X-Trans 1 (X-Pro 1 / X-E1) – Amazing colors/colours?

My Personal Findings

There is a difference.

X-E1 has more “punchy” colours

X-E1 has more contrast

X-E3 is better at reflecting what the real scene looked like

So.. how did I get there ?

Background

There have been countless number of content creators/photog community members praising the image output from the X-Trans 1 (X-Pro1/X-E1…).

Some may say there is a “cult” following for cameras with the X-Trans 1 sensor, these are sought after on the used market (eBay) as they have been more difficult to find used in mint condition.

So when an opportunity to purchase a “near mint” X-E1 (kit) – I didn’t hesitate and pulled the trigger, as it would be a great opportunity to form my own opinion, and share / contribute my findings with the "innerwebs".

Purpose

Compare out of camera RAW image for a few “Real world” scenes (I did take FINE JPEG as well), I wanted to see if there was a difference compared to my X-E3 (X-Trans3) OR if this was all made up.

What's been frustrating is individuals sharing amazing photos taken with X-Pro 1/ X-E1 .. during their ownership. Touting it's "unique" properties of X-Trans 1 had somehow added some additional magic property to their photos to make it even more amazing. However the argument could be made that the same scene could be reproduced with any camera, by the same photographer.... basically...I was missing a direct real world comparison for a given scene.

Raw files + out of camera JPEG will be provided, so you can use your tool of choice if you would like to perform further analysis.

Additional Clarification on "Compare camera raw image"

“Compare camera raw image” = What I find more pleasing between the two images from a colour perspective prior to moving any sliders in your editor of choice.

Controls

-Base ISO used on both cameras

-X-Trans1 (X-E1 + 18-55mm)

-X-Trans3 (X-E3 + 18-55mm)

-I will be shooting Raw + Film simulation (Provia) on both cameras

-Film simulation will not be tweaked (all zeros)

-DR100 for both cameras

-Same exposure will be taken on both cameras for a scene

-Same lens model (18-55mm)

-I’ll try to find meaningful test scenes that I find interesting (i.e., no brick walls)

Caveats/Constraints/Limitations

Understand the following parameters will influence the output, however due to my limited time, I won’t be able to address the following:

-No control lighting, no props (Scenes will be outdoors)

-White balance – Both cameras will be set the same WB profile (i.e., DAYLIGHT, CLOUDY etc)

-There is more to a camera than output – but I won’t be testing/commenting on DR/NR/AF/AWB/handling etc

-Test scenes is only limited to my place of residence (5 minute walk)

-No baseline image - Capturing the "true to life" colour representation of a scene

Errors identified during my process of creating these test photos

1. White balance “preset” have a different value between the two cameras

X-E1 – Sunny is temp: 4900 tint: 13

X-E3 – Sunny is temp: 5000 tint: 12

2. Between images the framing may not have an exact framing (e.g., zoom 37.4mm vs 36.3mm)

3. I didn’t use the same physical lens (same model i.e., 18-55 2.8-4, but not the same physical lens), this was done for convenience, as changing lenses between the bodies would just be too cumbersome.

Acknowledgement

Lots of threads and content exist on this already, however I didn't find one that compares X-Trans 1 vs X-Trans 3 (directly)

Interesting further read - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4568525

Raw / OOC JPEGs?

Yes, for the purposes of construct a supporting / alternative view – View here

Scenes

Below is a screenshot taken from opening raw file with adobe defaults, comparing the two cameras for the same scene.

Scene 1 – Sunflower

1/250 at f/8.0 ISO200

LR WB: 4900/13

Scene 1. - LHS - X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 2 - Playground

1/125 at f/8.0 ISO200

LR WB: 4900/13

Scene 2. - LHS - X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 3 – Signpost

1/500 at f/4.0 ISO200

LR WB: 4900/13

Scene 3. - LHS - X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 4 – Cycleway

1/125 at f/8.0 ISO200

LR WB: 4900/13

Scene 4. - LHS - X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 5 – Geese

1/250 at f/3.6 ISO200

LR WB: 4900/13

Scene 5. - LHS - X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 6 – Swamp

1/500 at f/4.0 ISO200

LR WB: 4900/13

Scene 6. - LHS - X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 7 – Small Warehouse

1/500 at f/4.0 ISO200

LR WB: 4900/13

Scene 7. - LHS - X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 8 – Fence

1/250 at f/4.0 ISO200

LR WB: 4900/13

Scene 8. - LHS - X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 9 – Trees

1/250 at f/8.0 ISO200

LR WB: 4900/13

Scene 9. - LHS - X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 10 – Rocks

1/250 at f/8.0 ISO200

LR WB: 4900/13

Scene 10. - LHS - X-E1 RHS X-E3

Feel free to contribute/comment - if you could include specific picture / area of interest to support your view point that would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Ysarex wrote:

Raymond L wrote:

My Personal Findings

There is a difference.

