Fujifilm X-T100 sample gallery

A very helpful comment. Thank you.

2 months agopermalink

Marksphoto

Fuji, if your listenning, please remove the hideous noise controlling smear over the jpegs, otherwise I will have to shoot raw, which defeats the purpose why I bought into the fuji system in the first place -- for best out of camera jpegs, which I don't have access to. I am shooting raw waiting patiently for fuji to stop ruining my in-camera-jpegs.

2 months agopermalink

LeeR

Is there any type of way to control or to reduce the amount of noise reduction?

2 months agopermalink

Marksphoto

yup, shoot raw

2 months agopermalink

I applaud that comment.
I hope they will also rethink the color rendition change from the original 16mp sensor while they are at it.

2 months agopermalink

Portion Control

I guess it must just be because choices by the photographer and not the difference between Bayer and XTrans, but somehow these sample images seem to not get across the characteristic color and 'look' of Fuji X camera images.

2 months agopermalink

Which look ar you referring to? The 12mp xtrans, 16mp x trans, The 24mp x-trans.. the previous Bayer pattern sensors?
Change is a constant here - to my frustration

2 months ago*permalink

There was no 12mp X-Trans.

2 months agopermalink

@Darn: what did theX100 feature?

2 months agopermalink

12mp Bayer

2 months agopermalink

@ Darn: oops - thanks

2 months agopermalink

I wad thinking of the X10 - but thats not apsc even though it features X trans.

2 months agopermalink

X10 wasn’t XTrans but the 20 and 30 were.

2 months agopermalink

I don't think Fuji can figure out the characteristic color of Fuji X camera images either given how much it's changed from the original XTrans which is a pity. Fuji just trying to please all of the people all of the time.

2 months agopermalink

Well they keep pleasing me.

2 months agopermalink

Thats good to hear.
Sadly my mileage differs.

2 months agopermalink

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-a5/fuji-x-a5-conclusion.htm

With the potential benefits of Bayer (some claim it resolves some detail better I wonder if the XT-3 (whenever it is released) would have a Bayer sensor.... I'm certainly looking at the XT100 as a second/backup Fuji camera as it's price point seems logical (cheaper than the XT20 which my XT2 has all the same features anyways, and then some) and is has the Bayer sensor.

2 months agopermalink

marc petzold

The X-T100 delivers very high quality (for it's Sensor & Class), and the X-A5 seems to be almost as good, imaging-ressource already praised the X-T100, here is the X-A5 Conclusion:

The X-T100 "budget" vs the bit more expensive X-T20:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/06/23/fujifilm-x-t100-first-shots

The X-T100 wins with Bayer Sensor...it does show also less noise, than the X-T20...at same ISO Speeds....and Fuji plays the APS-C Card very well. ;-)

X-T100 vs EOS 200D, ISO 100:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/ee_uploads/news/8316/x-t100-base-sl2-b.jpg

X-T100 vs. EOS 200D, ISO 6400:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/ee_uploads/news/8316/xt100-6400-sl2-b.jpg

DR, IQ, Sharpness all better onto the Fujifilm X-T100.

Good Light !
Marc

2 months ago*permalink

Wasn't bashing the XT100 if that's where you were going with this.... was merely saying that if it works out it might make sense to put a Bayer sensor in the XT3 (if and whenever that gets released). X-Trans is good for some things but I still think Bayer wins out for most stuff that the average person would shoot and I think does pretty well overall in most areas of photography. Detail retention was always my concern with X-Trans... And this is all the more that I may pick up an XT100 later this year....

2 months ago*permalink

The XT3 will have the X-Trans sensor.

2 months agopermalink

Oh well. I guess you can't have everything. I'm probably going to pick up an XT100 at that point then as a second body and just hold onto the XT2 unless there are some new amazing features included XT3.

2 months agopermalink

goactive

What a lack of low light and wide open F stop images.

2 months agopermalink

Marksphoto

It's sluggish at focussing, fuji might take a couple of generations to catch up to sony

2 months agopermalink

Fuji could upgrade focus speed with a firmware update.

2 months agopermalink

Could.

Or could not.

2 months ago*permalink

They've done it with other models.

2 months agopermalink

bobogdan78

If they've done it with other models why don't they just do it from the beginning.

2 months agopermalink

Why don't you send Fuji a letter and find out?

2 months agopermalink

bobogdan78

Why should I send Fuji any letter? They are the ones who want something from me (my money) so they'd better give me a flawless product.

2 months agopermalink

Who said it was sluggish, have you tried an a6500? Seriously this camera is fine it is a whisker behind my Pana G9 that’s all, it is supremely accurate, more than I can say for the a6500 and that dreaded af bug at f2-f2.8 with the evf.

2 months agopermalink

If you want a flawless product buy Leica. Expecting a $599 camera body to be perfect in every respect is delusional.

2 months agopermalink

$600 for a camera body with what the XT100 can do is quite good. The nearest $600 Sony camera is the a6000 (still, not a bad camera, but the technology in it is 5 years old) and at best, about the same performance.... So I think Fuji did a good job between keeping it in the budget category while equipping it with enough features that even an enthusiast would consider it a worthy pick.

As you probably know, as with budget cameras, some corners need to be cut. AF has never really been Fuji's strong point, I will give you that, even my $1500 XT-2 is a bit slow at focusing especially on moving subjects in continuous AF mode. I think Fuji (for the most part) made most of the right moves with the XT100 to keep it a $600 body.

2 months ago*permalink

"If they've done it with other models why don't they just do it from the beginning."

Because software improves over time. I would rather that then have to buy a new camera body to get the AF improvements.

2 months ago*permalink

Software can't improve hardware.

