Gave up on the X-Pro 2...

[MCTuomey]

I don't think the moderators have any problem, since two of them posted above.

We're all free to post. Sorry if I've insulted you, it wasn't intended. My point is more that, as *semilog* used to say, some folks work to learn what gear can do, while other folks seem bent on learning what it can't do. And once we've landed on that "fail," we post. Why? To be helpful? Just to share? Really?

I'd be much more interested personally knowing whether and how one tried to overcome the deficiency. I might be better able to process my X-Trans files, selfishly.

 

[willie_901]

Wonder if Fuji is working with firmware update to fix this? They usually react when such issues arise on interwebs.

They already have, but not with firmware. In late November, the FUJIFILM X Raw Studio application lets you render in-camera raw files when the camera is connected to a PC/Mac via USB. It assumed the only output will be JPEG. As far as I know, the output file formats are not published.

With one exception, the water color issue essentially moot. That exception could be when the full image is significantly cropped.

• Is difficult to analyze because parameters unrelated to Xtrans rendering do affect foilage (wind, shutter times, DOF, field curvature, ill-exposure)
• Is a legacy problem experienced by primarily Adobe users
• Was addressed by a FUJIFILM Adobe collaboration
• Is highly dependent on raw rendering parameters
• Is difficult to analyze because with LR, for instance, rendering parameters affect XTrans rendering differently than Bayer. This is the primary disadvantage with XTrans raw, you have to change your rendering techniques. Presets that worked with Bayer raw could be unsuitable for XTrans raw.
• Is moot for prints, especially when viewing at distances appropriate for the images's pixel dimensions

Before I switched from Nikon to FUJIFILM I spent an hour pixel peeping foilage from my D700/Nikkor lenses. There certainly were issues similar to the watercolor effects.

 

[35photo]

I don't think the moderators have any problem, since two of them posted above.

We're all free to post. Sorry if I've insulted you, it wasn't intended. My point is more that, as *semilog* used to say, some folks work to learn what gear can do, while other folks seem bent on learning what it can't do. And once we've landed on that "fail," we post. Why? To be helpful? Just to share? Really?

I'd be much more interested personally knowing whether and how one tried to overcome the deficiency. I might be better able to process my X-Trans files, selfishly.

Not offended at all...and I was being sarcasitc... doubt that came though.. I'm a photographer first and foremost, I use cameras to make pictures. When I see something in my pictures that didn't sit right with me from a camera I started to took into the matter...and came to my own conclusion and posted my conclusion you can agree with it or choose not to read it if its not relevant to you... Pretty simple.

How do you get around the deficiency... ah I don't know avoid contrasty light, avoid textured surfaces...etc I found Capture One handling Fuji files probably the best out all the converters out there...

 

[MCTuomey]

I struggled with the same issue on the older 16mp sensor and ended up testing every RAW convertor I could find with lackluster results.

Did you trial Capture One or Iridient Developer's X-Transformer? In my experience both offer effective alternatives to LR.

I'm still in LR for most of what I shoot, primarily high iso club/event stuff where LR works well for me. C1 and Iridient X-Transformer I use for occasional landscapes when the image has a lot of foliage. I've never had LR processing problems for "contrasty light" or "textured surfaces," beyond certain kinds of greenery. Pretty rare, but then I probably have low standards compared to folks who shoot higher-end sensors and glass.

 

[35photo]

They already have, but not with firmware. In late November, the FUJIFILM X Raw Studio application lets you render in-camera raw files when the camera is connected to a PC/Mac via USB. It assumed the only output will be JPEG. As far as I know, the output file formats are not published.

With one exception, the water color issue essentially moot. That exception could be when the full image is significantly cropped.

