Godfrey
somewhat colored
Perhaps you can clarify what you intended to say then. Seemed pretty straightforward to me.
G
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Hey, you're one who criticized the methodology of this poll. The clear implication is that with improved polling methodology it might tell us something more useful.
Else, why would you go put of your way to mention that you are a "trained statistician"?
The short version of my reply that you don't seem to understand the poll's intent -- which is not to characterize some underlying distribution of opinions, but rather to find out what people on RFF who care enough to respond, think.
In other words, I think your reply -- and your statistical expertise -- are orthogonal to the intent of this thread.
Else, why would you go put of your way to mention that you are a "trained statistician"?
The short version of my reply that you don't seem to understand the poll's intent -- which is not to characterize some underlying distribution of opinions, but rather to find out what people on RFF who care enough to respond, think.
In other words, I think your reply -- and your statistical expertise -- are orthogonal to the intent of this thread.
back alley
IMAGES
so, are we arguing for the sake of arguing...really trying to understand something here or just concerned about the size of our dicks?
Oh no, worms are about to exit the can...
I'm a visionary, what can I say.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
In other words, the point of the poll is to 'reinforce all the "Fuji X club" members' favorite opinion'. How that helps you in 'assessing the merits and limitations of digital 2-D sensor arrays' is beyond me.
To me, a poll intended to slap each other on the back and say "how smart we all are for choosing this camera!" is a rather dumb thing to engage in. I thought the OP was interested in finding out something, which is what my training in statistics is intended to do.
I'm sorry to have bothered reading the thread.
G
Question: does a "Fuji X club" member have to be an owner?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Considering the poll has selections for non-owners, who want options other than x-trans, I'm curious why you think this is just to 'reinforce all the "Fuji X club" members' favorite opinion'.
gdi
Veteran
Speaking of statistics, maybe this can help settle things...
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/03/26/condom-maker-breaks-down-penis-size-by-state-city/?a_dgi=aolshare_facebook&a_dgi=aolshare_facebook
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Someone needs a hug.
Wow, I'm just glad that this isn't a thread on a roll of a certain brand / type of film.
Range-rover
Veteran
Wow, I have to hand it to Fuji to make something different, I only heard
great things about there sensor, but look at it this way in some ways all
the other digital cameras are the same with the Bayer filter meaning you
could with simple tweaks make all the photos look the same. the only
difference is there processors :bang::bang::bang:. So all you guy's with
fuji's enjoy them your ahead of the game.
Range
great things about there sensor, but look at it this way in some ways all
the other digital cameras are the same with the Bayer filter meaning you
could with simple tweaks make all the photos look the same. the only
difference is there processors :bang::bang::bang:. So all you guy's with
fuji's enjoy them your ahead of the game.
Range
Bob Wilson
Established
my dick has a bayer filter- safer that way.
gavinlg
Veteran
The problem with a full frame sensor is that the camera price goes from $1-1.5kish for the body to about 2-3k and after using the xpro1, I can't see myself ever spending more than 1.5k for a camera body in the future. The x-trans sensor at aps-c size is a near perfect combination of value, IQ and size.
willie_901
Veteran
I feel exactly the same way.
The balance of the cost, size and performance is why I am spending my money building a Fuji X-Trans kit. The X-Pro 1 with the 35/1.4 has produces results that are a bit better least good as my D700 with a Nikkor 50/1.8 G lens. The 14/2.8 outperforms the 16-35/4 G Nikkor at 20 mm. And the 23/1.4 is a bit better than both of those XF lenses. Since the D700 is rather old technology, the X-Trans sensor raws have better dynamic range and less noise. Except for action photography the X-Pro 1 AF performs about the same and manual focus is actually easier.
People who have collections of lenses intended for 35mm rangefinder are in a completely different situation. I just use lenses designed for the X series. The single disadvantage is the fact that out-of-focus rendering of back-lit objects tends to be less harsh with longer focal length lenses. So the 23/1.4 can not compete with a 35/2 in this regard. However the 23/1.4 XF does draw a smooth, pleasant transition from in-focus to out of focus objects and the bokeh fringing is nicer than any Nikkor I have ever owned.
Samouraï
Well-known
I am not an owner, but I would prefer every digital camera to have a Foveon sensor or a Monochrome sensor.
GaryLH
Veteran
Monochrom on fuji would be very nice. I would also add foveon style sensors as well
Gary
FA Limited
missing in action
i've been watching some of the really great marketing presentations that fuji has held with some photographers using x cameras on youtube talking about how they ditched their DSLR setups and became more flexible and better photographers with fuji equipment. the files were therefore flexible and good enough for their personal and professional engagements.
but when i look at my files from the x-e1 (camera jpegs), it still looks so damn pasty and smudgy. i prefer the look of the x100.
but when i look at my files from the x-e1 (camera jpegs), it still looks so damn pasty and smudgy. i prefer the look of the x100.
Snowbuzz
Well-known
I've noticed that as well but it only seems to show up or rare occasions with me: usually higher ISOs and with grass and vegetation. This is with the RAW files decoded in Capture One Pro 7. I dunno, it's just weird.
FA Limited
missing in action
for stuff with less fine detail, it seems the results are a lot better. for portraiture, cityscapes, people photos, the fault does not seem to show as much.