Gave up on the X-Pro 2...

[Darthfeeble]

Suddenly, about the same time I bought the E3, Lightroom seemed to have gotten the Xtrans figured out. I've checked on the older files from my XP1 that had me concerned and all the new stuff I've done and it seems that the "shear" is gone. In spite of all that, I'm still crazy.

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Good grief, Nick. May I respectfully suggest that you get a life?

 

[kshapero]

Suddenly, about the same time I bought the E3, Lightroom seemed to have gotten the Xtrans figured out. I've checked on the older files from my XP1 that had me concerned and all the new stuff I've done and it seems that the "shear" is gone. In spite of all that, I'm still crazy.

What is an E3?

 

[Darthfeeble]

Fuji X-E3. There's been enough hype I figured I could use a shortcut.

 

[shawn]

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.

Or use Iridient X-Transformer if you want to stick with Lightroom.

Or shoot JPEG.

Shawn

 

[shawn]

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.

People still buy them because not everyone thinks the way you do.

Shawn

 

[roscoetuff]

Faintandfuzzy nails it. This isn't necessarily a Fuji problem per se so much as a Fuji Raw issue with some of the post software. And I remember these threads back in my Fuji days, and it led me to leave LR for CaptureOne which I've used ever since.

You can download and try CaptureOne and I'm sure many of the others sufficient to test whether this explanation still holds. For my part, Fuji cameras are great and hit a nice sweet spot, and the X-PRO2 (though bulky) is a very respectable camera in every way. Gave me many great shots from my trip to England, and even though I had all JPEGS 'cause it was new, and my settings were off, and sometimes the color wasn't spot on, with Capture One and a LOT of work, those were all rescued and printed quite nicely on 17 X 22. If you already know the camera and like it otherwise, stick with it and upgrade your software... or at least try that first.

Another option is to untrain your eye from seeing this characteristic. Most folks don't see it. Ignorance is bliss. 😉

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Right. Not everyone thinks logically.

You're right about that, Nick, thank goodness. Everything I do is illogical; and happily so. My career, my marriage, my camera equipment choices, the whiskky I drink, the country I live in, the everything about me. I say "no-thank-you" to logical. But, to you, Nick, I say live long and enjoy being logical.

It's a big world, plenty of room for everyone.
Mike

 

[gavinlg]

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.

1. 'retro' is a word people used by those that aren't interested in good design. The use of a shutter speed dial, aperture ring and ISO dial is good design. It allows you to see and judge your physical settings even when the camera is off, or hanging from a strap, or in your bag. Unmarked twiddly dials implanted in the front and rear of the grip a'la Nikon and Canon is bad design - a simulacrum from which the user is insulated from the baseline of the function of the dials themselves. Nikon dont even have consistent placement of an ISO adjustment- one of the 3 main control points for a digital camera.

2. The 'watercolor' effect was highly publicized early on in the lightroom/ACR raw conversion game - more recent builds of each are far better. Fine detail of foliage is still not quite as good as bayer sensor cameras in some circumstances. I would argue that the positive points of the sensor design far outweigh that trait though - specifically nearly non-existent color noise, smoother tonal transitions, better colors straight out of raw/jpeg.

3. Fujinon lenses. More consistent, better built, more ergonomic, cheaper, smaller. And the cameras focus those lenses accurately down to the millimeter every time.

Truth.

 

[shawn]

Right. Not everyone thinks logically.

And some people mistake opinion for fact....

Shawn

 

[Dave Jenkins]

It's better not to feed the trolls.

 

[CameraQuest]

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.

interesting.

care to elaborate?

 

[BillBingham2]

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.

interesting.

care to elaborate?

Let me take a swing at the answer.

Think of the software, the application, which version, any plug-in, what operating system you are using as one of the chemicals you might use to develop your film.

D76 vs. HC110 vs. Xtol each will treat Tri-X differently, give you different results. The temp you use, the dilution, dip and dunk vs sitting in a tank, all of those pay a role in the results.

I got used to knowing how to use D76 if I needed to push or pull. If you use LR a particular version works really good with a camera and a patch level might yield different results with an upgrade or two. Lots of moving parts in the equation.

