Fujifilm issues minor firmware update for its X-T3 mirrorless camera

The real headline is that the XT-3 COULDN'T already make files over 4GB. A certain other compact mirrorless body released over six years ago had no issues with this. Nothing against Fuji, it's a nice body that's seriously tempting. It's just surprising a camera this recent would have such a strange limitation.

Some thoughts on the firmware update page, though: "By using SD memory cards less than or equal to 32GB, movie recording will continue without interruption when the file size reaches 4GB, however subsequent footage will be recorded to a separate file"

This is probably a limitation of FAT32, not the card capacity. I'm sure if you formatted even a 16GB card externally as exFAT, it would create larger files. 64GB+ cards are exFAT by default, as they exceed the limits of FAT32. At least, that's exactly how the NEX-6 behaved.

1 week ago*permalink

FodgeandDurn

Before the update I had noticed an issue using a fn button to control face detect - the fn button would fail to over-ride whatever you had selected in the quick menu. This led to much frustration when wanting to quickly turn off face detect (because, say, it kept seeing a face in some fabric, or choosing the wrong face).

This does appear to now be fixed, whether by fluke, or as one of the "unspecific 'defects'"

1 week agopermalink

Worst image files I have seen on a camera, soon sold it for a A7R3

1 week agopermalink

What did you not like about the XT3's raws?

1 week agopermalink

farandhigh

How many A7R3 you bought?
Probably you don't know how to work with X-Trans files.

1 week agopermalink

Hitch22

you have worst website....and photos i have seen!!

1 week agopermalink

Nothing against Sony, but "worst image files I have seen.. " really? Would you care to elaborate? Because Fuji has a reputation for excellent image quality.

1 week agopermalink

haha Hitch22 lets see your sh"£$

1 week agopermalink

why dont you look at how bad the sample photos are on the sample gallery, fuji worms to the worst degree, fanboys clearly cant see them

1 week agopermalink

An artifact of using the wrong software to process the images. This has been gone over more than once in the forums.. but then again, I'm not gonna fan boy it and say no one ever had that problem.

BTW I liked your homeless person photo essay, especially since I live in the PNW and see the tent cities on I5 also.

1 week agopermalink

I used every software and it was there, also why should I be using software to get rid of it,!! no not for the money I spent, madness

1 week agopermalink

Mr Bolton, thanks so much, I love Seattle and see a friend there nearly every year , looking forward to going back soon

1 week agopermalink

Barry Benowitz

What’s wrong with the files exactly they seem to be on par for me with anything else I’ve used?

2 weeks agopermalink

I really wish this had a bayer sensor, it's been on my mind for months!

2 weeks agopermalink

TonyPM

Sony a6400.
And a few good lenses..., that don't need to be made by Sony...

2 weeks agopermalink

Thematic

Fat Fish Why? I'm curious.

Thanks.

2 weeks agopermalink

rationalist

For me the X-Trans or Bayer topic is no longer a big deal. Processing X-Trans is quick for Lightroom CC (cloud) as well as C1. Quality wise the differences are not worth the discussions.

2 weeks agopermalink

Thematic

Thats what I thought also.

And since EVERY professional using both types and EVERY review claims the same.....what did Fat Fish discover that nobody else in the entire world has?

2 weeks agopermalink

I absolutely hate X-Trans files and can't get them looking good in Lightroom. Even via X-Transformer it's not quite right (although leagues better). It's what led me to sell my X-E3 which otherwise was a great camera.

I know it's personal preference but to me X-Trans is a huge flaw in an almost perfect APS-C system.

2 weeks agopermalink

Thematic

Capture One Pro

2 weeks agopermalink

I've tried it and it works better but I don't see why I should change my entire workflow for technology that in my opinion offers no advantages and also will be redundant over the next couple years.

2 weeks agopermalink

NicoPPC

@The Fat Fisch : which flaw? Zoomed 400%?

2 weeks agopermalink

Even with no zoom it's evident. Either way, it's just my take on it. I'm sure in the next few years I'll own a Fuji once again.

2 weeks agopermalink

webber15

I'd prefer they stayed X-Trans with APSC myself.

2 weeks agopermalink

TonyPM:

And the A6400 has the lossy only raw problem.

Yeah, one can see the difference provided use of optically very good lenses. The lossy compressed Sony "14 bit" raws don't look right. Don't need a 10 bit monitor to notice the problem either.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Peter1976

@theFatFish: I assume you know that you have to apply sharpening in Lightroom for Xtrans in a completely different way than for Bayer sensors, right? If you do it right, there are nor "worms" or whatever people claim. Nothing.
I never had any issues with Xtrans in Lightroom. The results were just as good as with my 6D.

2 weeks agopermalink

thanksforframing

I went from a Canon 6D to a Fuji X-T2 and discovered the foliage effect at some point. Depending on the image it can be quite strong and when shooting landscapes the 6D fares much much better.

However I love shooting with the X-T2 and depending on the software and how big you print the image the drawbacks of the x-trans sensor a managable. The positives outweigh the negatives in my opinion. I used to pixel peep a lot more but at some point I realized that a great image is a great image even if the sharpness may be worse with a Fuji than with a Sony.

