X-H2 Dpreview studio scene and Lr/adobe

I hear this is a hot topic, sorry, but I was intrigued to find out for myself why everything is so soft in Lr, I still have no idea. So, I updated my version of dxo to support the X-H2 and was very surprised at the output using noise reduction setting deep prime, indeed it does make things look far far better to my eyes anyway. So much so it seems to be equivalent, possibly better, than the A7IV which I'm sort of frustrated with. On the one hand the A7IV is a really great FF camera but on the other it really isn't great for long exposures. The wifi remote control is flaky and the Bluetooth control irritating. Although I'd prefer a smaller body than X-H2 it at least seems to do everything I want, including long exposures and focus stacking options in-camera without requiring remotes and controllers.

I am very interested in the X-H2 for travel with the  Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and Fuji 55-200, and probably the Tamron 11-20 once available but have noticed the 18-50 isn't working well for many with X-T5, is it the same issues on the X-H2?

Here's the conversion I did in Dxo which I found to be a lot better than the dpreview studio scene sample, anyone know what's happening with Lightroom?

Dylan10 wrote:

I hear this is a hot topic, sorry, but I was intrigued to find out for myself why everything is so soft in Lr, I still have no idea. So, I updated my version of dxo to support the X-H2 and was very surprised at the output using noise reduction setting deep prime, indeed it does make things look far far better to my eyes anyway. So much so it seems to be equivalent, possibly better, than the A7IV which I'm sort of frustrated with. On the one hand the A7IV is a really great FF camera but on the other it really isn't great for long exposures. The wifi remote control is flaky and the Bluetooth control irritating. Although I'd prefer a smaller body than X-H2 it at least seems to do everything I want, including long exposures and focus stacking options in-camera without requiring remotes and controllers.

I am very interested in the X-H2 for travel with the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and Fuji 55-200, and probably the Tamron 11-20 once available but have noticed the 18-50 isn't working well for many with X-T5, is it the same issues on the X-H2?

If you mean the bad exposures at 50mm in "A" mode and auto iso, than I have been unable to replicate that on either my X-S10 or X-H2. All exposures spot on undert those condidions. So far in ly limited use I have been very happy with the 18-50 especially the compact size.

Here's the conversion I did in Dxo which I found to be a lot better than the dpreview studio scene sample, anyone know what's happening with Lightroom?

Oh dear, there must be thousands if not 10s of thousands of posts on that topic over the years. That is a rabbit hole that has no end if you choose to go there. Personally I don't think LR is that far off and it is still my primary tool but I also have Cap1 and more recently DXO when I need something better.

Dylan10 wrote:

I hear this is a hot topic, sorry, but I was intrigued to find out for myself why everything is so soft in Lr, I still have no idea. So, I updated my version of dxo to support the X-H2 and was very surprised at the output using noise reduction setting deep prime, indeed it does make things look far far better to my eyes anyway. So much so it seems to be equivalent, possibly better, than the A7IV which I'm sort of frustrated with. On the one hand the A7IV is a really great FF camera but on the other it really isn't great for long exposures. The wifi remote control is flaky and the Bluetooth control irritating. Although I'd prefer a smaller body than X-H2 it at least seems to do everything I want, including long exposures and focus stacking options in-camera without requiring remotes and controllers.

I am very interested in the X-H2 for travel with the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and Fuji 55-200, and probably the Tamron 11-20 once available but have noticed the 18-50 isn't working well for many with X-T5, is it the same issues on the X-H2?

Here's the conversion I did in Dxo which I found to be a lot better than the dpreview studio scene sample, anyone know what's happening with Lightroom?

Everything looks better than the DPR's X-Trans RAW examples. They use default Lightroom import settings which are FAR from optimal for the 40MP files. This is Lightroom w/X-Transformer...

Peter Foiles wrote:

Dylan10 wrote:

I hear this is a hot topic, sorry, but I was intrigued to find out for myself why everything is so soft in Lr, I still have no idea. So, I updated my version of dxo to support the X-H2 and was very surprised at the output using noise reduction setting deep prime, indeed it does make things look far far better to my eyes anyway. So much so it seems to be equivalent, possibly better, than the A7IV which I'm sort of frustrated with. On the one hand the A7IV is a really great FF camera but on the other it really isn't great for long exposures. The wifi remote control is flaky and the Bluetooth control irritating. Although I'd prefer a smaller body than X-H2 it at least seems to do everything I want, including long exposures and focus stacking options in-camera without requiring remotes and controllers.

