Which is your favorite Fuji sensor (Fuji users with more than one camera)

[Greg7579]

Everyone has visual preferences.

This is what the post is about.

But the newest gen of the various sensors will always be better in a technical and general capability sense.

This is not what the post is about.

I don't think so. But if you think old sensors are in any way better than newer sensors then you will have older less capable gear and save a lot of money. You can still take good pictures though.

But Man would this be a boring Board.

My original post was truth. I just should not have used the term BS. I think it's BS. But I should not have said it.

--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

 

[getochkn]

I like the X-Trans III sensor (for RAW, anyway). While lacking the speed and focus point spread of the IV, I prefer the overall image quality, particularly at very high ISOs. I don’t think there’s anything the older sensors can do that can’t be reproduced and improved upon with an X-Trans III file and some post processing craftiness.

I think I'm with you. Had the XT1, XT30 and now have a XT2 and I like it the best.

 

[Ed B]

BS was the wrong term to use. Sorry. Everyone has visual preferences. But the newest gen of the various sensors will always be better in a technical and general capability sense.

I didn't read every comment but do agree with Greg that the newest sensors will be better in a technical and general capability sense but when it comes to overall image quality and what's pleasing to most people I've never been convinced a sensor deserves the credit.

When I decided to "switch" from Canon (after many, many years) to Fuji it had almost nothing to do with the X-Pro1 and X-E1 sensor because I didn't really know much about the sensor.

My only reason for buying the X-E1 when it was introduced was because I thought the images it produced were excellent and I believe that had more to do with Fuji's processing algorithms than anything else. I realize that mainly applies to JPEG output but even raw images, to a certain extent, are affected by a camera's processor. (no such thing as a completely raw image but that's another subject altogether ).

Anyway, my opinion that a processor "controls" an image more than a sensor seemed to hold true when Fuji came out with their second iteration, the X-Trans 2, that had the identical sensor but different processing algorithms. Cameras with this processor are the cameras that display the plastic skin tones that are so infamous.

So, even though it's just an opinion, I agree 100% that newer sensors will be better in a technical and general capability sense, but not necessarily better in a pleasing image sense.

Just an opinion though and I've been wrong before.

 

[saltydogstudios]

The IV has a more "clinical" look esp the jpegs. The I has a more a filmic look and the ii, iii are in between.

Maybe its good to have a x-trans-i body in your arsenal for dirt cheap.

I don't have the IV but I get that sense with the III. Also "waxy" skin tones on the III due to the sharpening algorithms. I was hoping this would be lessened with the IV.

I much prefer the overall rendering of the I. Colors and skin tones - and yes more "filmic" if that's a term that can be used in polite society. To be more specific - there's less "3d pop" - things are a bit more flat feeling, which happens with film grain. There's also less waxiness to the skin tones, which again I attribute to the sharpening algorithms.

I also have a strong difference in preference between cameras for studio and natural light and gravitate to the I for natural light and the III for studio.

I'm honestly considering selling my X-Pro2 and getting a Canon R for relatively little money. Just that canon glass though $$$$.

The Canon R should be just as sharp, but without the waxy skin tone look, with great colors, and full frame which offers several advantages for natural light and studio work.

 

[timwit]

One of the reasons I purchased the X-Pro1 was someone's statement that they had "captured lightning in a bottle" with this sensor - there is something about the way this sensor renders a scene that's worth the love.
As someone who owns an X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 - I would agree with this statement. The X-Pro2 is an excellent camera and competes on a high level against the competition - but the X-Pro1 has a character that's hard to get at with the X-Pro2. (and vice versa)
In 2020 - I'm thinking of either getting an X100 (original sensor - with more magic?) or an X100V - for the weather sealing and better high ISO and autofocus. The camera with more magic or the camera that's generally more capable.
I'm curious if the dpreview Fuji X-System forum perceives any differences between the sensor generations?
** TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE SURVEY **

Here's my post from last year touching on a few things about color:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62598315

Tim C.

 

[Greg7579]

Salty, you are shooting OOC jpegs? I think you could negate a lot of that waxiness that people seem to see on the alphasevenarethree by working raws a bit in post.

But I have to say, the alphasevenarefour is recognized as one of the three best cameras in the world (subjective opinions of course).

