X-T4 clarity vs other brands

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
malathan Regular Member • Posts: 278
X-T4 clarity vs other brands
2

Based on the DPReview's Studio shot comparison tool, with raw selected, the comparison between X-T3/4 and other cameras (Canon R6, Nikon z6 II) the Fuji was not as clear and sharp.  Is this inherent in fuji's cameras, related to the specific lenses the DPReview tool uses, or something else I am missing?

Currently with Canon 7d and looking at switching.  Since existing EF/EF-S lenses are not compatible with new cameras (without adaptor and with limitations), I am looking at being forced to start fresh.  As such, then no restrictions on what brand I go with.

Take landscape and family/pet photos primarily, with the latter being more low light situations.  See mixed thoughts on Fuji, but for most part seemed a popular camera.  But after looking at the comparison tool, having concerns that I am not looking at results properly.

-- hide signature --

Clayton
(I have my toys and empty wallet, but I am happy)

Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS R6 Fujifilm X-T4 Nikon Z6 II
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Ysarex
Ysarex Veteran Member • Posts: 3,109
Re: X-T4 clarity vs other brands

malathan wrote:

Based on the DPReview's Studio shot comparison tool, with raw selected, the comparison between X-T3/4 and other cameras (Canon R6, Nikon z6 II) the Fuji was not as clear and sharp. Is this inherent in fuji's cameras, related to the specific lenses the DPReview tool uses, or something else I am missing?

It may be something else you're missing. The Xt-3/4 are Fuji X-Trans sensor cameras. The color filter array is not a standard Bayer configuration. DPReview uses Adobe to do their raw conversion processing for their comparison tool.

This is a known issue: Adobe doesn't play nice with X-Trans. Download the raw files and convert them with a different (non-Adobe) raw converter to see the difference.

Here's a photo taken with my XT-2 (raw file converted using Raw Therapee which works well with X-Trans):  tomatoes.jpg check if that's clear/sharp enough.

Currently with Canon 7d and looking at switching. Since existing EF/EF-S lenses are not compatible with new cameras (without adaptor and with limitations), I am looking at being forced to start fresh. As such, then no restrictions on what brand I go with.

Take landscape and family/pet photos primarily, with the latter being more low light situations. See mixed thoughts on Fuji, but for most part seemed a popular camera. But after looking at the comparison tool, having concerns that I am not looking at results properly.

Erik Baumgartner Senior Member • Posts: 4,700
Re: X-T4 clarity vs other brands
4

malathan wrote:

Based on the DPReview's Studio shot comparison tool, with raw selected, the comparison between X-T3/4 and other cameras (Canon R6, Nikon z6 II) the Fuji was not as clear and sharp. Is this inherent in fuji's cameras, related to the specific lenses the DPReview tool uses, or something else I am missing?

Currently with Canon 7d and looking at switching. Since existing EF/EF-S lenses are not compatible with new cameras (without adaptor and with limitations), I am looking at being forced to start fresh. As such, then no restrictions on what brand I go with.

Take landscape and family/pet photos primarily, with the latter being more low light situations. See mixed thoughts on Fuji, but for most part seemed a popular camera. But after looking at the comparison tool, having concerns that I am not looking at results properly.

DPReview's RAW comparison uses Lightroom's default import settings which are far from optimal with Fuji X-Trans files. With good processing (Lightroom w/Iridient X-Transformer for the Fuji here) they are very close and it really comes down to the quality of glass you're using. Here are the X-H1 with the Fuji 56 (The X-T4 will look about the same) and the Canon R6 with the superb 50mm f/1.2. The FF Canon will have about a one stop advantage in terms of high ISO performance and DR, but in the real world the glass and the photographer will have more to do with image quality than which camera you use.

Fuji X-H1

Canon R6

 Erik Baumgartner's gear list:Erik Baumgartner's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
OP malathan Regular Member • Posts: 278
Re: X-T4 clarity vs other brands

Thanks everyone for assistance.  Sorry I haven't responded till now.