X-E1 has more “punchy” colours

X-E1 has more contrast

X-E3 is better at reflecting what the real scene looked like

So.. how did I get there ?

Background

There have been countless number of content creators/photog community members praising the image output from the X-Trans 1 (X-Pro1/X-E1…).

Some may say there is a “cult” following for cameras with the X-Trans 1 sensor, these are sought after on the used market (eBay) as they have been more difficult to find used in mint condition.

So when an opportunity to purchase a “near mint” X-E1 (kit) – I didn’t hesitate and pulled the trigger, as it would be a great opportunity to form my own opinion, and share / contribute my findings with the "innerwebs".

Purpose

Compare out of camera RAW image for a few “Real world” scenes (I did take FINE JPEG as well), I wanted to see if there was a difference compared to my X-E3 (X-Trans3) OR if this was all made up.

What's been frustrating is individuals sharing amazing photos taken with X-Pro 1/ X-E1 .. during their ownership. Touting it's "unique" properties of X-Trans 1 had somehow added some additional magic property to their photos to make it even more amazing. However the argument could be made that the same scene could be reproduced with any camera, by the same photographer.... basically...I was missing a direct real world comparison for a given scene.

Raw files + out of camera JPEG will be provided, so you can use your tool of choice if you would like to perform further analysis.

Additional Clarification on "Compare camera raw image"

“Compare camera raw image” = What I find more pleasing between the two images from a colour perspective prior to moving any sliders in your editor of choice.

You're not comparing the difference then between the two sensors you're comparing the difference between Adobe's rendering. If you think because you haven't moved any of the sliders in LR/PS that Adobe is treating the two sensors the same, you'd be wrong. Adobe develops input profiles for each camera and that's what your comparing.

Thanks for the insights there, makes sense.

(The light changed on your sunflower photo between the two camera shots -- that invalidates the test.)

OK, that's why there were another 9 scenes. Did you noticed any of the other scenes you would consider to be invalid as well ?

Here's your XE-1/XE-3 of the traffic sign and you can compare the rendering difference produced by Capture One.

If you're interested in the differences between the two cameras you compare JPEG output -- that's the camera's rendering.

I noticed that capture one colours that you provided appears to be significantly different to the JPEG output? (compared to LR) Did you adjust the images above?

For reference, below is the "Adobe" interpretation of the RAF files compared to the camera OOC JPEG

X-E1 OOC JPG vs RAF LR Classic

X-E3 OOC JPG vs RAF LR Classic

Looking at the JPEG output comparison directly -

I can see that having all JPEG settings set to Zero is not sufficient, as the definition of "zero" is different between X-E1 & X-E3.

X-E3 appears to have more contrast ( shadow tone? ) and slightly more saturation (Colour?) - Not a JPEG shooter, but here is the comparisons below.

Scene 2 LHS X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 3 LHS X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 4 LHS X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 5 LHS X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 6 LHS X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 7 LHS X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 8 LHS X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 9 LHS X-E1 RHS X-E3

Scene 10 LHS X-E1 RHS X-E3

Glad you enjoyed it. I really enjoyed the process of “making up” an experiment, writing it up and executing it.

More importantly communicating it in a way that (hopefully) most people who are interested in this could understand. I also kept it fairly open, providing the raw/jpeg files…

Understood where I went wrong with the feedback re: camera output vs Adobe interpretation. I guess i am more focused on how it “looked” at the start of my workflow, not the technical definition of “straight out of camera” JPEG.

I had anticipated the opinion that the “differences” aren’t as profound in RAW files, but are in the JPEG files.  So I intentionally made sure jpeg files were captured as well, so that was a possible method of comparison.

Nielk Mike wrote:

You need to compare JPEGs. And also scenes that do have color in them (like the playground), and some with subtile color and portraits.

Having that, I don't see an "amazing" difference in color between my X-E1 and X-E3. A difference: Yes. Amazing: No.

Agree with this. I’ve had every generation of X-Trans over the years (I have an XE1 and X-Pro3 right now), take a lot of JPEG’s, and have gotten caught up in all these comparisons many times before.

