people. As good as Fuji marketing is, digital output passed through film simulations is very different from film.

Redscale disco wrote:

I have an X-T30 and an X-T1. I can’t see any more ”film like” qualities in the X-T1. It really depends on your settings or your post-prosessing.

I do like in general what you can achieve with Fujifilm cameras if you are looking at some kind of film look. But I also think that this means different things for different people.

Anyway, this is a shot taken with the X-T30 and 35mm F1.4. It is a double exposure, where the second picture is out of focus shot of a white paper. It is post-processed just lightly, I added a little exposure, brought down the highlights and lifted a shadows a little bit. My point is, I could do this with the X-T30 and X-T1.

This could be easily done without your white 2nd exposure. Simply layer a white pixel layer with a gaussian blur. Sweeten the amount of blur and the percent of transparency on the white layer to taste for the desired effect

I have not noticed this, although I've seen it mentioned previously.

I normally shoot with an XP-2, xTrans III. I purchased an X-70 last year, xTrans II.  I've tried to compare the outputs of these cameras to one another, including using the same focal length.  I do notice differences between them of course but as far as filmic...no.  Not at all.

I do get that the word filmic is subjective so my findings are based upon my experience.  Many years of film photography then onto Foveon sensor cameras as they gave me the output I was most used to. I switched to Fuji with the XP-2.  I find the Fuji colors to be second in the "digital filmic" category but quite a bit ahead in camera usefulness.

some have written this is Fujifilm's best sensor.

Definitely not. Autofocus is now a sensor thing, it has vastly improved in current sensors despite image quality remains some what same.

lou Capeloto wrote:

Wanted to see if those with this sensor and other sensors found this to be the case and if their is a noticeable difference in the output of the sensors and also if not the same type of qualities could be achieved by using another of Fuji cameras with vintage lenses?

Thanks very much

Lou

Lou,

I have the X-E2s, plus the X-E3 and X-H1. There are times I shoot with all and I feel I could easily mix and match the images and you wouldn't be able to identify which camera took what photo, assuming they are all set up the same.

However, I go back and forth on whether I can see a little something in the images, especially the JPEGs I get from the X-E2.

I also shoot with vintage lenses on all three and the differences are not sensor dependent.

I started with the X-E3, then got an X-E2 as a backup. I ended up giving my grandson the X-E2 when his Canon Rebel (which I had also gifted him) got destroyed in a fire.  I missed the X-E2 and found a cherry copy of the X-E2s.  Reviewers minimized the differences, but I feel the X-E2s is a much better camera.

It's getting harder to find X-Trans II bodies, but if you do,  grab it.  Also, if you don't have any vintage lenses, buy a few and experiment.

This photo was taken with the X-E2s with a Canon FD 50mm f1.4.  I converted to B&W from the RAW file using PS and Topaz Studio.  I also added a texture layer to add character.

X-E2s, Canon FD 50mm f1.4, B&W conversion via Topaz Studio

Doug MacMillan wrote:

lou Capeloto wrote:

Wanted to see if those with this sensor and other sensors found this to be the case and if their is a noticeable difference in the output of the sensors and also if not the same type of qualities could be achieved by using another of Fuji cameras with vintage lenses?

Thanks very much

Lou

Lou,

I have the X-E2s, plus the X-E3 and X-H1. There are times I shoot with all and I feel I could easily mix and match the images and you wouldn't be able to identify which camera took what photo, assuming they are all set up the same.

However, I go back and forth on whether I can see a little something in the images, especially the JPEGs I get from the X-E2.

I also shoot with vintage lenses on all three and the differences are not sensor dependent.

I started with the X-E3, then got an X-E2 as a backup. I ended up giving my grandson the X-E2 when his Canon Rebel (which I had also gifted him) got destroyed in a fire. I missed the X-E2 and found a cherry copy of the X-E2s. Reviewers minimized the differences, but I feel the X-E2s is a much better camera.

It's getting harder to find X-Trans II bodies, but if you do, grab it. Also, if you don't have any vintage lenses, buy a few and experiment.

This photo was taken with the X-E2s with a Canon FD 50mm f1.4. I converted to B&W from the RAW file using PS and Topaz Studio. I also added a texture layer to add character.