The processed sample images have me confused.  As @Erik said, maybe it is down to the processor/app, but so many reviews and examples always show the fuji images as not as clear and sharp.  one youtube reviewer did a Nikon z6ii against the x-t3(4?) street review and almost ever image the Nikon was more clear.   This is what turns me away from Fuji.  Pixel peeper in me.  Even wife who watched the video with me agreed.  YET... so many show interest in the Fuji I still am hesitant to push Fuji aside.

Given my main use case is pets and landscape/vacations, very casual shooter.  With pets, my dogs are fast little buggers, so low light and fast lens would be nice.

Really like the reviews of the Canon R6/5 focusing, so leaning that route, especially since I have a 70-300 L lens (coming from Canon).  But 20 MP?!  ICK and $$$.

Z6II?  Better in cost...even considering the Z7II just for pixel peeping desire of more MP, but really...for just casual home and vacation shots...really?  But then there is still the side that doesn't like Nikon's lens lineup and lack of telephotos (I do like backyard wildlife on occasion) and could adapt my canon to Nikon (water and oil?).

But there there is the side that still likes the smaller size of Fuji and could see taking with me more often.  See many interested in it.  Many good reviews.  But then I look at image comparisons and just don't get it.  Additionally, I use primarily On1 and tried downloading some raws into it between Nikon and Fuji.  I too see soft areas, while Nikon and Canon were sharp.  So confused.

Waiting for Black Friday, so still have time to confuse myself more on what to go with. 

-- hide signature --

Clayton
(I have my toys and empty wallet, but I am happy)

JayPhizzt Senior Member • Posts: 2,206
Re: X-T4 clarity vs other brands

malathan wrote:

Based on the DPReview's Studio shot comparison tool, with raw selected, the comparison between X-T3/4 and other cameras (Canon R6, Nikon z6 II) the Fuji was not as clear and sharp. Is this inherent in fuji's cameras, related to the specific lenses the DPReview tool uses, or something else I am missing?

Currently with Canon 7d and looking at switching. Since existing EF/EF-S lenses are not compatible with new cameras (without adaptor and with limitations), I am looking at being forced to start fresh. As such, then no restrictions on what brand I go with.

Take landscape and family/pet photos primarily, with the latter being more low light situations. See mixed thoughts on Fuji, but for most part seemed a popular camera. But after looking at the comparison tool, having concerns that I am not looking at results properly.

First of all sharpness is an almost entirely lens sided characteristic and has little to do with the camera/sensor. Fuji's lenses generally range from good to fantastic so that's definitely not a problem.

In this case however we have X-trans to take in to account which needs different processing/demosaicing to get optimal results and DPreview uses Adobe RAW conversion which is less than optimal for X-trans. If you're going to use Lightroom for X-trans I highly recommend to either use the "enhance details" feature in it or use Iridient X-transformer to get better results.

This is a very well known issue, but things have gotten a lot better than they were a few years ago. Nowadays there are several softwares that do a good job with X-trans. I for example use Capture One which works well with X-trans. However the program I've used with the best X-trans demosaicing is RawTherapee.

 JayPhizzt's gear list:JayPhizzt's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 80mm F2.8 Macro
OP malathan Regular Member • Posts: 278
Re: X-T4 clarity vs other brands

JayPhizzt wrote:

First of all sharpness is an almost entirely lens sided characteristic and has little to do with the camera/sensor. Fuji's lenses generally range from good to fantastic so that's definitely not a problem.

In this case however we have X-trans to take in to account which needs different processing/demosaicing to get optimal results and DPreview uses Adobe RAW conversion which is less than optimal for X-trans. If you're going to use Lightroom for X-trans I highly recommend to either use the "enhance details" feature in it or use Iridient X-transformer to get better results.

This is a very well known issue, but things have gotten a lot better than they were a few years ago. Nowadays there are several softwares that do a good job with X-trans. I for example use Capture One which works well with X-trans. However the program I've used with the best X-trans demosaicing is RawTherapee.

When you process your images/raws, are you exporting them as jpgs and then working off those or leaving as raws?   I have always left my raws and used apps such as LR (currently On1 Photo Raw) to modify and process them, then would leave as-is (not export)...only exporting as jpg for sharing more as a temporary output.  If Fuji is sensitive on which app is used for raws, then wouldn't you forever be locked into that processor unless you do a final output and treat that as your master image?