2 months agopermalink

Fuji has objectively improved their AF over time through software updates. So while the hardware hasn't physically been improved, the software's ability to make use of the hardware has.

2 months agopermalink

So that their new cameras already include these improvements when they are released, and less improvement can be expected.

2 months agopermalink

It's the best $699 camera-lens combo on the market today. Unfortunately it's success with 24mp bayer's very good IQ puts Fuji XTrans in a precarious position for the future.

2 months agopermalink

kodachromeguy

Why is X-trans in a precarious position? How does it affect your photography?

2 months agopermalink

troutwaters

Precarious because consumers may vote with their feet for bayer sensor based top end cameras Ideally there would be a choice but market forces may dictate otherwise

2 months ago*permalink

Sezano

No it don’t.

2 months agopermalink

troutwaters

Sure does

2 months agopermalink

Fuji, if your listening, give us more high end aps-c bayer options at very attractive price points, the market is there for your taking, x-t100 sensor and image output is impressive :)

2 months agopermalink

Blue Swan Media

You guys are so ridiculous. The % of camera buyers who give a damn about bayer vs. Xtrans is tiny. It's a nerds-only argument. They use Bayer arrays in these cameras because they're cheaper, that's it. Want to buy one to take pictures of trees because 'no worms'? Go for it, Fuji will thank you for the $$$. But make no mistake, Xtrans is a differentiator for them when it comes to most other types of photography where critical sharpness is less important.

2 months agopermalink

PF511

I have Fuji cameras and I really, really like them, but X-Trans is a hassle in processing. I'd rather have Bayer. This camera is missing too many controls to really be viable, but I wouldn't be made if the X-T30 was Bayer, though I don't expect that to actually happen.

2 months agopermalink

Nikoncanonfan

If any user cared that much about image quality they would be on full frame any way, not this casual snappers format.

2 months agopermalink

Blue Swan Media

@Nikoncanonfan I'll make sure to LOL at your comment again this weekend when I'm being paid $4000 to shoot a wedding with my casual snapper-format cameras.

2 months agopermalink

Nikoncanonfan

#blue swan. Just think what better value you could give them with pictures from a larger sensor not to mention the increased presence you would have with the 5d iv which is the usual wedding camera. I had to dump all my Olympus gear because they are too stubborn or thick to respond to what people want. I’ve nothing against Fujifilm for casual use but chaps at the camera club with xt2 xh1 have horrendous colour cast with studio flash canon always does a better job

2 months agopermalink

What @troutwaters is saying does have some merit. Way back in 2013 Fuji released the XM1 along with the XA1. Consumers choosing the A1, when combined with the A1's lower price made Fuji stick with Bayer for the budget cameras. Buyers of higher end cameras aren't as cost conscious, but its possible that if sales of the T100 are strong Fuji may do a similar A1/M1 test with the future XT30 and XE4. I personally like X-Trans and know that it still provides benefits over Bayer, assuming you know how to process X-Trans files correctly, but if the X-Pro3 or X-Pro4 are Bayer-only I would still buy one because I care more about that body's viewfinders and handling than its color array.

Of course, strong sales of the T100 do not necessarily mean people prefer Bayer over X-Trans because there is no direct X-Trans equivalent to it in features and price. Similarly, strong sales of the XT20 did not mean people preferred SLR-style Fujis to rangefinder-style Fujis because initially there was no X-E3.

2 months ago*permalink

MichailK

not bad performance but nothing to write home about

I cannot see *something* special in the gallery - an entry level model must have one thing special to lure people in the brand ecosystem and I do not see anything here not achievable with my pretty old by now E-PL5 - maybe a tad creamier bokeh due to larger sensor lens optics, maybe - not enough to lure me in

2 months agopermalink

iudex

Well why dont you post a similar image from your E-PL5 shot at ISO6400? Or an underxeposed picture with lifted shadows? I am quite curious how will the old M4/3 (or basically any 4/3, even the newest one) handle this.
This sensor is among the best APSC sensors on the market: great dynamic range, low noise etc. and in its price range most certainly the best. If you look for something "special", or "magic" then you are the right customer for X-trans (if you believe in their "magic").

2 months agopermalink

MichailK

I'll stick to 1600-2000 top, take bursts and lift the shadows - one good frame in each burst will do the trick, thank you - too much cash to add an extra 1 and a half stop of low light ability to worth the fuss - if I was to jump over to fuji I'd go full in and skip this particular new model, no whoa factor as it is - the X100V remains my dream second body when it finally adds weather sealing to worth my arm and leg of pricetag

2 months ago*permalink

an entry level model must have one thing special to lure people in the brand ecosystem

An entry level model must offer value. That is the one special thing that will draw people to the brand. The camera with the kit lens appears to offer that. Some modest discounts along the way will get the job done.

2 months agopermalink

MichailK

You are right, I thought about me moving up from m43 - if I was now starting my system I would look at this model with much more enthusiasm eventhough it lacks IBIS which makes all OIS lenses more expensive, crucial for low budget guys like me.
I really like the Fuji way but the m43 system is better value for my needs and Fuji's low end models do not offer enough of a motive to sell and start over

2 months ago*permalink

"even though it lacks IBIS which makes all OIS lenses more expensive, crucial for low budget guys like me."

Take a look at the pricing above of the 15-45mm and 50-230mm lenses with the body. The former adds $100 to the price over the body alone, the latter, about $400. I am not so sure that OIS is more expensive in the case. Value

2 months ago*permalink

The XT100 doesn't have IBIS, but it does have electronic video stabilization; hopefully Fuji will enable that for photos at some point. Of course its not as good as hardware stabilization, but for casual shots it is nice to have.