The truth is, while there are differences between X-Trans 1, 2, 3 and 4, I can’t choose one that I consistently prefer in every situation. They all have great colour in their own right and none are more “amazing” than the other. The later sensors certainly have better dynamic range, and low light performance though, not to mention more shots in focus of course

Raymond L wrote:

Glad you enjoyed it. I really enjoyed the process of “making up” an experiment, writing it up and executing it.

More importantly communicating it in a way that (hopefully) most people who are interested in this could understand. I also kept it fairly open, providing the raw/jpeg files…

Understood where I went wrong with the feedback re: camera output vs Adobe interpretation. I guess i am more focused on how it “looked” at the start of my workflow, not the technical definition of “straight out of camera” JPEG.

I had anticipated the opinion that the “differences” aren’t as profound in RAW files, but are in the JPEG files. So I intentionally made sure jpeg files were captured as well, so that was a possible method of comparison.

If you really want to tease out the differences between cameras, a comparison should be made with both auto-exposure and auto-WB enabled (on a tripod so exact framing can be maintained). If you use those features and one camera constantly underexposes or maintains an AWB shift relative to the other, it will very much factor in to the day to day results you can expect from each camera (including RAW files). You also might want to seek out some subject matter with a wider/more complex color palette than in some of the previous examples.  
Erik

Threaded wrote:

Nielk Mike wrote:

You need to compare JPEGs. And also scenes that do have color in them (like the playground), and some with subtile color and portraits.

Having that, I don't see an "amazing" difference in color between my X-E1 and X-E3. A difference: Yes. Amazing: No.

Agree with this. I’ve had every generation of X-Trans over the years (I have an XE1 and X-Pro3 right now), take a lot of JPEG’s, and have gotten caught up in all these comparisons many times before.

The truth is, while there are differences between X-Trans 1, 2, 3 and 4, I can’t choose one that I consistently prefer in every situation. They all have great colour in their own right and none are more “amazing” than the other. The later sensors certainly have better dynamic range, and low light performance though, not to mention more shots in focus of course

This seems a good summation of my experiences as well. I worked briefly (a few months) with X-Trans I (X-M1), X-Trans II (X-E2S) and currently X-Trans IV (X-T4). As regards using low cost lenses I found OOC jpegs from the X-E2S most complimentary because its more saturated and contrasty jpeg output best complimented their softer output and higher flare. But I sold those lenses shortly after purchasing the X-T4, and prefer it’s output with the XF 16-80.

A while back someone, hoping to disprove the notion that people could pick the X-Trans1 in a blind test with an X-Trans2 and X-Trans 3 photo (same studio scene, no PP added) found that almost everyone, myself included, who had experience with X-Trans1 cameras successfully picked the X-Trans1 image.

Papa48 wrote:

Threaded wrote:

Nielk Mike wrote:

You need to compare JPEGs. And also scenes that do have color in them (like the playground), and some with subtile color and portraits.

Having that, I don't see an "amazing" difference in color between my X-E1 and X-E3. A difference: Yes. Amazing: No.

Agree with this. I’ve had every generation of X-Trans over the years (I have an XE1 and X-Pro3 right now), take a lot of JPEG’s, and have gotten caught up in all these comparisons many times before.

The truth is, while there are differences between X-Trans 1, 2, 3 and 4, I can’t choose one that I consistently prefer in every situation. They all have great colour in their own right and none are more “amazing” than the other. The later sensors certainly have better dynamic range, and low light performance though, not to mention more shots in focus of course

This seems a good summation of my experiences as well. I worked briefly (a few months) with X-Trans I (X-M1), X-Trans II (X-E2S) and currently X-Trans IV (X-T4). As regards using low cost lenses I found OOC jpegs from the X-E2S most complimentary because its more saturated and contrasty jpeg output best complimented their softer output and higher flare. But I sold those lenses shortly after purchasing the X-T4, and prefer it’s output with the XF 16-80.

Actually, the X-M1 does not have the X-Trans I look, quite the opposite, it is very contrasty, like the X-E2 and other X-Trans II cameras.

The X-Trans I look comes from the image processor, which is that same only in X-E1, X-Pro 1 and X100 but the X-M1 has the newer image processor found in the X-E2, X100s, and thus exhibits the X-Trans II look (and noise reduction):

You can see it clearly here:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-m1/11

go to the section "Dynamic Range Modes" and pick

* X-M1 DR100
* X-E2 DR100
* X-E1 DR100

you will see that X-M1 and X-E2 have similar contrast in their JPGs but the X-E1 has much lower shadow contrast.