-- hide signature --

Clayton
(I have my toys and empty wallet, but I am happy)

Tom Schum
Tom Schum Forum Pro • Posts: 12,322
Re: X-T4 clarity vs other brands
1

I've not been bothered with the clarity of my Fuji images, whether they are 16mp from the first generation or 26mp from the latest generation.  All are fine.  You aren't going to get pixel-level sharpness unless you downsize to 1/2 or 1/4 of original pixels, but this also applies to images from Bayer sensors.  X-trans rejects fine color moire much better than Bayer, and less moire means a better image.

Regular APS-C Bayer without optical antialias filtering will show you a "sharper" image but it will also show you a lot more color moire.  Low levels of color moire at detail edges can be interpreted in the mind of a viewer as more detail but it is false detail.  So, many viewers will prefer regular APS-C Bayer images from cameras without optical anti-aliasing filters.

Recently I bought a Sigma fp L. This is a 61mp Bayer sensor in a very small package:

Sigma fp L Overview: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Sony has a more conventional implementation using this sensor: the a7R IVA:

Sony a7R IVA Overview: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

If you need detail one of these cameras might satisfy you.  For the price and resolution, and simply for the fun of using them, Fujis are pretty good.  I like mine.  Yes they can't match top end full frame results but that's not really where it is at with the Fujis.  Fujis will do great color and very good detail without artifacts such as moire.  And high ISO on the Fujis is great.

Good luck, and choose a camera you can enjoy long term, even if it isn't a Fuji!

-- hide signature --

Tom Schum
"Beware of taking advice from anonymous wise men." Quote from Anon.

 Tom Schum's gear list:Tom Schum's gear list
Fujifilm X30 Sigma dp0 Quattro Panasonic ZS100 Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm X-E4 +14 more
Erik Baumgartner Senior Member • Posts: 4,700
Re: X-T4 clarity vs other brands

malathan wrote:

JayPhizzt wrote:

First of all sharpness is an almost entirely lens sided characteristic and has little to do with the camera/sensor. Fuji's lenses generally range from good to fantastic so that's definitely not a problem.

In this case however we have X-trans to take in to account which needs different processing/demosaicing to get optimal results and DPreview uses Adobe RAW conversion which is less than optimal for X-trans. If you're going to use Lightroom for X-trans I highly recommend to either use the "enhance details" feature in it or use Iridient X-transformer to get better results.

This is a very well known issue, but things have gotten a lot better than they were a few years ago. Nowadays there are several softwares that do a good job with X-trans. I for example use Capture One which works well with X-trans. However the program I've used with the best X-trans demosaicing is RawTherapee.

When you process your images/raws, are you exporting them as jpgs and then working off those or leaving as raws? I have always left my raws and used apps such as LR (currently On1 Photo Raw) to modify and process them, then would leave as-is (not export)...only exporting as jpg for sharing more as a temporary output. If Fuji is sensitive on which app is used for raws, then wouldn't you forever be locked into that processor unless you do a final output and treat that as your master image?

With Lightroom you can use the built-in Enhance Details utility or the Iridient X-Transformer plug-in from within LR to produce an additional DNG (which appears in LR next to the original RAF) that has been produced with superior (to standard Adobe processing) X-Trans demosaicing, but that will otherwise process exactly like the RAFS do (but without the standard processing issues).

The DNGs can be deleted (if you want) after the final jpeg has been exported if the development settings have been synced or copied back to the original RAF -you can always produce an identical DNG in the future with a couple of mouse clicks if you want to revisit a previous edit.

As good as the demosaiced DNGs are, they can never be restored to their original RAF form so keeping the original RAFs for the future is highly recommended (where better demosaicing options will very likely be available).

 Erik Baumgartner's gear list:Erik Baumgartner's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
Heinz Senior Member • Posts: 1,854
It's the raw converter

they use acr. If you're using C1 the Fuji files look ervery bit as good or better than the other brands with exeptional "clarity". Some time ago i did a blind test here and almost nobody was able to distinguish between a X-T20 and the Sony A7III. If you want the best iq from the x-trans you have to use C1, period.