2 months ago*permalink

Seeky

This sample gallery has a well thought out selection of images.
I would have hoped for better JPEG quality compared to what I see here. The NR is killing.
Other than that, besides the kit lens the 14mm f2.8 got a lot of use. This is an entry level camera, the 14mm is a semi-pro lens (and price) and the focal length is almost identical to what you get with the kit lens (15mm). I can't understand this lens choice, although enthusiasts might actually prefer this choice.
The most likely second lens that will be bought is the 50-230 (double lens kit).

2 months agopermalink

iudex

I understand it perfectly. If I bought the X-T100, the 14mm would be my first choice. I am looking for a light and small camera for hiking and shooting landscapes, i.e. with decent APSC sensor and with good wideangle lens and the combo X-T100 + 14mm is just perfect for this. The 18mm is even smaller, but not sufficiently wide. Btw. the kit lens is usefully wide and I appreciate it, but it is obvious that it doesn´t have the optical quality of a XF prime.

2 months agopermalink

Michael_13

Yes, regarding NR, Fuji behaves totally idiotic imo, as you cannot turn it off for JPGs. Have to shot RAW, or better: buy another camera.
Testing the cam with excellent glass makes a lot of sense, because the kit lens - although decent - cannot completely show the quality of in camera JPG or RAW processing.
It is also not uncommon that people replace the kit lens immediately with a prime, e.g. for street or landscape photography. The lens is the deciding factor for iq, not the body.

2 months agopermalink

Testing with the kit lens and a higher end lens because both beginners and advanced users, looking for a backup body, will be interested.

2 months ago*permalink

kodachromeguy

What is a "semi-pro lens?"

2 months agopermalink

dialstatic

It’s a lens for people exactly half of whose income stems from photography.

Currently, that describes me precisely (because of an interesting property of the number zero).

2 months agopermalink

Seeky

@kodachromeguy That entirely depends on your definition of semi-pro. For me it means (usually expensive) gear which can be suitable for professional photographers and is unlikely to be bought by novices because the price is higher than the camera itself. Disclaimer: any lens can be used for professional photography, but usually pro photographers depend on fast, expensive and durable equipment. I would classify the 14mm semi-pro because it isn’t that fast and also not weather sealed.

2 months agopermalink

iudex

A couple of pictures from comparison between X-trans (X-T20) and Bayer sensor (X-T100): http://img.ephoto.sk/images/content/articles/523721d18a57835349324f438cbd6c5dac7cb3ec.jpg
http://img.ephoto.sk/images/content/articles/d9aa02459374027a0facf66d71000cef09d0ff2c.jpg
http://img.ephoto.sk/images/content/articles/83091726cff722465193599576231657392704d0.jpg vs http://img.ephoto.sk/images/content/articles/354576bd44d6a41fca1696b77ad0400d47fabf62.jpg
It is quite obvious that Bayer sensor handles grass, leaves and other fine detail better than X-trans.
I have been thinking about switching from DSLR to mirrorless and Fuji would be the first choice (APSC + great lenses), but since I shoot mostly landscapes Bayer seems a better choice for me. So I welcome that Fuji keeps Bayer sensor and hope it will find its place not only in entry-level cameras, but also in a high-end body like the X-T2.

2 months agopermalink

Also, see here, bayer is so superior
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61316916

2 months agopermalink

MarcV

Posting RAW images might be a better idea...

2 months agopermalink

Leshkin

X-Trans raw files are fine when not converted with Lightroom. Using, say, Irident, removes any waxing and makes them pretty sharp, including foliage.

2 months agopermalink

wootpile

Bayer = jaggies?

I'm seeing them everywhere on these x-t100 sampleas. Easiets to spot on the BMW motorcycle, go 100% on the chrome mirror edges

2 months agopermalink

Fuji has added a little too much sharpening by default and also the metering exposes around .6-1 stop more than many cameras, incl my Pana G9. Load them into raw and dial down the detail slider a little, bingo, they are perfect.

2 months agopermalink

eivissa1

No outstanding results. Images look somewhat flat and many are overexposed.
I stick to my GX85.

2 months agopermalink

Raist3d

This camera has better Iq than the gx85 or g85- for aure. the question is why say you are sticking with the one you have- shouldn't that be the case even if you found this fuji better? Your camera as you pointed out (inplicitly) is good too.

2 months agopermalink

kobakokh

images from x100 and also from A5 for me looks better then from other Fuji cameras... And even next best in the world by crop sensor cameras... Great job, Fuji!

2 months agopermalink

Tom_A

I don’t particularly care about bayer vs xtrans vs whatever, but I do find these images noticeably more “flat” and soulless compred to what comes out of my xt2.

2 months agopermalink

In Lr, the raws can be whatever you want, more than can be said for xtrans!

2 months agopermalink

Tom_A

I don’t use LR.
Also the images from my old XE1 looked way nicer than these flat, soulless samples that look like any other basic dslr output.
Frankly I don’t care what kind of sensor pattern filter is used, but quite simply my xt2 would have yielded nicer results of the same images, I am quite sure of that.

2 months agopermalink

Dheorl

@Advent1sam Yea, because X-Trans cameras don't output raw files... oh, wait...

2 months agopermalink

Sezano

Tom it could be the lens

2 months agopermalink

Tom_A

True that. I have good experience with my own fuji lenses though.

2 months agopermalink

PeterY

Just noticed something....a lot of the images were shot with the 14mm 2.8 prime. While some of the EXIF show the images were shot at 14mm, some show that they were shot at 23mm. How can this be? Were the images that show a 23mm focal length shot with a digital zoom?