So it is not the sensor (which is the same 16MB chip except for the AF sensors) but the processing in camera.

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

A while back someone, hoping to disprove the notion that people could pick the X-Trans1 in a blind test with an X-Trans2 and X-Trans 3 photo (same studio scene, no PP added) found that almost everyone, myself included, who had experience with X-Trans1 cameras successfully picked the X-Trans1 image.

absolutely.

There is also this skin tone test which clearly shows the difference of skin tones between first generation Fuji JPGs and X-Xtrans III :

http://sodium.nyc/blog/2020/05/camera-jpg-portrait

The combination of the EXR Pro processor and X Trans I sensor as used in the Fujifilm X-Pro 1 and X-E1 cameras (= row C in the above test) yields very very nice skin tones straight out of camera.

allineedislight wrote:

Papa48 wrote:

Threaded wrote:

Nielk Mike wrote:

You need to compare JPEGs. And also scenes that do have color in them (like the playground), and some with subtile color and portraits.

Having that, I don't see an "amazing" difference in color between my X-E1 and X-E3. A difference: Yes. Amazing: No.

Agree with this. I’ve had every generation of X-Trans over the years (I have an XE1 and X-Pro3 right now), take a lot of JPEG’s, and have gotten caught up in all these comparisons many times before.

The truth is, while there are differences between X-Trans 1, 2, 3 and 4, I can’t choose one that I consistently prefer in every situation. They all have great colour in their own right and none are more “amazing” than the other. The later sensors certainly have better dynamic range, and low light performance though, not to mention more shots in focus of course

This seems a good summation of my experiences as well. I worked briefly (a few months) with X-Trans I (X-M1), X-Trans II (X-E2S) and currently X-Trans IV (X-T4). As regards using low cost lenses I found OOC jpegs from the X-E2S most complimentary because its more saturated and contrasty jpeg output best complimented their softer output and higher flare. But I sold those lenses shortly after purchasing the X-T4, and prefer it’s output with the XF 16-80.

Actually, the X-M1 does not have the X-Trans I look, quite the opposite, it is very contrasty, like the X-E2 and other X-Trans II cameras.

The X-Trans I look comes from the image processor, which is that same only in X-E1, X-Pro 1 and X100 but the X-M1 has the newer image processor found in the X-E2, X100s, and thus exhibits the X-Trans II look (and noise reduction):

You can see it clearly here:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-m1/11

go to the section "Dynamic Range Modes" and pick

* X-M1 DR100
* X-E2 DR100
* X-E1 DR100

you will see that X-M1 and X-E2 have similar contrast in their JPGs but the X-E1 has much lower shadow contrast.

So it is not the sensor (which is the same 16MB chip except for the AF sensors) but the processing in camera.

That’s interesting ! Didn’t know that, people just treat them as the same. Luckily i opted for the X-E1, using a X-M1 would have invalidated all my efforts 😂 so far.

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

A while back someone, hoping to disprove the notion that people could pick the X-Trans1 in a blind test with an X-Trans2 and X-Trans 3 photo (same studio scene, no PP added) found that almost everyone, myself included, who had experience with X-Trans1 cameras successfully picked the X-Trans1 image.

For the test scenes that I had provided, did you prefer the X-Trans 1 (jpg) images over the X-Trans 3 (jpg) ?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

allineedislight wrote:

Papa48 wrote:

Threaded wrote:

Nielk Mike wrote:

You need to compare JPEGs. And also scenes that do have color in them (like the playground), and some with subtile color and portraits.

Having that, I don't see an "amazing" difference in color between my X-E1 and X-E3. A difference: Yes. Amazing: No.

Agree with this. I’ve had every generation of X-Trans over the years (I have an XE1 and X-Pro3 right now), take a lot of JPEG’s, and have gotten caught up in all these comparisons many times before.

The truth is, while there are differences between X-Trans 1, 2, 3 and 4, I can’t choose one that I consistently prefer in every situation. They all have great colour in their own right and none are more “amazing” than the other. The later sensors certainly have better dynamic range, and low light performance though, not to mention more shots in focus of course

This seems a good summation of my experiences as well. I worked briefly (a few months) with X-Trans I (X-M1), X-Trans II (X-E2S) and currently X-Trans IV (X-T4). As regards using low cost lenses I found OOC jpegs from the X-E2S most complimentary because its more saturated and contrasty jpeg output best complimented their softer output and higher flare. But I sold those lenses shortly after purchasing the X-T4, and prefer it’s output with the XF 16-80.