X-E2s, Canon FD 50mm f1.4, B&W conversion via Topaz Studio

When I see posts like this I can't help but remember all of the complaining about the 2nd generation JPEG images...  how the 1st generation (the X-Pro1 and XE-1) were far superior...   how the 2nd generation had crushed the shadows, etc.

I think it's mostly a matter of what we become accustomed to rather than which is most "filmic." I didn't find the images from my X-T1 (2nd gen) to be superior or inferior to my X-E1 (first gen) or X-Pro2 (3rd generation).

I'll agree with you that the X-E2 (and X-E1) were delightful cameras to shoot with.

Nice shot. Thank you. I just got back from shooting near my condo with my old xm1 and the Minolta 40 mm f2 m mount v2. Will post a few shots hopefully later today

I haven't noticed much difference in images, if any. Can crop slightly more, that's about it.

If I really want the film look, I can load some film into quite a few film cameras I have laying around.

I'd say if you like the look, get an actual film camera... you can get them for next to nothing.

lou Capeloto wrote:

Nice shot. Thank you. I just got back from shooting near my condo with my old xm1 and the Minolta 40 mm f2 m mount v2. Will post a few shots hopefully later today

I love that little X-m1.  It's a treasure, and the easiest use of flash for quick candid stuff and fill.

I heard similar things about the first generation X-Trans and played around with an X-Pro 1 for a while. I actually a post comparing its output to the X100T (X-Trans II) sensor that you might find interesting: https://www.jonathanslade.net/post/in-with-the-old

I agree with Street_Photography that the X-Trans II is my least favourite of the Fuji sensors, though many of my favourite shots were taken with X-Trans II cameras. I find there's a slight tendency to yellow and a waxiness to the High ISO output (especially skin tones) that is improved with the later sensors.

I was encouraged to pull out my xt 20 and my old Fuji xm-1 and put on the 40mm f2 m Minolta ver 2 lens and wanted to share a few photos outside my condo

When I compare them, the lens to me seems to give an older vintage look

Fuji xt 20 f2/40mm Rokkor

Fuji xm-1 40mm f2 Rokkor

Fuji xm-1 40mm f2 Rokkor

Here are the photos labeled with the camera

Minimal post processing

I think if you’re going to go down the “filmic” old sensor rabbit hole then it’s generally accepted that the original X-Trans, principally in form of the X-Pro1, is the one to go for. In Fuji world that’s really the source legend of the whole film-like mythology.

X-Trans II was actually heavily criticised at the time for losing the fabled “organic” look and seeming too digital. In comparison to the X-Trans I JPEG’s, the results are a lot more polished in some ways, bolder, and less subtle. Someone on this forum once said it was as if X-Trans I produced matte prints, and X-Trans II glossy.

Of course that’s all subjective, but X-Trans II’s worst crime was what it (or at least the image processor in those second gen cameras) did to skin tones at higher ISO. At 1600 ISO or above, the XE2, XT1 etc all apply a very heavy handed noise reduction to skin tones which renders faces waxy and artificial looking - a deliberate “enhancement” which couldn’t ever be turned off even with the in camera NR setting turned down. X-Trans III and later cameras removed this, or at least reigned it in significantly.

For that reason, as a jpeg shooter, X-Trans II is by far my least favourite sensor and I was very glad to move on from it.

lou Capeloto wrote:

HI

I have been reading quite a bit about the Fuji xt1, x100s, x100t, xe2 that X-Trans II may be the best sensor for achieving "film like quality" in their output. Also, some have written this is Fujifilm's best sensor.

Wanted to see if those with this sensor and other sensors found this to be the case and if their is a noticeable difference in the output of the sensors and also if not the same type of qualities could be achieved by using another of Fuji cameras with vintage lenses?

Thanks very much

Lou

"Film-like" look can be achieved in two ways:

1. Shoot film (which is actually a lot of fun to do from time to time!)

2. Shoot digital and do post-processing to achieve the look you want.

The sensor is of little consequence in this process. But maybe you will find it easier to work on files from one camera compared to another.

Myself, I've made "film like" images with all kinds of camera's. On the toher hand, I've also made "digital looking" images with film-scans