2 months agopermalink

The RAW results are not impressive like what you see with the Sony a6X00 series. I don’t really think it's an issue with Fujifilm's lenses but probably due to the Bayer sensor having a blur filter and/or Fujifilm doing something funky at the hardware level to affect fine detail. Boooo Fujifilm.

2 months agopermalink

Friend, the a6000 is not even close to the Fuji, the shadow recovery is in another world to what a6500 has. The little Fuji is easily better in detail than the a7iii too, never mind the a6500.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61316916

2 months agopermalink

How did you arrive at those conclusions??

2 months agopermalink

ecordero77

Mi personal experience switching from a Sony RX1 to a Fuji X-E3 ( I know they're not on the same league, but after selling it used, I got the same money I paid for the X-E3 with the 23mm F2 lens) was that I certainly loved the camera's ergonomics and color science, but definitely when it comes to detail resolution a Sony Full frame is in a totally different league (I'm not a professional photographer, nor a fan boy, I'm just a computer science engineer that lacks creativity so I look for the most technically advanced camera that is not crazy expensive,so I can improve my pictures) I tried the Fuji for a whole month and I loved some of the pictures, but I definitely found some problems with green foliage and skin textures. I ended up returning it and going for the Sony A7 III, even with a "lousy" lens like the 50mm F1.8 I'm happy with it, it resolves so much more detail and has so much better dynamic range. I'm sure someone else could take better pictures with the Fuiji though.

2 months agopermalink

BostonC

When Fuji 24/1.4 goes on sale ($650), I may pick up the pair and the total cost is about the same as the Oly 17/1.2.

2 months agopermalink

Not sure what is going on. The previous sample gallery of the 15-45 lens had better shots.

2 months agopermalink

Alastair Norcross

Just a quibble, but the dpr staff should know better. The kit lens is not 15-45mm equiv. It is 15-45mm. "Equiv." is used to indicate the equivalent field of view on a full frame camera. Given that the Fuji has a 1.5 crop factor, the 15-45mm kit lens is a 22.5-67.5mm equiv.

2 months agopermalink

dlb41

Probably unintentional.

2 months agopermalink

noisephotographer

The exposure choice/tone mapping of Fuji's DR mode doesn't impress me. Google does it much better.
And as far as I know the sensor is nearly iso invariant at high Isos, so I don't understand the reason when the automatic DR mode doesn't choose DR200% or DR400% at high Isos.

2 months agopermalink

Angrymagpie

A question to those commenting that the magic is gone with the bayer sensor choice... could you give some pointers on how one can spot the difference? Does one need to pixel peep in light room, or is the magic something that's perceivable via the gallery online?

2 months agopermalink

I'm no Fuji shooter, but a friend of mine has one. Also, from the sample galleries and other Fuji images I see that there's a perceptible, but un-wordable sharpness in X-Trans images. It's an enjoyable sharpness, but as others show, demosaicing of X-Trans causes skin tone bleeding and un-natural skin tones in some circumstances.

Bayer images looks like more traditional in that sense of sharpness, but colors still remain due to Fuji's film simulations and JPEG processing.

These are my observations. Feel free to disagree, rebute or discuss.

2 months ago*permalink

thx1138

This has been debunked, the X-Trans is not sharper, and the X-Trans is just a Bayer with a larger filter pattern. It does no better at aliasing, just moves it to different frequencies and offers no real advantages in sharpness or colour and many RAW converters can't demosaic it that well.

Fuji's colours and contrast are more down tho their profiles than any magic form the sensor filter. This has been a trademark of theirs going way back before X-Trans, which is really mostly a gimmick.

2 months agopermalink

@THX. Amazing, every word in that sentence is wrong.

2 months ago*permalink

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/x-trans-vs-bayer-sensors-fantastic-claims-test/
https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/

@THX, I think I've misworded my comment. I wanted to say that there's a "perceived" sharpness in Fuji's X-Trans images, from my own, subjective view. I'm aware that how these are "debunked" or proved false.

Fuji's X-Trans is not "Bayer with a larger pattern". It's a different, larger pattern with the same RGB ratio of Bayer.

Some of the Fuji's colors come from their film simulations, but some of the coloring character also comes from demosaicing process. Below are two articles from PetaPixel which talks about the skin tone, and percevied sharpness. The articles also show how demosaicing affects output colors.

2 months ago*permalink

The Name is Bond

"@THX. Amazing, every word in that sentence is wrong."

Not so, and you don't back up your statement. Objective tests and analysis show that xtrans brings only disadvantages. Just google and read. Fuji really needs to drop it. It's no surprise that their MF camera is bayer.

2 months agopermalink

Read plenty of these articles. The most commonly cited one uses fabricated images not actually captured from an X-Trans camera; I would have to work really hard to process images with IQ as bad as in that article. Other articles are down to ignorance on how to process the files.

2 months ago*permalink

The article states that the demosaicing algorithm is proprietary, so he cannot replicate it. There's no hidden catch. Also the computer and image science works with synthetic images, and that's fine. I bet even Fuji is developing their algorithms on synthetically mosaiced images. This is how image science works. You need to minimize the number of variables to generate something general, then introduce variables back to optimize further.

Also, it's worth noting that, the writer can replicate the coloring behavior of the Fuji X-Trans JPEGs (See the images in the second link, they are OOC images). So, his other article and methods gets credibility from the camera itself.

I'm not here to bash Fuji. I love their sharp feeling images, but they are not perfect.

2 months ago*permalink

"The article states that the demosaicing algorithm is proprietary, so he cannot replicate it."

There is a difference since his images have significantly worse IQ and artifacts compared to anything I have captured with actual Fuji cameras. I agree they are not perfect but there is a lot of misinformation being spread which has no basis in reality.

2 months agopermalink

Of course. Subjectivity brings opinions. Opinions, if not worded correctly, can become misinformation.

