XT2 Zoomed in Image Quality

[Foto Jay]

Hi! I have owned an Xt2 for a little over a year coming from a full frame Canon system. I have been super happy except one thing. Maybe I am going nuts but when I zoom in on an image it falls apart quality wise. Especially wider shots. I always view 1 to 1 in lightroom on a 27" I Mac and sometimes I zoom in a tad more to fix blemishes etc. The edges (not the edges of the picture, but the edges of the people or objects in them) just are more jagged, blotchy, very pixelated etc... More than I remember on my 5DIII. Is that just part of the APSC game? Once again, I am happy user but this has been bothering me. It would be kind of someone to post a picture or two for me to compare would be greatly appreciated. Of course the issue arrises more with the 18-55 kit lens then my others, but the issue is there with all my lens's, so I can rule out optics problems. Thanks in advance for any insights. I would like to put this to bed if I can. Like I said, I am super happy, but this has been on my mind the whole time from the very first shoot I did with it.

PS.... For what it is worth, I have tried all the raw converters to rule out lightroom messing with me I do use photoshop to sharpen, as I do notice lightroom sharpening does amplify the problem slightly.

 

[57even]

With a lack of comparable samples, preferably raw, it is impossible to say what your problem is, though some of the pseudo-authoritative responses were quite amusing.

I traded in a D800 for a Fuji XPro2, and I didn't do it because I though a loss of image quality was 'acceptable'. I did it because there wasn't any significant loss worth speaking about.

Now granted, Xtrans processing is anything but conventional, but when done correctly, it is exactly where I expect a 24 megapixel sensor to be. Size has nothing to do with it unless you shoot at high ISO, and if you shoot at high ISO, even a small amount of underexposure, or adjustment in post, is a disaster.

I have several hundred images from informal gigs, where the light levels were appalling, and I was shooting at ISO3200 and 6400 with the 56mm F1.2 wide open. The shots were not only in focus, but looked great with a bit of moderate PP.

And I also have a couple of urban landscape images printed at 36X24 that match anything I got from a D600 (FF 24MP).

In my experience of monitoring this forum, most 'issues' come down to genuinely faulty gear, or misunderstandings about processing basics. I can't tell in this case, except to say that your experience does not concur with mine in any way.

Yes, I do have some pretty poor shots, but the fault was always mine, apart from a few issues with an old XE1 that had faulty lens contacts and could not focus in the cold.

 

[Foto Jay]

Check hyperfocal distance at F5.6, and turn off OIS.

You have a double image - possibly shutter shock interacting with OIS.

Focus in wideangle shots is difficult. Any area of sufficient contrast is too small to register. Try F8, manual focus at about 10m, and it will look pretty sharp everywhere.

 

[NottsPhoto]

With a lack of comparable samples, preferably raw, it is impossible to say what your problem is, though some of the pseudo-authoritative responses were quite amusing.

I traded in a D800 for a Fuji XPro2, and I didn't do it because I though a loss of image quality was 'acceptable'. I did it because there wasn't any significant loss worth speaking about.

Now granted, Xtrans processing is anything but conventional, but when done correctly, it is exactly where I expect a 24 megapixel sensor to be. Size has nothing to do with it unless you shoot at high ISO, and if you shoot at high ISO, even a small amount of underexposure, or adjustment in post, is a disaster.

I have several hundred images from informal gigs, where the light levels were appalling, and I was shooting at ISO3200 and 6400 with the 56mm F1.2 wide open. The shots were not only in focus, but looked great with a bit of moderate PP.

And I also have a couple of urban landscape images printed at 36X24 that match anything I got from a D600 (FF 24MP).

In my experience of monitoring this forum, most 'issues' come down to genuinely faulty gear, or misunderstandings about processing basics. I can't tell in this case, except to say that your experience does not concur with mine in any way.

Yes, I do have some pretty poor shots, but the fault was always mine, apart from a few issues with an old XE1 that had faulty lens contacts and could not focus in the cold.