Having said that, I understand that people who want to get everything out of their equipment switching to Sony or staying with full frame. I for one love the experience I have with Fuji and hate the handling with Sony. And since photography is also about haveing fun, I choose Fuji (also it´s about the weight for me).

2 weeks agopermalink

Rob890

@peter1976 since he has to "I assume you know that you have to apply sharpening in Lightroom for Xtrans in a completely different way than for Bayer sensors, right? If you do it right, there are nor "worms" or whatever people claim. Nothing."........then is it even worth it? Better to use a camera with a Bayer sensor then. Also, this substantiates that there is a difference. I for one find that fuji's X-trans does horrible work with greens which can be a pain to correct and get as accurate as one's preference. Maybe its something to it, when you see the vast majority of images from ardent Fuji apologist, shots usually look muted in color or are excessively warm, even with their MF camera. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax hell even Sigma's Foveon (maybe more so with fewer interpolate) cameras produce better colors

2 weeks agopermalink

I used my friends X-T100 for a week and that had great image quality with none of the issues I experienced with my X-E3. It's annoying their higher end cameras actually have worse image quality compared to their entry level cameras. If they put that X-T100 sensor in the X-T3 body I'd be very happy.

2 weeks agopermalink

NicoPPC

Using "X-Trans" sensor since 1,5 years... works great so far. greens are good (and others colours too). I wonder where all this allegation come from..

2 weeks agopermalink

marc petzold

The issue is the person behind the PC, LR is crap for X-Trans Files, everybody with a Fuji X-Trans does know that. Try Capture One, or Iridient Developer, or Iridient X-Transformer.People are like Lemmings, bashing a brand xy for poor File quality, but being to stupid, to change their workflow, to get the most out of their gear. If one does buy a non-bayer Sensor Camera, one does especially know that, within the review, informs him/herself before buying the gear - and the req'd software/workflow, to get the most IQ out of that gear.

Simply relying on LR is being stupid, especially with X-Trans. LR/ACR was never being good with X-Trans Fujifilm RAW Files - and i do say that as a E1 User. The Problem is in front of the screen, not the Camera, X-T3 here.

Even the free Capture One Version for Fujifilm is being avialable. Its the same like, one buys a car with diesel Engine, but blames the brand, because she/he used ordinary gas, instead of diesel. Canon User, troll attempt!

Have Fun!

2 weeks ago*permalink

mp:

The extraction of raws has little to do with the person behind the camera.

It can have a great deal to do with the party running the particular extraction software.

Upon the release of ACR 9, and now Adobe is up to V11, Adobe rid Adobe Camera Raw of Xtrans raw extraction problems.

2 weeks agopermalink

Chris Gibbs

CaptureOne Pro for FUJI.

2 weeks agopermalink

marc petzold

HAR: Congratulations - you've neither read a) my post properly and b) and didn't understood the message. Adobes Engine is IQ-wise not good for X-Trans Fujifilm RAF Files, which means simply, processing Fujifilm X-Trans Files with the Adobe ACR/LR Engine won't get the most out of it, image quality wise, and therefore, being worse.

Capture One (Pro), PhotoNinja & Iridient are way better choices. And that's what i've meant with extraction RAWs, i meant processing the RAF X-Trans Files from your SD Card with these Adobe Programs - which are worse, then other options.

And to use better choices, than the usual Adobe Tools for this. Means for you especially: Adobes X-Trans Processing is worse than the competition, and 1:1 comparsions showing that for ages, it's really nothing new, especially for X-Trans Users, like myself, since 2012 my X-E1.

X-Trans is just a ordinary Sensor, with different CFA, not ordinary Bayer CFA Matrix, therefore, it needs special processing of these Files.

2 weeks ago*permalink

RootX

@Rob890 "when you see the vast majority of images from ardent Fuji apologist, shots usually look muted in color or are excessively warm, even with their MF camera. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax hell even Sigma's Foveon (maybe more so with fewer interpolate) cameras produce better colors"

Not even you believe what you said

2 weeks agopermalink

mp:

"Adobes Engine is IQ-wise not good for X-Trans Fujifilm RAF Files, which means simply, processing Fujifilm X-Trans Files with the Adobe ACR/LR Engine won't get the most out of it, image quality wise, and therefore, being worse."

Apparently you didn't read my point at all. And you don't have a firm grasp of the meaning of the adjective "worse".

"Capture One (Pro), PhotoNinja & Iridient are way better choices."

This is simply untrue after ACR 9 released. You have reiterated that you didn't understand my post one bit or you didn't read it.

"Means for you especially: Adobes X-Trans Processing is worse than the competition, "

In early 2019, this is untrue, and now you've thrice demonstrated that you didn't read my post even a little.

"X-Trans is just a ordinary Sensor, with different CFA, not ordinary Bayer CFA Matrix, therefore, it needs special processing of these Files."

Immaterial to my point And I know the difference between the CFAs.