My point is, the first article can replicate the skin tones of Fuji cameras (as shown in second article) during NR process, so at least he's aware what he's doing and trying his best to replicate that stuff.

As a result, I say that applying Fuji's color science to a Bayer output will certainly create different end results when compared to applying the same color science to X-Trans output (both after demosaiced and converted to full color images), unless Fuji is also doing additional conversion to make Bayer images look like X-Trans images before applying the last layer of color science (i.e. film emulations). This is unlikely since it's both expensive (computation and time and power), and defeats the purpose.

Also creating a perfect electronic output to feed to camera's processor to test things is a very unrealistic goal to achieve in this case.

2 months ago*permalink

You can easily see how he is wrong when he discusses the waxy skintone issue. If it were an unavoidable X-Trans issue then all of their cameras would exhibibit the same problem but it doesn't exist on X-Trans1 cameras, is worst on X-Trans2 cameras, and is greatly reduced on X-Trans3 cameras.

Beyond that the issue is strictly limited to in-camera JPGs when shot over ISO1600.; as evidenced by the commonly known workaround (well commonly known to people who know X-Trans). On X-Trans2 the sensor is digitally amplified over 1600. What this means is that if you underexpose a Raw by 2 stops to achieve ISO1600 and then push it two stops with the camera's Raw converter two things happen when compared to the same shot taken at 6400. 1. The IQ including noise levels is exactly the same. 2. The waxy skintone issue is not present. That the tester doesn't mention any of this really relevant information means his testing methodology and knowledge is lacking.

2 months ago*permalink

I'm no Fuji shooter, hence I'm no way as experienced or knowledgeable about Fuji and X-Trans compared to you :)

I read these articles as a computer scientist, and they made sense to me. The problem for both (me and the article writer) is not knowing the minute details of how X-Trans is implemented in different generations of cameras, and how it behaves in the real world, in various conditions.

As a photographer coming from the film era, I'm interested in film simulations and communication of emotion and atmosphere via color in photography. This is why I'm interested how Bayer and X-Trans affects the end result and color science in between.

As I said before, I'm not here to bash Fuji (or any brand or system), but to discuss and understand systems, their philosophy and behavior.

Thanks for all the details and the discussion. I learned a lot.

Have a nice day, and happy shooting,

Regards.

2 months agopermalink

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61341873

Of course, no offense taken as I didn't perceive you as Fuji-bashing.

The gist is that if you do the initial conversion/demosiacing in a program other than LightRoom you will get much better results. You also get good results if you use Photoshop for final sharpening with either SmartSharpen or HighPass. While it seems like a hassle, you can usually create an automated "Macro" or task to do these kinds of conversions.

There is a XT2 vs XT100 comparison thread in the Fuji board, and while these things can turn contentious this post should be of interest.

Using RawTherapee Poefolk has eliminated the last artifacts I saw even when using a good LR preset.

2 months ago*permalink

Sezano

Wait, where’s the portraits?

2 months agopermalink

scoobysnapstories

MAN, that 15-45mm lense is horrible, i just shoot my xt100 with manual kit lens with 7artisans . no disappointment,

2 months agopermalink

scoobysnapstories

bayer will always be awesome by the way =)

2 months agopermalink

Henricusmaria

Which 7artisans do you use and would you recommend for Fuji?

2 months agopermalink

scoobysnapstories

@henricusmariae if you have the money, ide buy all. your not losing any risk cause first, they are cheap. second, built like a tank and third, i think all cost less than 1k . its all prime manual but I love shooting manually. never moved to af much. its boring. only good if your doing sport wildlife , which mine work is more for fashion, lifestyle.

2 months agopermalink

RootX

When are you going to post the sample gallery of
DPReview TV: Fujifilm X-H1 Review?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0CFQQVkJLP4

2 months agopermalink

Not bad but they don't have the X-Trans look, I hope all the whining people do about not having Beyer array doesn't cause them to drop the superior X.

2 months agopermalink

bdbender4

I am curious about regular Bayer combined with Fuji's JPEG film simulations. I am among those who think that at 24Mp Bayer might be preferable to X-Trans, whereas 16Mp X-Trans was quite distinctive. What I see in these photos is very nice looking shots with the 14mm and 27mm (my two favorite Fuji lenses) but not that great with the consumer kit zoom.

(Speaking from experience using Fuji. Although I liked the lenses, I recently sold all my Fuji gear. I had quite a bit for a while, but got terminally frustrated with how truly bad Fuji is at firmware and software, and how they aren't getting any better. No, it ain't "Kaizen" when you are fixing defects that should have been addressed before release and then fixing the new defects you just created with your update. But that's a different thread.)

2 months agopermalink

That seems like a shame - at least to me - I just accepted it for what it is, doesn't bother me if the menu system is odd, they are all a bit crap in my experience. Much better to make the most of what it is if it ticks enough other boxes. I actually dropped Nikon after many years because the user interface was so irritating with that little dial at the front. Each to their own I suppose...

Can I ask what you chose instead?

2 months agopermalink

I would like to know what you chose instead.

I am super sensitive to rubbish menus and bad firmware. It is one of the reasons I left Sony.

Since being a Fuji shooter I have not had much to complain about. So your comments are completely the opposite of my experience.

2 months agopermalink

Someone more astute than I also mentioned in another thread about Fuji firmware updates that if the camera(s) was/were so bad to begin with, that doesn't say much for the intelligence of a person who buys the camera AS IS and then later complains when it's improved.

2 months agopermalink

bdbender4

I am using a Canon EOS M5. Canon gets grief for not being innovative and so forth but in my experience their bodies do what Canon says they are supposed to do. The issue with that system is a lack of lenses, of course. I had a full-frame DSLR system but found I didn't use it any more, it was just too big and heavy compared to mirrorless APS-C.