 

[robert1955]

Hi! I have owned an Xt2 for a little over a year coming from a full frame Canon system. I have been super happy except one thing. Maybe I am going nuts but when I zoom in on an image it falls apart quality wise. Especially wider shots. I always view 1 to 1 in lightroom on a 27" I Mac and sometimes I zoom in a tad more to fix blemishes etc. The edges (not the edges of the picture, but the edges of the people or objects in them) just are more jagged, blotchy, very pixelated etc... More than I remember on my 5DIII. Is that just part of the APSC game? Once again, I am happy user but this has been bothering me. It would be kind of someone to post a picture or two for me to compare would be greatly appreciated. Of course the issue arrises more with the 18-55 kit lens then my others, but the issue is there with all my lens's, so I can rule out optics problems. Thanks in advance for any insights. I would like to put this to bed if I can. Like I said, I am super happy, but this has been on my mind the whole time from the very first shoot I did with it.

PS.... For what it is worth, I have tried all the raw converters to rule out lightroom messing with me I do use photoshop to sharpen, as I do notice lightroom sharpening does amplify the problem slightly.

Perhaps it's the lenses? Oddly enough, with my 90 f2, for the first time in my life, I keep thinking, "A 100% crop of this would be perfectly acceptable."

Hi Victoria,

Yes I was originally thinking it was the glass. I do see the issue arrises more with the 18-55 more than any others I have. Unfortunately, I do see it with all my lens's for the most part, depending on the scene. I will go out on a limb and say It just has to be my post processing or sensor characteristic or APS-C quality. Its probably that simple. As a whole, I am happy with what I get out of the camera.

So I wake up 7 hours later and this thread is still here.

Now you are saying that APSC is inferior and that all fuji lenses have this problem you have tossed out with no corroboration. Look, I don't know how old or experienced you are, but you must be aware that coming on the Fuji board with extremely experienced shooters who love their Fuji gear and tossing out these little sizzling bombs is not going to get you the kind of responses you desire if you are really seriously looking for solid advice. If your intentions are otherwise then it is working, because the thread is still here and it is still irritating some really fine Fuji photographers.

Go look at the 40 images I just posted last night on a new thread from Mexico and tell me if you see a problem. My WiFi is too weak to post full size jpegs to Flickr.

And one of them is my wife up against a wall 40 meters away with the 50-140. I saw some incredible comment about fuji lenses not being good from distance with subjects up against a wall.... I laughed out loud when I read that....

And when you pixel peep, remember what you are looking at -- a 1 MBish small JPEG export from a 50 MB RAW file. Hello.....

This will be my last post to this thread, no matter how ridiculous it gets.

Greg, you need to climb off that horse of yours and recognise that some VERY experienced guys are coming in here and having issues... belittling them is not helpful and doesn’t help.

THe thing is: I do not know the OP's level of experience at shooting or processing. He gave us only one screen grab of a crop of unknown quality of which we only know that it may have been at ISO1200

I recognise exactly what the op is saying,

Well, if you recognise it exactly, give us examples, because I'm not willing to guess what the problem is. If I do that, I'm sure it will prove to be a moving target

and if your basically saying it’s cause I’m an idiot, your not doing yourself or Fuji any favours.

Frankly the op deserves more respect.

I respectfully asked the OP for a better image with exif

--

 

[Foto Jay]

Hi! I have owned an Xt2 for a little over a year coming from a full frame Canon system. I have been super happy except one thing. Maybe I am going nuts but when I zoom in on an image it falls apart quality wise. Especially wider shots. I always view 1 to 1 in lightroom on a 27" I Mac and sometimes I zoom in a tad more to fix blemishes etc. The edges (not the edges of the picture, but the edges of the people or objects in them) just are more jagged, blotchy, very pixelated etc... More than I remember on my 5DIII. Is that just part of the APSC game? Once again, I am happy user but this has been bothering me. It would be kind of someone to post a picture or two for me to compare would be greatly appreciated. Of course the issue arrises more with the 18-55 kit lens then my others, but the issue is there with all my lens's, so I can rule out optics problems. Thanks in advance for any insights. I would like to put this to bed if I can. Like I said, I am super happy, but this has been on my mind the whole time from the very first shoot I did with it.

PS.... For what it is worth, I have tried all the raw converters to rule out lightroom messing with me I do use photoshop to sharpen, as I do notice lightroom sharpening does amplify the problem slightly.

Perhaps it's the lenses? Oddly enough, with my 90 f2, for the first time in my life, I keep thinking, "A 100% crop of this would be perfectly acceptable."