Actually, the X-M1 does not have the X-Trans I look, quite the opposite, it is very contrasty, like the X-E2 and other X-Trans II cameras.

The X-Trans I look comes from the image processor, which is that same only in X-E1, X-Pro 1 and X100 but the X-M1 has the newer image processor found in the X-E2, X100s, and thus exhibits the X-Trans II look (and noise reduction):

You can see it clearly here:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-m1/11

go to the section "Dynamic Range Modes" and pick

* X-M1 DR100
* X-E2 DR100
* X-E1 DR100

you will see that X-M1 and X-E2 have similar contrast in their JPGs but the X-E1 has much lower shadow contrast.

So it is not the sensor (which is the same 16MB chip except for the AF sensors) but the processing in camera.

When people say sensor, they they are talking about the sensor/processor combination fuji markets as X-Trans#. Fuji had to meet a low price goal, which was already 100 more expensive than the XA1, so they paired the EXR2 processor which they had moved to with the older and cheaper CDAF sensor. Its best to think of the XM1 as a Contrast AF X-Trans2 camera because its IQ is XTrans2 not XTrans1.

These pictures tend to bear out the differences I see between my X-E1 and X-H1.  H1 being X-Trans III.

I think the biggest difference for me, is how much better the H1 is in lower light and over ISO 1600 especially in that lower light.  And of course it's a lot faster camera because it's newer..  however the X-E1 is still a very good and enjoyable camera to use.

allineedislight wrote:

Papa48 wrote:

Threaded wrote:

Nielk Mike wrote:

You need to compare JPEGs. And also scenes that do have color in them (like the playground), and some with subtile color and portraits.

Having that, I don't see an "amazing" difference in color between my X-E1 and X-E3. A difference: Yes. Amazing: No.

Agree with this. I’ve had every generation of X-Trans over the years (I have an XE1 and X-Pro3 right now), take a lot of JPEG’s, and have gotten caught up in all these comparisons many times before.

The truth is, while there are differences between X-Trans 1, 2, 3 and 4, I can’t choose one that I consistently prefer in every situation. They all have great colour in their own right and none are more “amazing” than the other. The later sensors certainly have better dynamic range, and low light performance though, not to mention more shots in focus of course

This seems a good summation of my experiences as well. I worked briefly (a few months) with X-Trans I (X-M1), X-Trans II (X-E2S) and currently X-Trans IV (X-T4). As regards using low cost lenses I found OOC jpegs from the X-E2S most complimentary because its more saturated and contrasty jpeg output best complimented their softer output and higher flare. But I sold those lenses shortly after purchasing the X-T4, and prefer it’s output with the XF 16-80.

Actually, the X-M1 does not have the X-Trans I look, quite the opposite, it is very contrasty, like the X-E2 and other X-Trans II cameras.

The X-Trans I look comes from the image processor, which is that same only in X-E1, X-Pro 1 and X100 but the X-M1 has the newer image processor found in the X-E2, X100s, and thus exhibits the X-Trans II look (and noise reduction):

You can see it clearly here:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-m1/11

go to the section "Dynamic Range Modes" and pick

* X-M1 DR100
* X-E2 DR100
* X-E1 DR100

you will see that X-M1 and X-E2 have similar contrast in their JPGs but the X-E1 has much lower shadow contrast.

So it is not the sensor (which is the same 16MB chip except for the AF sensors) but the processing in camera.

I thought X-M1 and X-E1 were contemporaries. Thanks, for the correction.

I think this demo shows the differences I see between my X-E1 and X-E3.  The rendition of browns by the E1, and to a lesser extent the E2s is where I see the biggest difference in my photos and I just love how browns are rendered.  This may be a result of Fuji's tweaking for nice skin tones.

I think with some adjustments I could make E3 JPEGS look like E1 JPEGS.   I think the differences are noticeable but subtle.   I picked up my E1 in like new condition at a good price and I was glad to have the chance to see for myself what all the fuss was about.   I also hunted for a Pro1, but its price has certainly risen to the cult camera level.

My favorite setup for the E1 is to use vintage film lenses. Some of mine have "character" that fit right in with the E1.

Here's a photo taken with my E1 and a Canon FL 50mm f1.8.

Camera JPEG slightly tweaked.  X-E1, Canon FL 50mm f1.8. Natural light in our dining room.