@Autriche78, I have had 6 Fuji bodies and gone through updates on all of them. The final straw was having an X-T20 and using it alongside the EOS M5. The Fuji touch screen, AS IS, was nowhere. The Fuji touch screen, AFTER UPDATES, was still nowhere. The Canon touch screen makes the Fuji implementation look like it was designed by a couple of kids as a school project. It may not say much for my intelligence, but I don't know how to find out how things actually work, in detail, without using them. Fanboy internet reviews don't cut it. What comparisons have you done?

2 months ago*permalink

@bdbender - To answer your questions, I've not done any reviews. What I did do is pick Fuji, from the XM-1, XE-1, to the X-T10 and X-T20, and I bought them because I liked each of them for what they do for me AS IS. Consequently I don't understand how people criticize updates that improve aspects of performance or add features that weren't in the original, if that was already good enough for them to buy.

Mind you, I'm not a Fuji fanboy. They certainly have their quirks ( I'm aggravated by the variability in lens quality ) and I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying that if you buy a 2WD car and then the company comes up with a update that makes it AWD, that's a nice bonus and I daresay that here in four season New England, the company would be heaped with praise. Fuji similarly deserves kudos.

You're always free to not install an update, too, if you don't like it.

2 months agopermalink

bdbender4

@Autriche78 - no problem with what you are saying. My frustration was regarding updates that were: delayed for over a year (XE-2); if you want them go buy the new model (also XE-2, go buy the X-T10); never arrived after being promised (X100T); again not offered, go buy the new model (X100S); didn't make a real improvement (X-T20). Meanwhile, clearly, the top of the line models were getting update priority, but that wasn't going well either. I didn't have either the X-T1 or X-T2, thank goodness, with I think 7 updates for the one and recently a fatally flawed update for the other. I think it's fair to get on Fuji's case about how poorly they do this, since they trumpet Kaizen Love so loudly. But that's another thread.

Back to this thread - I hope Fuji pursues regular Bayer sensors in the future. Something like a Bayer XE-3 with a movable screen might renew my interest. And an updated 35mm F/1.4.

2 months agopermalink

@bdbender - thank you for clarifying, helps me understand where you're coming from. No argument from me either since it looks like you had different models from me and that you have genuine issues with updates to those models. I'll disagree on one tiny point: the X-T20 updates were quite pleasing to me. Especially with my less than perfect eyes, being able to enlarge the text in the display was a huge improvement.

Thanks for a pleasant discourse and now back to the thread. Happy shooting!

2 months agopermalink

This goes to show how personal differences can be.

I tried the EOS M5 as a travel camera and returned it. I thought it was a horrid, flimsy thing and hated shooting with it. YMMV.

2 months agopermalink

SmilerGrogan

Beautiful, handsomely composed shots from two excellent photographers, but could I make a small suggestion? As with most of the galleries at DPR, many of these shots are ruined by what looks to me like camera shake. Could you all please start taking a real carbon fiber, $400-headed tripod with you when you go out to shoot, and then use it. There's just no way to evaluate the performance from the various camera with the way the gallery shots are taken.
Either that or Fuji lenses are horrible, which doesn't seem possible.

2 months agopermalink

Ben Herrmann

I always find it hilarious reading to all the replies about camera samples. Funny how one person may love the samples, while another may trash them. I have little doubt that this camera will do quite well in the market place. Heck, I've seen samples presented on this site from cameras costing up to $6000 that subjectively speaking, were not great (but then the next person may have loved them).

2 months agopermalink

J A C S

Did you use some specific color profiles? I can see some velvia colors here and there but most are provia like?

2 months agopermalink

telefunk

Not sure what to think of a 1/200th daylight flower shot @ 5000 iso? Doesn't look great.
This camera is on my shortlist, though I am aware that I might have to use it in MF exclusively due to typical Fuji autofocus unreliability

2 months agopermalink

Agreed, but looks good to me from raw, even at iso5000
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/61327529/16a46d5219424be689d3dded88d17f9f

2 months agopermalink

Huh ? I have no problems with AF unreliability. I moved from Sony to Fuji and I can honestly say that AF is never something I think about.

I shoot general stuff. It never crosses my mind that my XT2 wont AF and give me nice sharp images.

My keeper rate is no less than it was when I was shooting A7R2.

2 months agopermalink

With my macro lens I sometimes get shots where the focus point isn't where I intended but I think that is the OIS moving the elements around because I'm holding it. I get a very occasional total blur shot but that's Fuji for you, rarerwith the XT2 but still annoying. Other than that I'd say it's pretty good at focusing, and so handy to have focus points everywhere.

2 months agopermalink

I agree with DaftPunk. I've not had issues with the AF once I understood how to use the camera. Coming from Canon it took me seemingly forever to get used to the fact that Fuji doesn't have the same philosophy toward minimum shutter speed implementation based on lens focal length that Canon has. Consequently many of my early shots were unsharp, until I started shooting in shutter priority and letting the ISO fall where it may. Problem solved.

2 months agopermalink

deednets

The samples seem to have more than average out of focus - or at least less than average sharpness - like the flowers in the old house living room. Also I found that compared to the X-Trans, the magic is gone. Just average, same old, same old like all the others. Not impressed!

2 months agopermalink

Pretty much.

2 months agopermalink

No, the magic is real, Fuji nailed it, don;t judge just the jpg's, run them in LR too :)

2 months agopermalink

KrisAK

Maybe just confirmation bias? (It would help if you described this X-Trans magic in quantifiable terms, not just some 'je ne sais quoi.')