Hi Victoria,

Yes I was originally thinking it was the glass. I do see the issue arrises more with the 18-55 more than any others I have. Unfortunately, I do see it with all my lens's for the most part, depending on the scene. I will go out on a limb and say It just has to be my post processing or sensor characteristic or APS-C quality. Its probably that simple. As a whole, I am happy with what I get out of the camera.

So I wake up 7 hours later and this thread is still here.

Now you are saying that APSC is inferior and that all fuji lenses have this problem you have tossed out with no corroboration. Look, I don't know how old or experienced you are, but you must be aware that coming on the Fuji board with extremely experienced shooters who love their Fuji gear and tossing out these little sizzling bombs is not going to get you the kind of responses you desire if you are really seriously looking for solid advice. If your intentions are otherwise then it is working, because the thread is still here and it is still irritating some really fine Fuji photographers.

Go look at the 40 images I just posted last night on a new thread from Mexico and tell me if you see a problem. My WiFi is too weak to post full size jpegs to Flickr.

And one of them is my wife up against a wall 40 meters away with the 50-140. I saw some incredible comment about fuji lenses not being good from distance with subjects up against a wall.... I laughed out loud when I read that....

And when you pixel peep, remember what you are looking at -- a 1 MBish small JPEG export from a 50 MB RAW file. Hello.....

This will be my last post to this thread, no matter how ridiculous it gets.

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

Whoa Greg. Sorry. Not my intentions nor am I coming to any conclusions here. I am not even sure your comment is for me the OP? I am not saying its an APS-C, Lens problems or technique etc...I just assumed it was the kit lens at first. Then I invested in better glass and still see some of the issues creep up here and there. Thats all I was saying. I also said it could be my technique or a post processing issue along with a characteristic of APS-C format. FWIW. I am 45 years old and have been shooting for like 20 years or so. I am not starting an APS-C war or image editor nit pick either. I can care less what you use or shoot to be honest. I just wanted to know if anyone saw what I see in there images. That simple. Also I think I might be slightly insulted, by you inferring that I am tossing out "sizzling bombs"? I came to this community after some time of shooting Fuji and asked (what I thought) was a simple and legitimate question for a like minded Fuji users. My deepest apologies to the "really fine" Fuji users. I will continue to shoot my Fuji happily and keep striving to get the very best of my tool of choice.

Jay

 

[The Torontonian]

I would sure like to know how folks are getting those great sharp 100% results cause mine are not consistent.

--
www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.

How? I point the camera at something, and push the shutter release.

90mm f2 @f2, 100% crop from RAW. no sharpening, no nothing.




1

 

[NottsPhoto]

Hi! I have owned an Xt2 for a little over a year coming from a full frame Canon system. I have been super happy except one thing. Maybe I am going nuts but when I zoom in on an image it falls apart quality wise. Especially wider shots. I always view 1 to 1 in lightroom on a 27" I Mac and sometimes I zoom in a tad more to fix blemishes etc. The edges (not the edges of the picture, but the edges of the people or objects in them) just are more jagged, blotchy, very pixelated etc... More than I remember on my 5DIII. Is that just part of the APSC game? Once again, I am happy user but this has been bothering me. It would be kind of someone to post a picture or two for me to compare would be greatly appreciated. Of course the issue arrises more with the 18-55 kit lens then my others, but the issue is there with all my lens's, so I can rule out optics problems. Thanks in advance for any insights. I would like to put this to bed if I can. Like I said, I am super happy, but this has been on my mind the whole time from the very first shoot I did with it.

PS.... For what it is worth, I have tried all the raw converters to rule out lightroom messing with me I do use photoshop to sharpen, as I do notice lightroom sharpening does amplify the problem slightly.

Perhaps it's the lenses? Oddly enough, with my 90 f2, for the first time in my life, I keep thinking, "A 100% crop of this would be perfectly acceptable."

Hi Victoria,

Yes I was originally thinking it was the glass. I do see the issue arrises more with the 18-55 more than any others I have. Unfortunately, I do see it with all my lens's for the most part, depending on the scene. I will go out on a limb and say It just has to be my post processing or sensor characteristic or APS-C quality. Its probably that simple. As a whole, I am happy with what I get out of the camera.

So I wake up 7 hours later and this thread is still here.