People often complain about Sony menus and ergo and sharp edges on the camera and have all kinds of "feel of photography" and "joy of shooting" negative observations....

But IQ and res? I mean that r3 and r4 are fantastic from the raws I have played with. I mean really superb.

Anytime you talk about the look of a sensor, it can get you into hot arguments on DPR.

If you don't believe it go onto the MF Board and tell them that MF 50 MP GFX and Hassy files have a "MF Look." That can cause controversy and friction.

Leica supposedly has a look too. Saying so on the Leica Board is common but elsewhere can be dangerous.

I think a lot of it is sensor-glass combinations that produce something consistently appealing to our senses. But not everyone sees it and it is impossible to prove scientifically.

Sorry -- I am rambling and philosophizing.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

The IV has a more "clinical" look esp the jpegs. The I has a more a filmic look and the ii, iii are in between.

Maybe its good to have a x-trans-i body in your arsenal for dirt cheap.

I don't have the IV but I get that sense with the III. Also "waxy" skin tones on the III due to the sharpening algorithms. I was hoping this would be lessened with the IV.

I much prefer the overall rendering of the I. Colors and skin tones - and yes more "filmic" if that's a term that can be used in polite society. To be more specific - there's less "3d pop" - things are a bit more flat feeling, which happens with film grain. There's also less waxiness to the skin tones, which again I attribute to the sharpening algorithms.

I also have a strong difference in preference between cameras for studio and natural light and gravitate to the I for natural light and the III for studio.

I'm honestly considering selling my X-Pro2 and getting a Canon R for relatively little money. Just that canon glass though $$$$.

The Canon R should be just as sharp, but without the waxy skin tone look, with great colors, and full frame which offers several advantages for natural light and studio work.

Of course all this stuff you’re talking about has almost nothing to do with which sensor is used in the camera, and everything to do the in-camera jpeg processing and how you’ve gone about setting up the various customizable jpeg parameters. The sensor has plenty to do with the resolution, noise, and DR, but very little to do with color, tone, and waxiness etc. The RAW files from any of these cameras can be made to look very much the same as any of the others (within the limits of resolution, noise and DR), and I imagine if you fiddle around with the jpeg parameters, including exposure compensation and custom WB, that you match the jpegs pretty well too (though some older cameras do have excessive NR that can’t easily be dealt with).

 

[saltydogstudios]

I put the X-Trans IV bodies in first; the X-T3 and X-T4 are a joy to shoot with for me, no matter what lens I mount, and the SOOC jpegs look great if I'm in a hurry.

Yes, I do like the X-Trans III for being able to hand usable JPGs over to clients with no post production work. I'm tempted to get the X-Trans IV just for the Classic Negative film sim - it does that "twist blue and green towards teal" thing I've been waiting for Fuji film sims to do for ages & people have been mimicking with white balance adjustments.

Second place is X-Trans I for me; the X-M1 was my gateway drug, and that sensor/processor combo, when paired with the XF 27mm f2.8, is just a lot of fun. heck, it's fun to use it with the 16-50 plastic fantastic.

I tested that lens in a very non-scientific way here

https://medium.com/ice-cream-geometry/x-trans-vs-foveon-a-mostly-monochrome-photowalk-1a931f8fb277

It's funny how SOOC it seems sharp edge to edge, but converting RAW with Raw Therapee it's not sharp outside of the center.

It is a great fun lens though.

It's hard to rate the X-Trans II and III for me; I don't dislike the output from either, but I like the IV and I better. I really enjoyed, and still enjoy, my X-T20, but the faster processors and PDAF in the IV chipset make it less enjoyable to me than the newer bodies I own. Similarly, I don't like the output of the X-E2S as much as any of the others. It's not that it's bad, it's just lacking something for me SOOC. Shooting raws mitigates a lot of those issues, but doesn't fix the ergonomics (it was a cheap way to find out that I don't really like rangefinder-style bodies.)

Ah, I do like rangefinder style bodies - though for serious event photography where I'm holding the camera all day, nothing beats a good grip. If I'm honest, I just like rangefinder style bodies for the aesthetics. And occasionally it's useful to be able to choose whether the lens is above or below your eye in portrait shooting mode.

 

[saltydogstudios]

Salty, you are shooting OOC jpegs? I think you could negate a lot of that waxiness that people seem to see on the alphasevenarethree by working raws a bit in post.