2 months ago*permalink

You do know that magic is not real, right? Magic tricks are used to fool people. The only magic X-trans has is smearing detail.

2 months agopermalink

@myreality, I am talking about the x-t100 magic, I am not defending x-trans, been there done that, no thanks.

2 months agopermalink

@Advent1sam - I was replying to the OP, but I agree with you.

2 months agopermalink

deednets

@Advent1sam: I don't use LR and the images are out of focus, blurry, call it what you like, but how exactly does Lighroom "fix" those technical errors?? Could you please point out an image where Fuji has "nailed it"? In what way? I use Capture One by the way. Thanks.

2 months agopermalink

I shoot X trans and my details are not smeared. I moved from Sony. I genuinely dont know what you are going on about.

2 months agopermalink

Smeared details? No and I think X-Trans has great contrast and colour purity, it seems more filmic to me than Beyer sensors. I'm hooked anyway.

2 months agopermalink

ikaika777

If people are having,”smearing detail” problems with X-Trans then they don’t know how to take photos or don’t know how to post process. It’s eitheir one or the other or both.

2 months agopermalink

RMGoodLight

@deednets
I think what you see is not missing magic. It is the default setting of a review XT100 the reviewer did not cared to alter. Noise reduction is pretty high at base settings and will smear details in OOC JPEGs. You can dial it down easily. There is another thing going on with Bayer Fuji cameras. Fuji seem to use a different JPEG engine setting for its Bayer bodies. It lets look images more painted then with its XTrans bodies. I noticed it with my XA1 already and it didn't changed since then. Details look finer in XTrans OOC images because Fuji does a better job there (and international decrease image quality in cheap Bayer bodies). If you use LR you might see that the XT100 come out as winner with a lot of magic.

2 months agopermalink

deednets

@RM: I use Capture One but have also used LR since Rawshooter Essential days. I have also use an enchillada of Bayer cameras including D600 & D800 Nikons and Canon 5D II & III, plus various Olympus and Panasonic cameras.
Add to that the fabulous RX1 and the RX1r and you pretty much have where I am standing.
If you like, check this out (with samples):
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61329464
Deed

2 months agopermalink

Smearing details has been talked about many times by different sources, since the X-Trans came out. I repeat, look at Ken Rockwell's comparisons against Bayer at high magnifications.

2 months agopermalink

The Fat Fish

I like the colours but some of the photos look like they have a slight watercolour effect added? I'm sure the RAWs are muich better to work with.

2 months agopermalink

They are outstanding to work with, Fuji reigns supreme in Bayer world now too, download the raws.

2 months agopermalink

The Fat Fish

I've been waiting for a compelling Bayer Fuji for ages. The X-T100 isn't ideal with it's unusable 4K video but it's a big step in the right direction. I know people rave about Fuji JPEGs but I could never bring myself to spend more than £500 on a camera a not shoot RAW.

I'm certainly very interested in Fuji now. I'd love a Bayer X-T2.

2 months agopermalink

The colors are saturated and noticeable. They can compete with Canon colors. I am considering this camera as my street carry everywhere camera.

2 months agopermalink

medon78

... some of the foilage shows that watercolor effect, which I always thought to be an X-trans artifact.

2 months agopermalink

AbrasiveReducer

Nice. The jpg of the interior with the 14mm holds the highlights surprisingly well. As for the color, they sunk Ektachrome with Velvia so just maybe the average consumer likes oversaturated color, especially on cloudy days.

2 months agopermalink

In raw, its just the best ever :)

2 months agopermalink

Not just the average customer, but also the pros who shoot Canon. Some pros still use Velvia and used to use Kodachrome 25 on cloudy days.

2 months agopermalink

Elonlukatski

Send me the camera and I will take the time to get you some great photos to review.

2 months agopermalink

I am sure you will get better photos than those employed to do so.....life is not fair, or is It?

2 months agopermalink

jackspra

Nice shots.Would like a comparison with a Leica Q. using a Fuji prime.

2 months agopermalink

Its either 24 2.1 FF or 35 2.1 FF though with Fuji, the 28mm option is only F3 FF. The little Leica has a great 1.7 lens for sure, but comes at a price and is limited obviously.

2 months agopermalink

Akgbkd

why's the skin tone so orangish like nikons d3000s cameras?

2 months agopermalink

Spectro

if you look at the description it said vivid for the street fruit stand shot with people in it. Their skin are more orange because vivid is over saturation. He should of switch to portrait. Same thing for nikon, nikon portrait they lower the orange tone and saturation compared to landscape..etc. for jpeg shooter.

2 months ago*permalink

PWPhotography

Agreed, so reddish and waxy colors on the hype of great 'Fuji' colors.

2 months agopermalink

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61100200

@Pw ...LOL.

There is nothing waxy here at all. The color profile is set for vivid...thus the heavy saturation. Judging a camera's color based upon a vivid setting shows a tremendous lack of knowledge and understanding.

What is it you have been preaching to everyone about not posting in threads where you dont "own and experience" the gear? Do you own and experience the gear? Do you? LOL....

2 months agopermalink

pacnwhobbyist

White Balance is too warm for my tastes in these samples.

2 months agopermalink

You shoot iPhone mostly, right?

2 months agopermalink

Toni Salmonelli

Looks fine to me with zur exeption of a few images. But I did not watch it on a calibrated monitor to be honest.

2 months agopermalink

pacnwhobbyist

@James Lotto No and what relevance does that have to judging the WB on this camera?

2 months agopermalink

Joed700

Okay, I used to own the XT-2 and X100s, but the kit lens is not sharp at all. Also, I'm not sure why most of the shots were taking at above ISO 1000 in broad daylight. The 14mm prime is very soft. No thanks!