Now you are saying that APSC is inferior and that all fuji lenses have this problem you have tossed out with no corroboration. Look, I don't know how old or experienced you are, but you must be aware that coming on the Fuji board with extremely experienced shooters who love their Fuji gear and tossing out these little sizzling bombs is not going to get you the kind of responses you desire if you are really seriously looking for solid advice. If your intentions are otherwise then it is working, because the thread is still here and it is still irritating some really fine Fuji photographers.

Go look at the 40 images I just posted last night on a new thread from Mexico and tell me if you see a problem. My WiFi is too weak to post full size jpegs to Flickr.

And one of them is my wife up against a wall 40 meters away with the 50-140. I saw some incredible comment about fuji lenses not being good from distance with subjects up against a wall.... I laughed out loud when I read that....

And when you pixel peep, remember what you are looking at -- a 1 MBish small JPEG export from a 50 MB RAW file. Hello.....

This will be my last post to this thread, no matter how ridiculous it gets.

Greg, you need to climb off that horse of yours and recognise that some VERY experienced guys are coming in here and having issues... belittling them is not helpful and doesn’t help.

THe thing is: I do not know the OP's level of experience at shooting or processing. He gave us only one screen grab of a crop of unknown quality of which we only know that it may have been at ISO1200

well, go back and read his posts again. He tells us this explicitly and with more humility than I can usually muster...

I recognise exactly what the op is saying,

Well, if you recognise it exactly, give us examples, because I'm not willing to guess what the problem is. If I do that, I'm sure it will prove to be a moving target

and thats a entirely fair comment.

and if your basically saying it’s cause I’m an idiot, your not doing yourself or Fuji any favours.

Frankly the op deserves more respect.

I respectfully asked the OP for a better image with exif

it wasn’t you btw I was having a pop at....

--

 

[Greg7579]

Check hyperfocal distance at F5.6, and turn off OIS.

You have a double image - possibly shutter shock interacting with OIS.

Focus in wideangle shots is difficult. Any area of sufficient contrast is too small to register. Try F8, manual focus at about 10m, and it will look pretty sharp everywhere.

 

[NottsPhoto]

I would sure like to know how folks are getting those great sharp 100% results cause mine are not consistent.

--
www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.

How? I point the camera at something, and push the shutter release.

90mm f2 @f2, 100% crop from RAW. no sharpening, no nothing.


1

Well that’s pretty much what I’m getting...

--
www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.

 

[Foto Jay]

Just to toss out a couple of other things. Have you updated the firmware for the lens? You can also try turning off continuous OIS if you have it on and have it only active when you take the photo. If you're shooting from a tripod in the church, shut the OIS off as well.

Yes thanks. ll firmware is updated and I have the OIS to shoot only and not continuous in the menu. I don't use a tripod and thats why I like the OIS, but can try it for ha ha's.

 

[57even]

With a lack of comparable samples, preferably raw, it is impossible to say what your problem is, though some of the pseudo-authoritative responses were quite amusing.

I traded in a D800 for a Fuji XPro2, and I didn't do it because I though a loss of image quality was 'acceptable'. I did it because there wasn't any significant loss worth speaking about.

Now granted, Xtrans processing is anything but conventional, but when done correctly, it is exactly where I expect a 24 megapixel sensor to be. Size has nothing to do with it unless you shoot at high ISO, and if you shoot at high ISO, even a small amount of underexposure, or adjustment in post, is a disaster.

I have several hundred images from informal gigs, where the light levels were appalling, and I was shooting at ISO3200 and 6400 with the 56mm F1.2 wide open. The shots were not only in focus, but looked great with a bit of moderate PP.

And I also have a couple of urban landscape images printed at 36X24 that match anything I got from a D600 (FF 24MP).

In my experience of monitoring this forum, most 'issues' come down to genuinely faulty gear, or misunderstandings about processing basics. I can't tell in this case, except to say that your experience does not concur with mine in any way.

Yes, I do have some pretty poor shots, but the fault was always mine, apart from a few issues with an old XE1 that had faulty lens contacts and could not focus in the cold.

 

[Ian_MTL]

Could this simply be an OIS issue? I remember VR used to make bokeh very unappealing on some Nikon lenses. maybe something similar is happening here? have you tried shooting the same subjects with OIS off?

also I find the 24mp trans to be very sensitive to camera shake and perfect tact sharpness requires not only good technique but also sufficient shutter speed.