I am very interested in the X-H2 for travel with the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and Fuji 55-200, and probably the Tamron 11-20 once available but have noticed the 18-50 isn't working well for many with X-T5, is it the same issues on the X-H2?

If you mean the bad exposures at 50mm in "A" mode and auto iso, than I have been unable to replicate that on either my X-S10 or X-H2. All exposures spot on undert those condidions. So far in ly limited use I have been very happy with the 18-50 especially the compact size.

Thanks for confirmation, that's a relief!

Here's the conversion I did in Dxo which I found to be a lot better than the dpreview studio scene sample, anyone know what's happening with Lightroom?

Oh dear, there must be thousands if not 10s of thousands of posts on that topic over the years. That is a rabbit hole that has no end if you choose to go there. Personally I don't think LR is that far off and it is still my primary tool but I also have Cap1 and more recently DXO when I need something better.

Again, that's good to know, I wasn't able to make many satisfactory images with Lr, I'll update Capture One and try that too👍

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Dylan10 wrote:

I hear this is a hot topic, sorry, but I was intrigued to find out for myself why everything is so soft in Lr, I still have no idea. So, I updated my version of dxo to support the X-H2 and was very surprised at the output using noise reduction setting deep prime, indeed it does make things look far far better to my eyes anyway. So much so it seems to be equivalent, possibly better, than the A7IV which I'm sort of frustrated with. On the one hand the A7IV is a really great FF camera but on the other it really isn't great for long exposures. The wifi remote control is flaky and the Bluetooth control irritating. Although I'd prefer a smaller body than X-H2 it at least seems to do everything I want, including long exposures and focus stacking options in-camera without requiring remotes and controllers.

I am very interested in the X-H2 for travel with the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and Fuji 55-200, and probably the Tamron 11-20 once available but have noticed the 18-50 isn't working well for many with X-T5, is it the same issues on the X-H2?

Here's the conversion I did in Dxo which I found to be a lot better than the dpreview studio scene sample, anyone know what's happening with Lightroom?

Everything looks better than the DPR's X-Trans RAW examples.

Surely that's unfair as it does lead one to believe images are soft. I get that they use the same software for all cameras but maybe they should have a drop down alternative too?

They use default Lightroom import settings which are FAR from optimal for the 40MP files. This is Lightroom w/X-Transformer...

Many thanks👍

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Dylan10 wrote:

I hear this is a hot topic, sorry, but I was intrigued to find out for myself why everything is so soft in Lr, I still have no idea. So, I updated my version of dxo to support the X-H2 and was very surprised at the output using noise reduction setting deep prime, indeed it does make things look far far better to my eyes anyway. So much so it seems to be equivalent, possibly better, than the A7IV which I'm sort of frustrated with. On the one hand the A7IV is a really great FF camera but on the other it really isn't great for long exposures. The wifi remote control is flaky and the Bluetooth control irritating. Although I'd prefer a smaller body than X-H2 it at least seems to do everything I want, including long exposures and focus stacking options in-camera without requiring remotes and controllers.

I am very interested in the X-H2 for travel with the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and Fuji 55-200, and probably the Tamron 11-20 once available but have noticed the 18-50 isn't working well for many with X-T5, is it the same issues on the X-H2?

Here's the conversion I did in Dxo which I found to be a lot better than the dpreview studio scene sample, anyone know what's happening with Lightroom?

Everything looks better than the DPR's X-Trans RAW examples. They use default Lightroom import settings which are FAR from optimal for the 40MP files. This is Lightroom w/X-Transformer...

I mostly shoot my X-mount camera's in JPEG + RAW but hardly ever use the RAW files. Fuji's own in-camera conversion on the 40 MP cameras also seems lacking by default. I know returns should be expected to diminish, but surely everyone expected a bit more, no ? I'm not checking what has been written about this all over the internet, do you or anyone else know if there is some kind of consensus on what's going on and how to find extra resolving power ?

pidera wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Dylan10 wrote:

I hear this is a hot topic, sorry, but I was intrigued to find out for myself why everything is so soft in Lr, I still have no idea. So, I updated my version of dxo to support the X-H2 and was very surprised at the output using noise reduction setting deep prime, indeed it does make things look far far better to my eyes anyway. So much so it seems to be equivalent, possibly better, than the A7IV which I'm sort of frustrated with. On the one hand the A7IV is a really great FF camera but on the other it really isn't great for long exposures. The wifi remote control is flaky and the Bluetooth control irritating. Although I'd prefer a smaller body than X-H2 it at least seems to do everything I want, including long exposures and focus stacking options in-camera without requiring remotes and controllers.