• Is difficult to analyze because parameters unrelated to Xtrans rendering do affect foilage (wind, shutter times, DOF, field curvature, ill-exposure)
• Is a legacy problem experienced by primarily Adobe users
• Was addressed by a FUJIFILM Adobe collaboration
• Is highly dependent on raw rendering parameters
• Is difficult to analyze because with LR, for instance, rendering parameters affect XTrans rendering differently than Bayer. This is the primary disadvantage with XTrans raw, you have to change your rendering techniques. Presets that worked with Bayer raw could be unsuitable for XTrans raw.
• Is moot for prints, especially when viewing at distances appropriate for the images's pixel dimensions

Before I switched from Nikon to FUJIFILM I spent an hour pixel peeping foilage from my D700/Nikkor lenses. There certainly were issues similar to the watercolor effects.

Well the D700 does have an AA filter... Not all AA filters are the same in strength..

 

[ptpdprinter]

They already have, but not with firmware. In late November, the FUJIFILM X Raw Studio application lets you render in-camera raw files when the camera is connected to a PC/Mac via USB. It assumed the only output will be JPEG. As far as I know, the output file formats are not published.

From what I've read, it uses in-camera processing to convert RAW files to JPGs. Since that is all it apparently does, why not just shoot JPGs?

 

[f16sunshine]

a bit wordy... apologies

a bit wordy... apologies

Every system has some trouble somewhere.
Prior to fuji I used Leica and Canon... both had issues although both were easier to overcome than the fuji watercolor issue (although watercolor has seldom been an issue for me so far with anything important).

As I posted earlier. I use Fuji for the in camera jpegs.
Fuji has imo been the one manufacturer to take ooc final output seriously.
None of the other even come close.
For my use, this has overcome the watercolor issue.

When I first adopted the fuji, I still used my then engrained RAW workflow I was using with the Leica and Canon files.
Saved everything to RAW and then took it to the computer.... pia!
Now 6 years later I transfer Jpegs for final use that the camera produced.
Sometimes I tweak them but often not.
They go via mobile and then directly to final use.
These are APS-C files that are mostly used on the web under 1500pix on max side.... why fuss?
I admit that I'm not asking much from the camera in this mode.

I still save JPG/RAW files but it's more so that I can in camera convert the RAW to a different emulation than it was originally saved.

It works very well and actually is a huge time saver.
Never has anyone complained about the jpeg I give them.
One from the lowly fuji xe1 was printed as a billboard (low res) and smaller poster-boards (high res) for a campaign last year.... seems good enough to print when needed.

I grew up in the film era where photographers had limited ability to PP images after exposure.
The ability to tweak ever single thing and become "ocd" about RAW conversion is a relatively new phenomena.
I just treat the Fuji Jpegs like a roll of film.
I can crop, vignette, pump or throttle back saturation and contrast but the overall look was chosen with the "film".
It works pretty nicely and really does free up some time at the computer.


All that said, I started using Sony a7.
I'll say this, the tonality I was missing while using an aps sensor is nice to have back.
I'm using it with my old legacy SLR lenses (Zeiss Contax mostly). Most look better than ever. Back to Converting RAWS with the sony though 😱

 

[35photo]

Every system has some trouble somewhere.
Prior to fuji I used Leica and Canon... both had issues although both were easier to overcome than the fuji watercolor issue (although watercolor has seldom been an issue for me so far with anything important).

As I posted earlier. I use Fuji for the in camera jpegs.
Fuji has imo been the one manufacturer to take ooc final output seriously.
None of the other even come close.
For my use, this has overcome the watercolor issue.

When I first adopted the fuji, I still used my then engrained RAW workflow I was using with the Leica and Canon files.
Saved everything to RAW and then took it to the computer.... pia!
Now 6 years later I transfer Jpegs for final use that the camera produced.
Sometimes I tweak them but often not.
They go via mobile and then directly to final use.
These are APS-C files that are mostly used on the web under 1500pix on max side.... why fuss?
I admit that I'm not asking much from the camera in this mode.

I still save JPG/RAW files but it's more so that I can in camera convert the RAW to a different emulation than it was originally saved.

It works very well and actually is a huge time saver.
Never has anyone complained about the jpeg I give them.
One from the lowly fuji xe1 was printed as a billboard (low res) and smaller poster-boards (high res) for a campaign last year.... seems good enough to print when needed.

I grew up in the film era where photographers had limited ability to PP images after exposure.
The ability to tweak ever single thing and become "ocd" about RAW conversion is a relatively new phenomena.
I just treat the Fuji Jpegs like a roll of film.
I can crop, vignette, pump or throttle back saturation and contrast but the overall look was chosen with the "film".
It works pretty nicely and really does free up some time at the computer.


All that said, I started using Sony a7.
I'll say this, the tonality I was missing while using an aps sensor is nice to have back.
I'm using it with my old legacy SLR lenses (Zeiss Contax mostly). Most look better than ever. Back to Converting RAWS with the sony though 😱

Yes! Tonality is back is right... That's one of the things I love about the Sony a7r II with Zeiss glass.. I've always been a RAW shooter period. I understand why people shoot jpg but that's not for me... I grew up in the darkroom and you have control how the final image looked... Same thing with digital and shooting RAW... I want the control and tweak things where I feel need to be tweaked or not... Its all about having flexibility..

 

[ptpdprinter]

I grew up in the darkroom and you got to control how the final image looked... Something with digital and shooting RAW... I want the control and tweak things where I feel need to be tweaked or not... Its all about having flexibility..

My experience as well. The negative/RAW file is just the starting point. That doesn't mean that you have to spend a lot of time with each file. Often just setting the black and white levels and adjusting a few parameters quickly can make a significant difference. Takes only a minute. A lot depends on your intended purpose for the image though.

 

[bhop73]

I know, but once you see it.... it starts to bother the hell out of you at least it did for me unfortunately... I shoot a range of everything...

I've noticed it in my X100T occasionally, but honestly, it doesn't bother me much. I realize people are different though. I can deal with a lot of stuff that a lot of people can't.

 

[willie_901]

Well the D700 does have an AA filter... Not all AA filters are the same in strength..

Yes, it does.

The D700's pixel density is lower as well. So, its AA filter could be relatively strong.

I did some ad-hoc moiré tests as well. The D700 exhibited more moiré artifacts than the X-T1. However, I saw moiré more often with the X-T1. The D700 images had weak moiré all the time. The X-T1 had strong moiré occasionally. In both cases, the Ligthroom moiré Brush worked well.

My interest was limited to what would I lose, in terms of IQ, for interiors photography by switching from the D700 to the X-T1. The answer was nothing. IN fact, it turned out the 10-24/4 Fujinon outperformed both Nikkor super-wide zoom lenses.

This doesn't mean the XTrans would be my first choice for landscape photography. If I was interested in landscape photography I'd use a GFX-50S.

 

[willie_901]

From what I've read, It uses in-camera processing to convert RAW files to JPGs. Since that is all it apparently does, why not just shoot JPGs?

There is one reason. It is possible to use and evaluate different rendering parameters for an image. You don't have to decide how to render the in-camera raw file before you see it.

One can do the same thing with the camera menus, but there's a lot of menu hopping and button pushing. And the display is small.

The PC/Mac App is just more convenient.

 

[Dogman]

I've noticed it in my X100T occasionally, but honestly, it doesn't bother me much. I realize people are different though. I can deal with a lot of stuff that a lot of people can't.

Same here. On those rare occasions it becomes intrusive, I've been able to deal with it in LR by backing off the sharpening.

I'm willing to accept a few quirks to get the benefits the system offers.

 

[jamesbf]

@35photo - interesting I didn't know that the XPro2 had this issue. Thats too bad because the Fuji cameras are great overall..

Be cautious with the A7II - if you have the chance, maybe rent one for a week to see if you like it.

I use a leica m but also have an A7SII for video work, I occasionally shoot photos on the A7SII and I really don't enjoy shooting with it. The files are great and everything but the actual experience of shooting with it, in my opinion, sucks. It just doesn't feel right.

Anyways, good luck!

 

[35photo]

@35photo - interesting I didn't know that the XPro2 had this issue. Thats too bad because the Fuji cameras are great overall..

Be cautious with the A7II - if you have the chance, maybe rent one for a week to see if you like it.

I use a leica m but also have an A7SII for video work, I occasionally shoot photos on the A7SII and I really don't enjoy shooting with it. The files are great and everything but the actual experience of shooting with it, in my opinion, sucks. It just doesn't feel right.

Anyways, good luck!

Yeah, its too bad I agree! I went to a camera store to check out the A7r II before purchasing was able to shoot with it for a good 30 min or so and I've watch plenty of videos on customizing the camera... Thus far I have zero regrets! Along with my M9 it a great combo to shoot with.. The 55 1.8 is worth the price of admission if you as me... its awesome.

 

[nightdrops]

I have to experience it first hand before I can cast this issue aside.

 

[Michael Markey]

...... have an A7SII for video work, I occasionally shoot photos on the A7SII and I really don't enjoy shooting with it. The files are great and everything but the actual experience of shooting with it, in my opinion, sucks. It just doesn't feel right.

Have a A7s ... feels very right to me. 😀

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

fuji 24mp landscape photos printed on 17x22 inch paper look good to me. where does this become a problem?

I use Iridient and Raw Therapee. Deconvolution sharpen mildly. Printed out to 32"x48" on HM Photorag 308 for color and piezographic b&w. No smearing in foliage appears. Staring at 100% on screen is a fools errand. With the right raw software and sharpening, it is a non issue...at least until 32x48 anyway. If you print larger, YMMV.

 

[adamjbonn]

When you compare things it’s usually win some/lose some

Does X-Trans REDUCE* moire? Well it does compared to some of the Leicas on things like tiled roofs. Does that matter? Well it depends on what you shoot I guess...

Are the A7 variant files without issue? Well not according to some reviewers - DPR, Hogan, Thein who’ve all complained about artefacts on high contrast edges.

So maybe the new Nikon then? Oh no wait... aren’t they saying something about de-centered sensors?

You won’t find a flawless camera, you can only hope to find one who’s flaws are not too detrimental to what you want to shoot with it.

Fuji didn’t work out for the OP? He’s moved on and is now happier

That’s good news for him, but it doesn’t mean that Fuji is bad news for you too

Can you imagine if we were this way with food?

My name’s Adam, I don’t do dairy - really man it tastes like crap to me. What do you mean you love it? That’s crazy how can you like that stuff.

We have different tastes and tolerances to displeasure.

(*reduce not 100% eliminate was always the claim, in some shots you’ll be glad of the moire reduction, in others not. Win some/lose some - every time)

 

[Darthfeeble]

Yeah, but.....

Yeah, but.....

When you compare things it’s usually win some/lose some

Does X-Trans REDUCE* moire? Well it does compared to some of the Leicas on things like tiled roofs. Does that matter? Well it depends on what you shoot I guess...

Are the A7 variant files without issue? Well not according to some reviewers - DPR, Hogan, Thein who’ve all complained about artefacts on high contrast edges.

So maybe the new Nikon then? Oh no wait... aren’t they saying something about de-centered sensors?

You won’t find a flawless camera, you can only hope to find one who’s flaws are not too detrimental to what you want to shoot with it.

Fuji didn’t work out for the OP? He’s moved on and is now happier

That’s good news for him, but it doesn’t mean that Fuji is bad news for you too

Can you imagine if we were this way with food?

My name’s Adam, I don’t do dairy - really man it tastes like crap to me. What do you mean you love it? That’s crazy how can you like that stuff.

We have different tastes and tolerances to displeasure.

(*reduce not 100% eliminate was always the claim, in some shots you’ll be glad of the moire reduction, in others not. Win some/lose some - every time)

Taste is in one's mouth, but flaws in a photo are there for everyone.