Hi! I have owned an Xt2 for a little over a year coming from a full frame Canon system. I have been super happy except one thing. Maybe I am going nuts but when I zoom in on an image it falls apart quality wise. Especially wider shots. I always view 1 to 1 in lightroom on a 27" I Mac and sometimes I zoom in a tad more to fix blemishes etc. The edges (not the edges of the picture, but the edges of the people or objects in them) just are more jagged, blotchy, very pixelated etc... More than I remember on my 5DIII. Is that just part of the APSC game? Once again, I am happy user but this has been bothering me. It would be kind of someone to post a picture or two for me to compare would be greatly appreciated. Of course the issue arrises more with the 18-55 kit lens then my others, but the issue is there with all my lens's, so I can rule out optics problems. Thanks in advance for any insights. I would like to put this to bed if I can. Like I said, I am super happy, but this has been on my mind the whole time from the very first shoot I did with it.

PS.... For what it is worth, I have tried all the raw converters to rule out lightroom messing with me I do use photoshop to sharpen, as I do notice lightroom sharpening does amplify the problem slightly.

 

[JonPB]

Four pages later, I'm not sure we've done much to help Foto Joy or others in similar circumstances. So I started digging to see if I could add something useful. Caveat emptor--sharpening is definitely /not/ an expertise of mine.

Still, try this: in your sharpening settings, use a lower amount value but a larger radius and higher detail than you would for Bayer images.

My rationale: most Bayer sharpening settings are designed to overcome the blur inherent in the anti-aliasing filter and 2x2-pixel demosaicking, so they usually act over a small radius of 0.5 to 1.0 pixels but act strongly in order to re-create detail. In contrast, X-Trans has no blurring filter but demosaicking works with a larger set of pixels, so you want sharpening to consider all of those pixels but to apply only enough strength to overcome any averaging that occurred among them. The "detail" slider seems to have a wider range of meanings between different programs, but it appears to consistently refer to the rendering of single- or few-pixel details, again to overcome multi-pixel value averaging inherent with X-Trans.

Another approach might be for Jay to share a raw file that has good technical fundamentals, something well focused with a high shutter speed and low sensitivity. Then folks who think they can sharpen it to meet or exceed Jay's expectations can post their jpeg and an explanation of how they processed the image.

 

[nikkor35f2]

Four pages later, I'm not sure we've done much to help Foto Joy or others in similar circumstances. So I started digging to see if I could add something useful. Caveat emptor--sharpening is definitely /not/ an expertise of mine.

Still, try this: in your sharpening settings, use a lower amount value but a larger radius and higher detail than you would for Bayer images.

My rationale: most Bayer sharpening settings are designed to overcome the blur inherent in the anti-aliasing filter and 2x2-pixel demosaicking, so they usually act over a small radius of 0.5 to 1.0 pixels but act strongly in order to re-create detail. In contrast, X-Trans has no blurring filter but demosaicking works with a larger set of pixels, so you want sharpening to consider all of those pixels but to apply only enough strength to overcome any averaging that occurred among them. The "detail" slider seems to have a wider range of meanings between different programs, but it appears to consistently refer to the rendering of single- or few-pixel details, again to overcome multi-pixel value averaging inherent with X-Trans.

Another approach might be for Jay to share a raw file that has good technical fundamentals, something well focused with a high shutter speed and low sensitivity. Then folks who think they can sharpen it to meet or exceed Jay's expectations can post their jpeg and an explanation of how they processed the image.

I was reading about 16/1.4 one Web cos I intend to get one..

Then I read something (sorry can remember when website or review) about increasing e detail (in LR) than sharpening for fuji files makes e image appear sharper but doesn't introduce artifacts. Anyone has experience doing this?

 

[Greg7579]

Four pages later, I'm not sure we've done much to help Foto Joy or others in similar circumstances. So I started digging to see if I could add something useful. Caveat emptor--sharpening is definitely /not/ an expertise of mine.

Still, try this: in your sharpening settings, use a lower amount value but a larger radius and higher detail than you would for Bayer images.