As these are all 1 and 0s, how a particular piece of software performs it's magic in your work flow might be more place to look for improvements in IQ over swapping systems every two years. Now we no longer have the ability to move from Ektachrome to Kodachrome to Tri-X, our film is hardwired into the camera. For RAW devotees those changes happen in their work flow.

Just some thoughts from the cheap seats.

B2 (;->

 

[NickTrop]

1. 'retro' is a word people used by those that aren't interested in good design. The use of a shutter speed dial, aperture ring and ISO dial is good design. It allows you to see and judge your physical settings even when the camera is off, or hanging from a strap, or in your bag. Unmarked twiddly dials implanted in the front and rear of the grip a'la Nikon and Canon is bad design - a simulacrum from which the user is insulated from the baseline of the function of the dials themselves. Nikon dont even have consistent placement of an ISO adjustment- one of the 3 main control points for a digital camera.

2. The 'watercolor' effect was highly publicized early on in the lightroom/ACR raw conversion game - more recent builds of each are far better. Fine detail of foliage is still not quite as good as bayer sensor cameras in some circumstances. I would argue that the positive points of the sensor design far outweigh that trait though - specifically nearly non-existent color noise, smoother tonal transitions, better colors straight out of raw/jpeg.

3. Fujinon lenses. More consistent, better built, more ergonomic, cheaper, smaller. And the cameras focus those lenses accurately down to the millimeter every time.

Truth.

1. INcorrect. Dials are relics from old mechanical film cameras made of springs and gears that couldn't put information in the viewfinder. I simply tap the INFO button and get all that information and way more, plus it's also in the viewfinder and on the top plate LCD which is can be illuminated to view in the dark. I can control aperture and shutter with the control dials on the front and back of the camera body by easily rotating the control dials with my index finger for aperture and shutter with my thumb all while still holding the camera. Dials require two fingers to rotate. Control dials in modern cameras are way, way better ergonomically.

Faster, better.

The control dial system is way better which is why all pro cameras use them and manufacturers moved away from dials which are relics from the mechanical era.

2. See OP. It's an issue. Damaged goods from the git go. "Better" is not "gone". Two different words, two completely different meanings. I would never buy a Fuji camera with an X-Trans sensor. Besides, they don't make full frame cameras, which is all I shoot. I didn't shot APS film during the film era. No way. And I would never go back to shooting APS-C in the digital era. Ever.

3. Yes. I have an old Fuji rangefinder and love how that 50/1.8 renders. I always liked Fuji optics. No arguments from me here.

Truth^2

 

[CameraQuest]

Right. Not everyone thinks logically.

Not everyone remembers their opinion is no better, no worse
than everyone else's either.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

It's better not to feed the trolls.

Dave, I agree with you.

All the best,
Mike

 

[pyeh]

Have to say, Nick Gone Troppo does great rant. He's consistent, tireless and eloquent, and quite funny in parts. I enjoy reading him even if he affects to be a wowser (Australian patois).

 

[willie_901]

1. 'retro' is a word people used by those that aren't interested in good design. The use of a shutter speed dial, aperture ring and ISO dial is good design. It allows you to see and judge your physical settings even when the camera is off, or hanging from a strap, or in your bag. Unmarked twiddly dials implanted in the front and rear of the grip a'la Nikon and Canon is bad design - a simulacrum from which the user is insulated from the baseline of the function of the dials themselves. Nikon dont even have consistent placement of an ISO adjustment- one of the 3 main control points for a digital camera.

2. The 'watercolor' effect was highly publicized early on in the lightroom/ACR raw conversion game - more recent builds of each are far better. Fine detail of foliage is still not quite as good as bayer sensor cameras in some circumstances. I would argue that the positive points of the sensor design far outweigh that trait though - specifically nearly non-existent color noise, smoother tonal transitions, better colors straight out of raw/jpeg.

3. Fujinon lenses. More consistent, better built, more ergonomic, cheaper, smaller. And the cameras focus those lenses accurately down to the millimeter every time.

Truth.

All three paragraphs match my experience.

The second is particularly relevant. ACR/LR RAF rendering improves with each new XTrans generation. However, if LR one used the same post-production rendering workflow and parameters one uses with Bayer raw, the results will likely be sub-optimal. There is a learning curve.