The waxiness I complained about is on The X-Pro3.

What I disliked on the A7R3 is - and this is a bit difficult to explain, but in general it's the "skin is either too yellow or to magenta" problem. Good skin tone walks a fine line between yellow and magenta.

Yellow where the skin is thicker, magenta where you can see veins etc. Depending on your skin tone, look at your wrist and palm and you can see this clearly.

For me, good skin tone is able to balance the two - this is true whether you're white, black, asian or whatever. Yellow or Magenta is a fine line to walk with skin tones.

Bad skin tone over-emphasizes each - it's either too magenta or too yellow, and no in between. This sort of thing is very difficult to edit for in Adobe.

I had this theory for a while and then when I started using Capture 1 it has a dedicated tool to reduce variance in hue around a central point - confirming to me that this was a best practice for managing skin tone.

Videographers also have a "skin tone line" in their hue vectorscope, something that could be very useful to implement in photo RAW converts.

But I have to say, the alphasevenarefour is recognized as one of the three best cameras in the world (subjective opinions of course).

I've seen some photos from the A7R4 and the skin tones were indeed quite nice. OOC JPGs.

People often complain about Sony menus and ergo and sharp edges on the camera and have all kinds of "feel of photography" and "joy of shooting" negative observations....

I think Nikon has the best ergos. On their pro bodies changing things involves minimal menu diving. Change White Balance? Hit the WB button and spin a dial. Custom WB? Hold the button for a second or two. Same with ISO - dedicated button + dial + LCD screen on the top.

Fuji is next best with their direct dials, but the dials being full stop increments is less useful.

But IQ and res? I mean that r3 and r4 are fantastic from the raws I have played with. I mean really superb.

Anytime you talk about the look of a sensor, it can get you into hot arguments on DPR.

If you don't believe it go onto the MF Board and tell them that MF 50 MP GFX and Hassy files have a "MF Look." That can cause controversy and friction.

My blog post was summarily torn to shreds on the Science & Tech board. I actually hid from DPR for a few weeks afraid to check to see what people were saying.

Leica supposedly has a look too. Saying so on the Leica Board is common but elsewhere can be dangerous.

Leica colors are the WORST. "Too yellow or too magenta" on steroids.

Want proof? What color is Jordan's skin?

What color is Hugh Brownstone's skin?

Both from their Leica SL2 reviews, both from video with the SL2.

That doesn't stop me from wanting an M10 Monocrhom tho.

I think a lot of it is sensor-glass combinations that produce something consistently appealing to our senses. But not everyone sees it and it is impossible to prove scientifically.

Sorry -- I am rambling and philosophizing.

Rambling and Philosophizing is a good thing to do.

--
"Wait let me comb my hair and put on a tie."
New blog: http://sodium.nyc/blog/
Old blog: https://medium.com/ice-cream-geometry
Sometimes I take photos: https://www.instagram.com/sodiumstudio/

 

[Jerry-astro]

BS was the wrong term to use. Sorry. Everyone has visual preferences. But the newest gen of the various sensors will always be better in a technical and general capability sense.

I didn't read every comment but do agree with Greg that the newest sensors will be better in a technical and general capability sense but when it comes to overall image quality and what's pleasing to most people I've never been convinced a sensor deserves the credit.

When I decided to "switch" from Canon (after many, many years) to Fuji it had almost nothing to do with the X-Pro1 and X-E1 sensor because I didn't really know much about the sensor.

My only reason for buying the X-E1 when it was introduced was because I thought the images it produced were excellent and I believe that had more to do with Fuji's processing algorithms than anything else. I realize that mainly applies to JPEG output but even raw images, to a certain extent, are affected by a camera's processor. (no such thing as a completely raw image but that's another subject altogether ).

Anyway, my opinion that a processor "controls" an image more than a sensor seemed to hold true when Fuji came out with their second iteration, the X-Trans 2, that had the identical sensor but different processing algorithms. Cameras with this processor are the cameras that display the plastic skin tones that are so infamous.

So, even though it's just an opinion, I agree 100% that newer sensors will be better in a technical and general capability sense, but not necessarily better in a pleasing image sense.

Just an opinion though and I've been wrong before.

Guys, argue this issue to your heart's content, however the term "BS" is not acceptable here, per DPR forum rules. I frankly don't have the time to edit all the posts here that use it, but be aware that I will edit it out in the future when I see it, and repeated use will result in further action.