1 week ago*permalink

KevBaild

Software is really inexpensive compared to hardware. I don't understand why anyone would change cameras because LightRoom is unable to do a good job of processing the files. Blame should go to Adobe and their subscription services. Invest in software that works. C.One, P.Ninja, Iridient.D. These show how poorly LR works with X-Trans.

1 week ago*permalink

@thematic: thast untrue and a random statement. There are differences - if only in preference.

1 week agopermalink

@the Fat Fish: I know exactly what you mean.. I would want a new body and am considering the lower end model for the very reason

1 week ago*permalink

marc petzold

HAR, you really have to much time, either way, you do get continously into my threads, and just posting garbage. I told you months ago, i am done with you. period. No more replies for you. End of Story. ACR >9 is still a mess, with X-Trans RAF Files.

You don't own a Fujifilm X-trans-based Camera, other-wise, that glibberish wouldn't have been posted by you. You're just a guy with too much time, never showing *any* of your works, but posting all the time your worlds view, and trying to convience everybody else - i'd say, get a life, or better: create pictures, instead to convience the world, that your personal opinions are the only PoV of your (narrow) worldview. And that is not my own, personal opinion, but from many others here, about you.

Have fun.

1 week ago*permalink

mp:

"I told you months ago, i am done with you. period. No more replies for you. End of Story. ACR >9 is still a mess, with X-Trans RAF Files."

And yet you keep responding.

No ACR is no longer a mess with XTrans RAFs.

"You don't own a Fujifilm X-trans-based Camera, "

You don't know that. And immaterial to me testing extraction software that I don't own, also immaterial to whether I have my own XTrans raws from at least a dozen Fujis. Plus of course, one can find hundreds of raws to download from on that thing called the internet.

I'll note here you keep avoiding the freeware which is very good with XTrans raws: RawTherapee. Which seems to suggest...

And you omitted converting XTrans raws to DNGs with Adobe DNG Converter. Albeit, I've never tested that approach directly against CaptureOne. I only rest C1 about once a year, since it's really not very good for higher ISO NR with any raw type.

1 week ago*permalink

At this point people who complain about Fuji worms are about the same as people who complain that Sony turns everything orange.

1 week agopermalink

An endless loop

1 week agopermalink

Magnar W

minor update … makes the camera a bit smaller? ;-)

2 weeks ago*permalink

avicenanw

Or a bit bigger?

2 weeks ago*permalink

Magnar W

That's major upgrade ...

2 weeks agopermalink

is it a downgrade if its smaller? ;)

1 week agopermalink

Benjamin Kanarek

This is an example of how all camera companies should function! Good for you Fujifilm! 🙏🏼

2 weeks agopermalink

Clayton1985

Yes, hope Sony, Nikon and Canon pay attention and also add the ability to record video files over 4GB in size as a single file.

2 weeks agopermalink

racin06

According to the fanboys of Nikon and Canon, their cameras already possess every feature on initial release that could ever be desired by a user!

2 weeks agopermalink

Daniel Ockeloen

I think sony newly announced updates for its 3 last cameras are kind of super. Its great the 4Gig limit is gone but lets be real why was it still in there tot begin with.

1 week agopermalink

Jersey Shore

And there's a bigger firmware update coming in April which should include more autofocus enhancements and other improvements. Even better, Fuji is publicly asking its users what they want next - in terms of both firmware and lenses. How can you not love a camera company like that?

1 week agopermalink

Clayton1985: "Yes, hope Sony, Nikon and Canon pay attention and also add the ability to record video files over 4GB in size as a single file."

My old NEX-6 could record files over 4GB just fine. I'm not sure what's special about Fuji adding this feature in a firmware update to a camera released six years later.

That aside, I do wish Sony would be a little more active with firmware fixes...

1 week agopermalink

Clayton1985

You got me Ziginox.... it was a little bit tongue in cheek. I really do like Fuji's philosophy but it does get a little bit out of hand how they are praised for adding features that should have been there in the beginning.

1 week agopermalink

Agreed. It's such a weird feature to be missing from such a new camera. Additionally, it's a bit strange that Fuji's official notes on the firmware update still recommend formatting the SD card in-camera after every time you've had it in a computer. With how sophisticated camera firmware is these days, that's pretty much a moot point.

1 week agopermalink

The 4GB file limit is from Fat32, not the camera maker. Blame Microsoft, not the camera makers.

1 week agopermalink

But the XT-3 couldn't record files larger than 4GB on even exFAT-formatted media, according to how the firmware update is worded. So yes, blame the camera maker here.

1 week agopermalink

The firmware update does say "64GB or larger card required for this to work." So it's kinda Fuji's fault, but then again all it sounds like is that they initially just didn't change the max filesize to differentiate between cards that could handle 4GB+ and those that could not.. Before, when most SD cards were 32GB or smaller and 4GB was really kind of a standard due to this, versus now when 64GB+ cards are cheaper and easier to get and more common.

1 week agopermalink

RootX

Good news

2 weeks agopermalink

Nikonio

One of the many X-T3 firmware upgrades to come

2 weeks agopermalink