I am very interested in the X-H2 for travel with the Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens and Fuji 55-200, and probably the Tamron 11-20 once available but have noticed the 18-50 isn't working well for many with X-T5, is it the same issues on the X-H2?

Here's the conversion I did in Dxo which I found to be a lot better than the dpreview studio scene sample, anyone know what's happening with Lightroom?

Everything looks better than the DPR's X-Trans RAW examples. They use default Lightroom import settings which are FAR from optimal for the 40MP files. This is Lightroom w/X-Transformer...

I mostly shoot my X-mount camera's in JPEG + RAW but hardly ever use the RAW files. Fuji's own in-camera conversion on the 40 MP cameras also seems lacking by default. I know returns should be expected to diminish, but surely everyone expected a bit more, no ? I'm not checking what has been written about this all over the internet, do you or anyone else know if there is some kind of consensus on what's going on and how to find extra resolving power ?

The main issue is the lack of actual raw images on-line to test results but the imaging resource site now has lots of images so will test some more samples. I like the idea of this camera for sure and dxo does seem to be bringing the best out of the raw files.

here is my go, Adobe cmera raw.

IMO a bit better (right corner, green leaves, and colored circles without artefacts.

..... when I compare the dowloaded  jfif file to my ACR development, difficult to compare on the DPR viewer

baobob wrote:

here is my go, Adobe cmera raw.

IMO a bit better (right corner, green leaves, and colored circles without artefacts.

Thanks for your efforts, unfortunately X-H2 seems a no go for me. I've looked at various sample images now and the variation in quality is something I don't think I can cope with. Its a fine camera and I really liked it in the hand at the Fuji store and it ticks all the boxes. I am going to sell the Sony A7IV too, another very (very) fine camera but also with too many soft issues/irritations. I will stick with my Sony A1 for everything, it would be nice to have a smaller slightly more compact (and cheaper!) body but everything just seems so riddled with issues in comparison. I will see what Sony offers next and if they can solve some of these ridiculous issues they seem to impose on us users.

Thanks again for confirming my observations, appreciated.

Thx for comments. I have both XH2s and XH2 as the second body. IMO the problemS with the XH2 rely in the facts that the sensor is not forgiving the smallest approximations in exposure, focus , SS, while I have no problem with the S. And as I showed it does not reveal more minute details, it just show them bigger. After a few thousands shots, I appreciate the excellent cropping ability and a final rendition which is a bit more subtle and milder, remembering somehow the film period.

As a second body (absolutely similar in settings to the S) I would have been happy with the "old" sensor of my former XT3. All in all I do not find that IQ is better than the S which IMO delivers sharper images than the XT3....and XH2.

As mentionned by others, to get the best from XH2 a great care in PP is needed. Apart from these concerns, the body has the same qualities than the S (EVF, LCD, buffer, strength)

Best

Bob

baobob wrote:

Thx for comments. I have both XH2s and XH2 as the second body. IMO the problemS with the XH2 rely in the facts that the sensor is not forgiving the smallest approximations in exposure, focus , SS, while I have no problem with the S. And as I showed it does not reveal more minute details, it just show them bigger. After a few thousands shots, I appreciate the excellent cropping ability and a final rendition which is a bit more subtle and milder, remembering somehow the film period.

As a second body (absolutely similar in settings to the S) I would have been happy with the "old" sensor of my former XT3. All in all I do not find that IQ is better than the S which IMO delivers sharper images than the XT3....and XH2.

As mentionned by others, to get the best from XH2 a great care in PP is needed. Apart from these concerns, the body has the same qualities than the S (EVF, LCD, buffer, strength)

Best

Bob

Yes, I think Fuji has great specifications but I'm unsure on the practicality of the higher resolution machines. I'm actually very confused with Fuji's offering and don't really have the confidence to buy one due to the uncertainty of what to expect. It just feels like a lot of hard work and unpredictable results. I could buy the Sigma 18-50 for my A1 and have a very compact system, 21mp for travel is probably enough also.