And, please, let's not sidetrack the thread by arguing this point.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

 

[Batdude]

That's the simplest way I can put it

The new Fuji stuff definitely has more resolution and detail in their images and you can really tell, and the bodies just keep getting more and more refined and are really nice for sure, not to mention AF, BUT, to my eyes there is just something missing compared to the older stuff to the point where I decided to keep shooting with old stuff

I guess is just a matter of personal taste. For some very strange reason the older color tones is what actually drove me to leave Nikon for Fuji, but not the newer 24/26MP sensors.

 

[Greg7579]

My Bad. I didn't even know I wrote it until it was pointed out later. It is such a common form of speech where I am from and it is only derogatory about 20 percent of the time in Texas and only mildly so even then.

But I know not to use that term on DPR. Sorry.

 

[thomaslux]

Modern Camnera Rule Number 1:

In all modern digital cameras of all brands. The latest sensor is always better 100% of the time and without exception.

Some will say, I like the look of my 12 year old canon shots better than my new Fuji GFX 100. (Someone actually said that.)

But that is always BS and new sensors are always better than oldewr sensors just like new TVs and computers are always better than the preivious models and generations.

Always. No exceptions. 100% of the time.

Greg, how can someone saying they like the output of one senior over another be BS? It's a preference.

My favourite Fuji images so far came from my X-T1. A beautiful sensor for pictures of people.

The X-A1 and its Bayer sensor also was pretty hot stuff

BS was the wrong term to use. Sorry. Everyone has visual preferences. But the newest gen of the various sensors will always be better in a technical and general capability sense.

 

[John Gellings]

For me, and I've used them all... the 24mp sensor from the X-Pro2, X-T2, X-E3, X-H1, is my favorite. The 16mp from the X-Pro1 was very nice as well.

 

[thomaslux]

For me, and I've used them all... the 24mp sensor from the X-Pro2, X-T2, X-E3, X-H1, is my favorite. The 16mp from the X-Pro1 was very nice as well.

It's a very close second here - it's a great sensor.

 

[saltydogstudios]

One of the reasons I purchased the X-Pro1 was someone's statement that they had "captured lightning in a bottle" with this sensor - there is something about the way this sensor renders a scene that's worth the love.
As someone who owns an X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 - I would agree with this statement. The X-Pro2 is an excellent camera and competes on a high level against the competition - but the X-Pro1 has a character that's hard to get at with the X-Pro2. (and vice versa)
In 2020 - I'm thinking of either getting an X100 (original sensor - with more magic?) or an X100V - for the weather sealing and better high ISO and autofocus. The camera with more magic or the camera that's generally more capable.
I'm curious if the dpreview Fuji X-System forum perceives any differences between the sensor generations?
** TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE SURVEY **

Here's my post from last year touching on a few things about color:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62598315

Tim C.

Great thread. Great photos. I completely agree.

Have you repurchased an X-Trans1 sensor camera?

 

[saltydogstudios]

That's the simplest way I can put it

The new Fuji stuff definitely has more resolution and detail in their images and you can really tell, and the bodies just keep getting more and more refined and are really nice for sure, not to mention AF, BUT, to my eyes there is just something missing compared to the older stuff to the point where I decided to keep shooting with old stuff

I guess is just a matter of personal taste. For some very strange reason the older color tones is what actually drove me to leave Nikon for Fuji, but not the newer 24/26MP sensors.

I only have experience with the X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 but I agree with that.

I love NIkon for natural light btw. Some of my all time favorite photos were shot on Nikon and I'm sure the colors were a big influence on the way I shoot. Pretty sure that's straight out of camera.

Partly I think it's down to the demosaicing algorithms - I really geek out about the X-Pro2's demosiacing algorithm here. About halfway down the section that starts "A Random Chapel"

Basically it seems Fuji's sharpening algorithms looks for areas rather than edges creating a "sharp yet smooth" rendition.

And the colors are very different between the two generations, I'm not sure why. The later cameras are much more saturated. In fact going from Provia to Astia to Pro Neg Hi to Classic Chrome, primarily it just seems to be "toning down the saturation".

That highly saturated look can be nice, but I much prefer the more naturalistic colors of the X-Pro1.