 Heinz's gear list:Heinz's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3
JayPhizzt Senior Member • Posts: 2,206
Re: X-T4 clarity vs other brands

malathan wrote:

When you process your images/raws, are you exporting them as jpgs and then working off those or leaving as raws? I have always left my raws and used apps such as LR (currently On1 Photo Raw) to modify and process them, then would leave as-is (not export)...only exporting as jpg for sharing more as a temporary output. If Fuji is sensitive on which app is used for raws, then wouldn't you forever be locked into that processor unless you do a final output and treat that as your master image?

Of course I edit the RAW files and then export as JPG when I want to post them online.

All RAW converters have different demosaicing, even for regular bayer files, so there can be differences there as well, even if they're not as big. X-trans is Fuji's own color filter so only their cameras use it and that's why it might not be the number one priority among developers.

 JayPhizzt's gear list:JayPhizzt's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 80mm F2.8 Macro
JayPhizzt Senior Member • Posts: 2,206
Re: It's the raw converter

Heinz wrote:

they use acr. If you're using C1 the Fuji files look ervery bit as good or better than the other brands with exeptional "clarity". Some time ago i did a blind test here and almost nobody was able to distinguish between a X-T20 and the Sony A7III. If you want the best iq from the x-trans you have to use C1, period.

I don't agree. If you want the best X-trans demosaicing use RawTherapee. I've done comparisons between bayer and X-trans files in Capture One and bayer files definitely look better in it.

 JayPhizzt's gear list:JayPhizzt's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 80mm F2.8 Macro
Heinz Senior Member • Posts: 1,854
Re: It's the raw converter

JayPhizzt wrote:

Heinz wrote:

they use acr. If you're using C1 the Fuji files look ervery bit as good or better than the other brands with exeptional "clarity". Some time ago i did a blind test here and almost nobody was able to distinguish between a X-T20 and the Sony A7III. If you want the best iq from the x-trans you have to use C1, period.

I don't agree. If you want the best X-trans demosaicing use RawTherapee. I've done comparisons between bayer and X-trans files in Capture One and bayer files definitely look better in it.

Why should i use RawTherapy? I'm perfectly happy with the files in C1? I testet those free converters and none of them even came close to my idea of a usable software. But when you're happy with it, why not?

 Heinz's gear list:Heinz's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3
JayPhizzt Senior Member • Posts: 2,206
Re: It's the raw converter

Heinz wrote:

Why should i use RawTherapy? I'm perfectly happy with the files in C1? I testet those free converters and none of them even came close to my idea of a usable software. But when you're happy with it, why not?

I never said you should. You should of course use whatever you prefer. I just meant that C1 doesn't have the best demosaicing. I use C1 myself because I think RawTherapee's UI sucks. I really wish C1 would use the same demosaicing as RawTherapee, though. That would be the best of both worlds.

 JayPhizzt's gear list:JayPhizzt's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 80mm F2.8 Macro
EOS GUY
EOS GUY Senior Member • Posts: 5,342
Re: X-T4 clarity vs other brands

I can tell you I went from the Canon SL2 with the excellent 24mp sensor and the X-T2 is on par with it for sure and on par with the Nikon D5300 24mp I had.

Pretty much a muchness of muchness or 'same sameness' with only slight differences in WB and colour, Nikon looks a tad cooler, Canon warmer... Fuji in between

Nikon blows Highlights quicker, in summer I was always metering at minus 0-7 to -1 EV

Canon preserves them real good if you use HL tone protection, Fuji is pretty good with HL if you -1 them in camera and also use DR400 (I shoot mostly JPEG now, these cameras JPEGS are so darned good) all the same for shadows IME and all as good as each other

-- hide signature --

My Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/photonicstreetdreams/
The earth laughs in flowers.
-Ralph Waldo Emmerson
Before you say (or post in our context) = THINK.
Is what you're going to say - True. Helpful. Important (or Inspiring.) Necessary. Kind.
I have G.A.S, - gear avoidance syndrome.

 EOS GUY's gear list:EOS GUY's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Canon EF-S 24mm F2.8 STM +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads