faris
Well-known
back alley
IMAGES
Fair...move on and get what works for you. Results are the most important.
faris
Well-known
Joe, jsrockit....thank you.
Joe, if you are still in Edmonton, I might pass through there this summer.
With the xpro-2. Not for sale, but image making across Canada.
I do need to pick up the 55-200 zoom.
I shall be with my grand kids, and one more family member. And this might be a chance for them to see their country; and me to photograph.
I have ordered a xh-1. 2 cameras. 4 lenses. 16-55, 14, 23/1.4, 56/1.2 and either get the 55-200 zoom or just bring along my 90/2.
I am too much invested in the Fuji x ecosystem to just not give it one more
shot.
After that I shall give the Fujis a trip to Bangladesh.
Let’s see.
Joe, if you are still in Edmonton, I might pass through there this summer.
With the xpro-2. Not for sale, but image making across Canada.
I do need to pick up the 55-200 zoom.
I shall be with my grand kids, and one more family member. And this might be a chance for them to see their country; and me to photograph.
I have ordered a xh-1. 2 cameras. 4 lenses. 16-55, 14, 23/1.4, 56/1.2 and either get the 55-200 zoom or just bring along my 90/2.
I am too much invested in the Fuji x ecosystem to just not give it one more
shot.
After that I shall give the Fujis a trip to Bangladesh.
Let’s see.
roscoetuff
Well-known
I used Fuji for a number of years (XE-1, XT-10 and X-PRO2). Good over-all, and the first digital I liked. In time, I wanted in-camera stabilization and switched to Sony for this so I could run any lens I wanted. The other bother I had with the Fuji system was that it wasn't really committed to manual shooters who want two things: 1) lens markings and 2) common filter sizes across a family of lenses. For Fuji, designing each and every lens as if it were done in a vaccuum is just fine, and for many who don't ever use lens filters with their digital - and there are many folks who doin't, I guess I understand the perspective. For me, I always used a Fuji clear ANR glass lens protection filter - if nothing else, and this got old and expensive as almost every lens had a different size. I switched to Zeiss lenses and eventually back to film where I guess this is more of a norm. News that Fuji would like to abandon film just seems to fit with their M.O.
back alley
IMAGES
i should be here all summer, no travel plans at all.
the 55-200 is great value for the dollar...i like mine though i don't use it often.
35photo
Well-known
This was almost exactly my experience!!! Thank you confirming that I'm not crazy.. I knew I wasn't seeing things... Once you see artifacts it does become uninspiring and you can see them really clearly... As you said as its true it doesn't happen in every image... That's the part that really throws you... Image quality is a factor for me for others its not or they can put up with it.. I have a good friend of mine who has the Fuji as well and to confirms exactly what you are talking about as well... he just puts up with it and cause the camera keeps him shooting.... fair enough
Archiver
Veteran
Quibbles with the M9 experience, e.g., the necessity of manual focus and the poor high ISO capabilities sometimes make me wonder about the X Pro 2. The original X Pro 1 was on the cards when it hit the shops, but I bought a X100 and an Olympus E-M5 instead, which took me on another path. All the talk about mushy foliage and waxy skin tones give me pause, because I very much like good skin tones and detailed foliage (thank you, M9 and Ricoh GR).
I'm still very intrigued by the X Pro 2 form factor and lenses, though. Perhaps I should try one for a month somehow and see how I like it.
I'm still very intrigued by the X Pro 2 form factor and lenses, though. Perhaps I should try one for a month somehow and see how I like it.
twopointeight
Well-known
I've lost a few images to the foliage rendering problem with the XT2 and XP2. And, I've also lost a few to high iso rendering which looks almost like partial solarization in the shadows. Anybody else? I'm invested in Fuji, but now trying a Sony A7II as a trial comparison. I don't like the handling of the Sony but the files are good. What's the solution to the Fuji foliage issue, before I migrate to Sony?
nightfly
Well-known
I'm X-Pro 2 curious as well. Have an M9 which I love but occasionally I pine for something more automatic that can take a zoom for travel.
However I briefly owned an XE-2 and I found I fought with the meter constantly and couldn't get it to work very well in contrasty light. Ended up using it on full manual which wasn't what I wanted with a camera like that. Sold it and re-bought a Ricoh GR.
Thinking maybe an A7RII as a travel companion. Crappy interface but full frame and the Zeiss glass and potential for big prints.
However I briefly owned an XE-2 and I found I fought with the meter constantly and couldn't get it to work very well in contrasty light. Ended up using it on full manual which wasn't what I wanted with a camera like that. Sold it and re-bought a Ricoh GR.
Thinking maybe an A7RII as a travel companion. Crappy interface but full frame and the Zeiss glass and potential for big prints.
faris
Well-known
Notwithstanding the outstanding images by members here taken with x-trans cams, may I suggest the following.
Please view the Fuji’s own X-photographers site. They are Fuji ambassadors.
Go through images on Flickr.
Go through the images in this forum.
Visit other Fuji relatated sites LuLa, e.g., and at least I began to notice something...
Only a splattering of images, that I browsed in most Fuji places, were made of dense foliage. Most of them are street (? ), environmental, documentary,
portraiture.
Landscapes displayed are for the most part, seascapes, cityscapes and such like.
Where there is foliage, they have been thrown out of focus...of course there are exceptions...I have taken verypleasing shots in Canada and the States during the autumn foliage season.
I am committed to the Fuji system by virtue of having 3 x-trans cameras and a reasonably large collection of XF lenses.
I use it for where it’s strengths lie. Mostly everything, except where dense foliage is encountered. There I bring out my Nikons or Leicas.
Please view the Fuji’s own X-photographers site. They are Fuji ambassadors.
Go through images on Flickr.
Go through the images in this forum.
Visit other Fuji relatated sites LuLa, e.g., and at least I began to notice something...
Only a splattering of images, that I browsed in most Fuji places, were made of dense foliage. Most of them are street (? ), environmental, documentary,
portraiture.
Landscapes displayed are for the most part, seascapes, cityscapes and such like.
Where there is foliage, they have been thrown out of focus...of course there are exceptions...I have taken verypleasing shots in Canada and the States during the autumn foliage season.
I am committed to the Fuji system by virtue of having 3 x-trans cameras and a reasonably large collection of XF lenses.
I use it for where it’s strengths lie. Mostly everything, except where dense foliage is encountered. There I bring out my Nikons or Leicas.
willie_901
Veteran
In the spring of 2014 I received my X-T1 (X-Trans II sensor) and conducted an ad-hoc comparison during a commercial gig.
I photographed a large residence with a lovely landscaped yard during the golden hour. There were several types of trees, shrubs and ornamental plantings. The home was long, so the camera was somewhat far away to show most of the property. It was not windy, which is typical for that time of day. However, I can not claim the windspeed was zero.
I used the XT-1 with a 23mm f/2 R WR Fujinon XF lens and a D700 with a Nikon 16-35 mm f/4G ED VR II lens. I had been using the Nikon kit commercially for about three years and was intimately familiar with those raw files.
I used a high-quality tripod and the electronic in-camera shutter releases.
I was able to achieve a similar field of view and DOF with out moving the tripod. I used the same focus points.
I used raw files and Lightroom (insert shrieks of horror here!).
Guess what? The foliage rendering for both cameras was nothing to brag about at pixel peeping levels. Even in the center of the frame near the focus point, foliage detail did not look crisp in both images. Lawn grass, leafy trees, pine trees, and ornamental greens in front of the home rendered similarly. By contrast, the renderings of the residence exterior details were crisp for both (even away from the center of the frame). The exterior detail rendering in the X-T1 image was a slightly better which I attribute to the difference in pixel density and the D700's anti-aliasing filter.
By the way, the X-T1 shadow-region rendering was qualitativlely superior to the D700's. The S/N was clearly higher with optimal exposures at base ISOs (both sensors exposed just below highlight-region clipping when the shutters were open).
I did use very different raw file rendering parameters to optimize the images' perceived renderings. In particular, the sharpening parameters were significantly dissimilar. I did not use noise filtering.
I would never claim the X-T1 or D700 with those lenses was the best possible choice for landscape foliage rendering. All I can say is for my purposes the X-T1 foliage rendering was not inferior to the D700's.
Also, I never claim this limited, ad-hoc comparison is relevant for other bodies and lens combinations.
I photographed a large residence with a lovely landscaped yard during the golden hour. There were several types of trees, shrubs and ornamental plantings. The home was long, so the camera was somewhat far away to show most of the property. It was not windy, which is typical for that time of day. However, I can not claim the windspeed was zero.
I used the XT-1 with a 23mm f/2 R WR Fujinon XF lens and a D700 with a Nikon 16-35 mm f/4G ED VR II lens. I had been using the Nikon kit commercially for about three years and was intimately familiar with those raw files.
I used a high-quality tripod and the electronic in-camera shutter releases.
I was able to achieve a similar field of view and DOF with out moving the tripod. I used the same focus points.
I used raw files and Lightroom (insert shrieks of horror here!).
Guess what? The foliage rendering for both cameras was nothing to brag about at pixel peeping levels. Even in the center of the frame near the focus point, foliage detail did not look crisp in both images. Lawn grass, leafy trees, pine trees, and ornamental greens in front of the home rendered similarly. By contrast, the renderings of the residence exterior details were crisp for both (even away from the center of the frame). The exterior detail rendering in the X-T1 image was a slightly better which I attribute to the difference in pixel density and the D700's anti-aliasing filter.
By the way, the X-T1 shadow-region rendering was qualitativlely superior to the D700's. The S/N was clearly higher with optimal exposures at base ISOs (both sensors exposed just below highlight-region clipping when the shutters were open).
I did use very different raw file rendering parameters to optimize the images' perceived renderings. In particular, the sharpening parameters were significantly dissimilar. I did not use noise filtering.
I would never claim the X-T1 or D700 with those lenses was the best possible choice for landscape foliage rendering. All I can say is for my purposes the X-T1 foliage rendering was not inferior to the D700's.
Also, I never claim this limited, ad-hoc comparison is relevant for other bodies and lens combinations.
faris
Well-known
William, I do not doubt what you are saying.
The most likely issue could, of course, be my improper use of the camera. I have spent time trying to learn it since the XT-1 came out. But I guess, I just cannot make it work for me. No more, no less.
I shall, of course, use it for scenarios where it has produced satisfactory results for me.
I wish you continued success.
Thank you for your detailed response.
The most likely issue could, of course, be my improper use of the camera. I have spent time trying to learn it since the XT-1 came out. But I guess, I just cannot make it work for me. No more, no less.
I shall, of course, use it for scenarios where it has produced satisfactory results for me.
I wish you continued success.
Thank you for your detailed response.
adamjbonn
Established
Waxy Fuji skin is generally from SOOC jpegs from x-trans ii cameras.
LR is perhaps not the best choice for x-trans
At some time someone or other managed to convince the world that all x-trans raw needs detail to be set to 100 in LR, and PERSONALLY I’m not convinced
Some of the XF lenses resolve fine details better than others
I also own an m9p
Tough to compare IQ really.... I’ll say this... at base ISO the m9 is almost like a ‘sooc raw’ camera in that a well exposed file needs hardly anything doing to it, but in mixed light things like lips can go a lipsticky colour. The ISO on the m9 is no where near the fuji, the fuji has more DR
That the m9 is (iirc?) the only FF CCD sensor and has far larger pixels than the fuji MIGHT explain the “m9 look” I’ve always found CMOS to have a bit of creamy look about it, and CCD to have a bit more grit and bite. (Yes there’s that article that matches the m9 and 240, but that’s mainly a colour and WB match IMO and besides, no one did a ‘make your m9 look like a 240’ article and that says a lot! I digress...)
I’m not any sort of landscape guy, and not much of a pixel peeper, I wouldn’t like to comment on mushy details.
Cameras are like cars, once we don’t trust them it kills the relationship or put another way, if there’s any doubt, then there’s no doubt.
Plenty of other camera choices out there, sometimes better to move on.
LR is perhaps not the best choice for x-trans
At some time someone or other managed to convince the world that all x-trans raw needs detail to be set to 100 in LR, and PERSONALLY I’m not convinced
Some of the XF lenses resolve fine details better than others
I also own an m9p
Tough to compare IQ really.... I’ll say this... at base ISO the m9 is almost like a ‘sooc raw’ camera in that a well exposed file needs hardly anything doing to it, but in mixed light things like lips can go a lipsticky colour. The ISO on the m9 is no where near the fuji, the fuji has more DR
That the m9 is (iirc?) the only FF CCD sensor and has far larger pixels than the fuji MIGHT explain the “m9 look” I’ve always found CMOS to have a bit of creamy look about it, and CCD to have a bit more grit and bite. (Yes there’s that article that matches the m9 and 240, but that’s mainly a colour and WB match IMO and besides, no one did a ‘make your m9 look like a 240’ article and that says a lot! I digress...)
I’m not any sort of landscape guy, and not much of a pixel peeper, I wouldn’t like to comment on mushy details.
Cameras are like cars, once we don’t trust them it kills the relationship or put another way, if there’s any doubt, then there’s no doubt.
Plenty of other camera choices out there, sometimes better to move on.
traveler_101
American abroad
https://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-X-P...8&qid=1523744781&sr=8-1&keywords=fuji+x-pro+2
Yes, dump it, move on and don't look back. $1700 for a (rather) bulky camera equipped with a sensor with problems, a camera that doesn't perform well with long lenses, according to dpreview. If you want to do street photography nothing beats film. If you want a digital mirrorless - look for compact form and a good electronic viewfinder.
It does just fine with long lenses... and $1700 was a great price for something so unique.
In what way?
The camera IS compact and does have a great VF... come on!
Landberg
Well-known
Haha, never heard of this. I looked through my x-pro2 photos. It’s in all of my photos. But I don’t care. I come from film photography. All digital photos looks sharp and crisp to me no matter what camera now days.
.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Is it my imagination or faltering old eyes, but it looks like Lightroom has a much better handle on the X-trans files. I see it the most on the lichen on the rocks in our back yard and lately the rock pix don't seem to show the schmoosh as badly, in fact hardly at all.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Simple solution...stop using Lightroom or Adobe Raw. Switching to Iridient, Raw Therapee, etc, etc, and learning that sharpening and detail setting for XTrans are different than Bayer will solve the issues. No wormy, watercolor effects in prints I've made out to 32x48.
Can't believe people are selling cameras instead of doing a bit of homework and changing their software. Such a waste of money.
Can't believe people are selling cameras instead of doing a bit of homework and changing their software. Such a waste of money.
NickTrop
Veteran
Ridiculous.
This watercolor effect renders any X-Trans camera completely unacceptable, and any camera that has one effectively useless as a photographic tool. This is akin to buying a car that will stall whenever it's (say) in second gear on a road with a 30 degree incline and the temperature is between 40 and 50 degrees F. (That is, the flaw will occur 100% of the time when it encounters some intermittent but somewhat common condition that one will experience during normal usage and ownership timeframe... that is, it will occur. Repeatedly, in fact.) Oh. And you can't fix it because this flaw is "baked in" to this wonderful new engine design. (It's a "feature" you see, for those who like foliage photos to look like watercolor paintings...) Oh. And they're putting this same "special engine" on other models -- for years. Would I buy such a car regardless of how "retro cool" it looked? No. No, I wouldn't. In fact, this hypothetical scenario would never happen because no auto manufacturer would be able to get away with it. Yet? Somehow Fuji does (get away with it).
I, personally, think anyone who owns a Fuji with an X-Trans is a bit cwazy, sorry to say. This watercolor effect is completely unacceptable. Face the facts. Shocking that this sensor is in so many cameras. Every single one of them is damaged goods from the second it rolls off the assembly line. Wlhy would anyone buy such a camera body with such a known/proven fatal flaw/defect?
It defies logic.
These sensors should have never found their way into any camera body -- pro or amateur. Period. Unacceptable. And every one of these cameras should have been recalled and had their sensors replaced. The notion that Fuji continues to use them is nothing short of mind-boggling. Even more mind-boggling that people still buy them.
Truth.
This watercolor effect renders any X-Trans camera completely unacceptable, and any camera that has one effectively useless as a photographic tool. This is akin to buying a car that will stall whenever it's (say) in second gear on a road with a 30 degree incline and the temperature is between 40 and 50 degrees F. (That is, the flaw will occur 100% of the time when it encounters some intermittent but somewhat common condition that one will experience during normal usage and ownership timeframe... that is, it will occur. Repeatedly, in fact.) Oh. And you can't fix it because this flaw is "baked in" to this wonderful new engine design. (It's a "feature" you see, for those who like foliage photos to look like watercolor paintings...) Oh. And they're putting this same "special engine" on other models -- for years. Would I buy such a car regardless of how "retro cool" it looked? No. No, I wouldn't. In fact, this hypothetical scenario would never happen because no auto manufacturer would be able to get away with it. Yet? Somehow Fuji does (get away with it).
I, personally, think anyone who owns a Fuji with an X-Trans is a bit cwazy, sorry to say. This watercolor effect is completely unacceptable. Face the facts. Shocking that this sensor is in so many cameras. Every single one of them is damaged goods from the second it rolls off the assembly line. Wlhy would anyone buy such a camera body with such a known/proven fatal flaw/defect?
It defies logic.
These sensors should have never found their way into any camera body -- pro or amateur. Period. Unacceptable. And every one of these cameras should have been recalled and had their sensors replaced. The notion that Fuji continues to use them is nothing short of mind-boggling. Even more mind-boggling that people still buy them.
Truth.