2 months agopermalink

I think you don't own any of these cameras...You don't sound like someone who has moved beyond iPhone!.

2 months agopermalink

Joed700

I don’t think you are a real person either, but you are welcome to check out my gear profile, Mr. Fanboy.

2 months agopermalink

BacktotheFuji

Sounds like you had a rare duff copy of the 18-55mm. Mine is very sharp. In fact, all my Fuji lenses are very sharp from wide open. The only odd one out (for me) is the 16-50mm cc which has quite a bit of (corrected) distortion at its widest setting and some abberations.

2 months agopermalink

Joed700

@BacktotheFuji - I was referring to the sample images shot with the new kit lens in this sample gallery. I agree with you that all Fuji XF lenses were very very sharp, even the 18-55mm. I wonder if Dpreview got a bad sample...

2 months ago*permalink

R.I.P X-Trans

2 months agopermalink

Not sure why...XTrans is still better with some things.

2 months agopermalink

What things?

2 months agopermalink

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9932828572/photos/3768379/fullsizerender-4

For mono work and lack of moire issues...XTrans still beats Bayer.

2 months agopermalink

Akgbkd

davinator
so, it's better in 1% cases?

2 months agopermalink

BlueBomberTurbo

For mono, it's just a little better. The best is no CFA at all. Not only does it reduce noise by increasing the light that reaches the sensor, it also turns the sensor into what basically amounts to a Foveon sensor. This drastically increases the detail and improves tonality by using individual data from each pixel, instead of interpolating data from around each pixel. Better to scrape the CFA off than just use X-Trans.

2 months agopermalink

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1538426/3#14427996

If you only want more detail in 1% of your photos...then you may be right. As about 2/3 of my work is b&w, I prefer the XTrans. The same issue hold up for color by the way...so 1%? No.

One of us has provided photographic proof...the other has just provided a vacuous opinion. Guess which one you are.

2 months ago*permalink

BlueBomberTurbo

@The Davinator

Better ditch the X-Trans then. You're losing out.

2 months agopermalink

https://www.monochromeimaging.com/technical/resolution/

I posted photographic proof...discussion ended there. Bayer lost. I dont really care about links to other forums where people like you spread misinformation....because it has nothing to do with Xtrans. Show my your raws processed where Bayer outresolves XTrans. Until, pipe down.

2 months ago*permalink

BlueBomberTurbo

@The Davinator

Whoa now, keep your v@gina hat on! If you looked at the link instead of assuming, you'd see I was continuing my end of the conversation. X-Trans AND Bayer are inefficient at B&W. See here:

And yes, there are RAWs... ◔_◔

2 months agopermalink

@The Davinator
The X-Trans is soft, it makes moire issues impossible by definition. And then it produces wormy artifacts (fake detail) instead of moire. Fantastic! (<-sarcasm) It is programmed to produce this kind of textures, because that's "the nature of the beast". Just look at the sample images. Bayer is worlds better.
Your studio comparison snap image itself looks terribly soft, because you scaled it up like 5 times. Using larger, higher-res sensor is a much better solution. But Fuji lovers are stuck with APS-C, so you just keep repeating your mantras.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xh1&attr13_1=sony_a6500&attr13_2=sony_a7r&attr13_3=sony_a7riii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.6679635887521734&y=0.09023797932454966

2 months ago*permalink

R.I.P., not entirely. X-Trans is better in mixed lighting. Look at Ken Rockwells comparisons.

2 months agopermalink

@eka84....the discussion is about Fuji Bayer...not the Sony. Pay attention.

2 months agopermalink

They are both made by Sony.

2 months agopermalink

The fact that the underlying sensor is the same is irrelevant....the CFA will make the difference.

2 months agopermalink

Yeah, and the X-Trans inherently resolves less detail. Fact.

2 months agopermalink

THe photo I linked shows it resolves more. Discussion over

2 months agopermalink

Yeah, yeah Dave, and you know I addressed your faulty conclusion. The way the X-Trans works inherently causes it to resolve less detail overall. I say overall because if you look at certain examples where there would be less color moire from the X-Trans then you would see more detail. That said, and assuming all other things being optimal, like a sharp lens and a sharp Bayer sensor without a blur filter, then the Bayer camera results will show obviously superior overall detail.

I’ve tested a lot of RAWs from different X-Trans cameras and they all suffer from that soft overall look, lacking that biting detail you see from say the Sony a6X00 series. I think it looks awful, and that‘s not even considering the different artifact issues the X-Trans sensor suffers from.

2 months agopermalink

They don’t. It is you. Nice try though.

2 months agopermalink

https://youtu.be/N_y8ITF2EpY

Yeah, just like it is just me that digital beats the crap out of film.

Here's your favorite tune again, Dave.

2 months agopermalink

Denialator.

2 months agopermalink

Some of the best images on here for a long long time, with the better lenses eg 14 2.8, looks absolutely spectacular. Best camera money can buy this side of a GFX, well done Fuji, now everyone can enjoy the best image quality for 600 £/$

2 months agopermalink

Agreed, I haven't seen such quality in a long white. Dpreview staff would still prefer paid content nevertheless...

2 months agopermalink

Docno

Do you own shares in Fuji? Your fanboyism across this comments section is something to behold...

2 months agopermalink

For about $700, you get a nice little camera and a decent kit lens. A pretty good starter set or travel combo. Add the 14mm and you have a nice little kit (interior image).

2 months agopermalink

steelhead3

I don't normally comment on examples, but that vivid simulation is just awful with the reds just blown.

2 months agopermalink

TonyC5D

That's what happens when you use "Vivid" for the wrong shots!

2 months agopermalink