My rationale: most Bayer sharpening settings are designed to overcome the blur inherent in the anti-aliasing filter and 2x2-pixel demosaicking, so they usually act over a small radius of 0.5 to 1.0 pixels but act strongly in order to re-create detail. In contrast, X-Trans has no blurring filter but demosaicking works with a larger set of pixels, so you want sharpening to consider all of those pixels but to apply only enough strength to overcome any averaging that occurred among them. The "detail" slider seems to have a wider range of meanings between different programs, but it appears to consistently refer to the rendering of single- or few-pixel details, again to overcome multi-pixel value averaging inherent with X-Trans.

Another approach might be for Jay to share a raw file that has good technical fundamentals, something well focused with a high shutter speed and low sensitivity. Then folks who think they can sharpen it to meet or exceed Jay's expectations can post their jpeg and an explanation of how they processed the image.

I admire your intense interest in helping Foto Joy and his seemingly insurmountable problems with the Fuji system. LOL....

Well, let's see.... Quoting a recent post of yours when talking about the terrible Fuji resolution at 1:1:

"This is not at all how I'd describe my experience of viewing Fuji raw files at 1:1 on a Retina display. If anything, fine details are softer and blander than what I've seen from non-XTrans...".

So, is your interest really in helping poor Foto Joy or piling on one of the worst threads of the past year? Or is your interest in bashing Fuji and XTrans?

I'm just reading this stuff shaking my head in amazement.... It really is something else.

I don't spend any time on the Canikon or Sony Boards. But serious question.... Do threads like this exist on those Boards? How are they tolerated?

 

[Bobo Hodls]

As is your tolerance for contrary perspectives (barely endured).

You made your point(sssss). Let it go already.

 

[Greg7579]

Yes Bob. You are right. I said this morning I was done with it, but then every hour or so get a notification that there is another response and I make the mistake and read it and don't have enough discipline to let it go because it is so ... so ... so ... well, you know, I can't say it or I will be accused of being mean. We all know this is one of the worst threads in DPR history and that it has to get locked.

But seriously, do you really see any actual contrary views here or any arguments that makes any sense? I don't.

It would be like me going onto the Canon board and telling them that their sensor sucks compared to X-Trans, that their resolution falls apart at 1:1 and that FF is inferior.

But I don't do that. Why would anyone do that?

 

[Foto Jay]

Four pages later, I'm not sure we've done much to help Foto Joy or others in similar circumstances. So I started digging to see if I could add something useful. Caveat emptor--sharpening is definitely /not/ an expertise of mine.

Still, try this: in your sharpening settings, use a lower amount value but a larger radius and higher detail than you would for Bayer images.

My rationale: most Bayer sharpening settings are designed to overcome the blur inherent in the anti-aliasing filter and 2x2-pixel demosaicking, so they usually act over a small radius of 0.5 to 1.0 pixels but act strongly in order to re-create detail. In contrast, X-Trans has no blurring filter but demosaicking works with a larger set of pixels, so you want sharpening to consider all of those pixels but to apply only enough strength to overcome any averaging that occurred among them. The "detail" slider seems to have a wider range of meanings between different programs, but it appears to consistently refer to the rendering of single- or few-pixel details, again to overcome multi-pixel value averaging inherent with X-Trans.

Another approach might be for Jay to share a raw file that has good technical fundamentals, something well focused with a high shutter speed and low sensitivity. Then folks who think they can sharpen it to meet or exceed Jay's expectations can post their jpeg and an explanation of how they processed the image.

I admire your intense interest in helping Foto Joy and his seemingly insurmountable problems with the Fuji system. LOL....

Well, let's see.... Quoting a recent post of yours when talking about the terrible Fuji resolution at 1:1:

"This is not at all how I'd describe my experience of viewing Fuji raw files at 1:1 on a Retina display. If anything, fine details are softer and blander than what I've seen from non-XTrans...".

So, is your interest really in helping poor Foto Joy or piling on one of the worst threads of the past year? Or is your interest in bashing Fuji and XTrans?

I'm just reading this stuff shaking my head in amazement.... It really is something else.

I don't spend any time on the Canikon or Sony Boards. But serious question.... Do threads like this exist on those Boards? How are they tolerated?

 

[JonPB]

So, is your interest really in helping poor Foto Joy or piling on one of the worst threads of the past year? Or is your interest in bashing Fuji and XTrans?

My interest is in learning more about this camera system. I find technical problems intriguing. I also get some satisfaction in helping other photographers; it feels like paying back for much of the help I've received over the years. Read my posts. I speak based on my experience, I show evidence where possible, and I admit when I am wrong. I do not recall ever attacking any system, even those with which I strongly dislike using.

And, yes, in response to your serious question: threads like this exist on other forums and are taken seriously. Threads saying, "I'm not achieving the results that I want -- can you help me?" Threads saying, "I do X, expect Y, get Z; everyone else seems happy with Z; what am I missing?" Even threads saying, "I'm not sure this system is for me, and here's why." They're usually not that articulate, but that's how I read them and that's how I follow them. Many such threads receive helpful responses, and even if the OP isn't satisfied with the results, they (and others who read those threads) learn from what others contribute.

I'm just reading this stuff shaking my head in amazement.... It really is something else.

Just as I'm shaking my head in amazement at your replies. Someone comes here asking whether anyone else has the same experience that they have, seeking to learn how to improve their results. In the OP's own words: "Thanks in advance for any insights."

You respond by implying that the OP's description of what the OP sees "is absolutely not true and is an outrageous assertion -- so nonsensical that even the most vapid Fuji-hater would not dare to state such a thing". You say this while admitting that you haven't even looked at what the OP shared as being problematic.

I'm fairly confident that, if you gave the OP a fair shake, you'd tell the OP that the sample image looks just fine when viewed at 100%, perhaps that it could be improved with proper post-processing and that the Fujifilm XF is more than adequate for his needs. You might even offer guidance on how to achieve improved post-processing and help move this thread and this forum in a positive direction.

Instead, you seem to see a viewpoint that you disagree with, then proceed call it "one of the worst threads in DPR history" without apparently paying any attention to the content here. Then you reiterate "that it has to get locked" without any apparent acknowledgement of the active participation of this forum's moderator. This is behavior I've seen from you in other threads. I describe that behavior as bullying and belligerent.

Your smarmy dishonesty is also distasteful. One example: "Now I'm not knocking you. Maybe you are making some innocent mistake or somehow zooming a low res upload -- I don't know. But you said you were viewing RAW on a variety of editors and that the resolution fell apart. No way!" If you really didn't know, then you shouldn't have made the judgment that the OP was saying something outrageous.

I'd really rather spend my time reading and writing about photo technique and technology, but I wanted to write an honest reply so that you'd have some evidence that my posted opinions were made with nothing but the best of intentions. I hope you see that, and I hope you'll consider showing others the more charitable side of doubt in the future.

 

[nikkor35f2]

Four pages later, I'm not sure we've done much to help Foto Joy or others in similar circumstances. So I started digging to see if I could add something useful. Caveat emptor--sharpening is definitely /not/ an expertise of mine.

Still, try this: in your sharpening settings, use a lower amount value but a larger radius and higher detail than you would for Bayer images.

My rationale: most Bayer sharpening settings are designed to overcome the blur inherent in the anti-aliasing filter and 2x2-pixel demosaicking, so they usually act over a small radius of 0.5 to 1.0 pixels but act strongly in order to re-create detail. In contrast, X-Trans has no blurring filter but demosaicking works with a larger set of pixels, so you want sharpening to consider all of those pixels but to apply only enough strength to overcome any averaging that occurred among them. The "detail" slider seems to have a wider range of meanings between different programs, but it appears to consistently refer to the rendering of single- or few-pixel details, again to overcome multi-pixel value averaging inherent with X-Trans.

Another approach might be for Jay to share a raw file that has good technical fundamentals, something well focused with a high shutter speed and low sensitivity. Then folks who think they can sharpen it to meet or exceed Jay's expectations can post their jpeg and an explanation of how they processed the image.

I admire your intense interest in helping Foto Joy and his seemingly insurmountable problems with the Fuji system. LOL....

Well, let's see.... Quoting a recent post of yours when talking about the terrible Fuji resolution at 1:1:

"This is not at all how I'd describe my experience of viewing Fuji raw files at 1:1 on a Retina display. If anything, fine details are softer and blander than what I've seen from non-XTrans...".

So, is your interest really in helping poor Foto Joy or piling on one of the worst threads of the past year? Or is your interest in bashing Fuji and XTrans?

I'm just reading this stuff shaking my head in amazement.... It really is something else.

I don't spend any time on the Canikon or Sony Boards. But serious question.... Do threads like this exist on those Boards? How are they tolerated?