If you've shot the D700, how does the XP1 compare?

C

celluloidprop

Well-known
Local time
5:33 PM
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
873
Looking back over old files in LR4, I'm still amazed at how much detail the D700 held at 3200 and around there, both sharpness and DR.

My X100 was great because of its size and IQ was comparable or exceeded the Canon 7D I've used (no experience with other contemporary APS-C cams), but 3200 was definitely pushing it for anything but web display (IMO).

So I'm just curious if anyone with D700 experience has thoughts on where the XPro-1 is in relation at high ISO?

(hopefully I'll get to find out myself in a few days, but we shall see).
 
I noticed with my X100 when I had it that 3200 was pretty good until you looked really closely ... then the files were a bit smeary IMO. While my D700 does produce some noise at that ISO it's a lot cleaner with no smearing and is similar at 6400. The Fujis in camera software does do a fair bit of work on the raw files ... to their detriment IMO.

As for the Xpro ... time will tell.
 
The D700 and the X-Pro1 are the only two digital cameras I have. So far a comparison wouldn't be fair since there is not yet any Lightroom support for the X-Pro1.

My D700 photos have benefited from Lightroom noise reduction (not that I have used it much for high ISO settings to be honest).

Currently I am processing the X-Pro1 Raw files through the included software, and I haven't even looked at any settings there besides exporting to Tiff and then importing those into Lightroom. It's a temporary arrangement.

But as far as high ISO noise straight out of the camera is concerned, I think that anything over 1600 on the X-Pro1 is unusable. This of course is subjective and a matter of taste and personal style, but I did take some shots handheld with the lens wide open at 3200 the other night and they came out noisy and muddy.

I do need to try this out further with different setting and eventually my regular workflow with Lightroom however, before dismissing its high ISO capabilities altogether.
 
Keith said:
... The Fujis in camera software does do a fair bit of work on the raw files ... to their detriment IMO.

As for the Xpro ... time will tell.
Click to expand...

So true.

Fuji has to do something to the raw files above ISO 1600 because the X100 sesnor does not go above 1600. Even raw files are pushed in-camera above 1600. This is why I never go above 1600 and push the exposure myself with LR. For most subject matter I would print B&W at 3200. I have confidence in color at 1600.

I shoot interiors commercially at ISO 800 with the D700 day in, day out. The high ISO minimizes the off-camera strobe power required to balance strong artificial and natural light. I also rarely resort to additional noise filtering. These photos are printed in expensive procures and printing also filters the noise.

I will speculate the XP-1's raw performance will be about a 1/2 stop below the D700. This guess is based on my experience with the X100 compared to the D300 and D700. The X100 clearly beats the D300 by about a stop.

Of course I agree with Keith that we won't know until ACR supports the XP1. The results from Dpreview and DxO will be the first quantitative information available.
 
celluloidprop said:
My X100 was great because of its size and IQ was comparable or exceeded the Canon 7D I've used (no experience with other contemporary APS-C cams), but 3200 was definitely pushing it for anything but web display (IMO).
Click to expand...

I've printed 3200 files from the X100 and they are fine. Perhaps you just need to spend some time in post with the X100 over the D700?
 
jsrockit said:
I've printed 3200 files from the X100 and they are fine. Perhaps you just need to spend some time in post with the X100 over the D700?
Click to expand...


I thought you had a D700? ... if so how could you look at the two raw outputs at 3200 and not see how superior the D700's files are.

There's quite a gap IMO.
 
Hmm... perhaps a good test is in order - I know what my D700s can do at ISO3200. I'd like to see what the X-Pro1 can do at the same ISO. Maybe this evening, when I get home, I'll do a very unscientific test and see if the X-Pro1 is close to the D700.

It's funny because I'm actually considering selling one of my D700's now that I have the X-Pro1.. we'll see....

Cheers,
Dave
 
Keith said:
I thought you had a D700? ... if so how could you look at the two raw outputs at 3200 and not see how superior the D700's files are.

There's quite a gap IMO.
Click to expand...

Well, I never said they were better or even on par did I? I was just refuting the notion that 3200 files from the X100 are only good enough for the web. What I meant is that maybe the X100 files require more work than the D700's files.
 
That's not really a refutation, just a difference of opinion.
The X100 loses fine detail starting at 1600 and definitely at 3200. That can be okay for some images, and not noticeable at 1024x682 but when you're talking 8x12 or 10x15 prints it's generally unacceptable to me. I'd also say that Fuji was a bit aggressive in their claimed ISOs - at equivalent light levels the X100 seemed like it needed a slower shutter speed than other cameras I've used.

re: the camera pushing RAW above 1600, the info I've seen on this says that it's generally irrelevant if the software doing the in-camera pushing works as it should. ie DXOMark "As long as the algorithms used for the treatment are performing well, there is no real problem for the end user. As far as RAW measurements are concerned, the sensor’s maximum sensitivity is ISO 1000. That’s why none of our metrics goes further."

Again, I was very very fond of the X100 and at 800 or below it was a match for any camera I've used. But its reputation as a low-light wonder always surprised me.
 
Perhaps you are expecting too much from 3200? Perhaps they aren't exposed correctly? Perhaps you aren't doing enough PP?

I don't know what the deal is for your needs, but the X100 can perform at 3200 and can be printed. I just don't want people to read this and start a new myth about the X100 (i.e. not usable at 3200).
 
It's not about expecting too much - ideally the X100 would have matched or exceeded the D700, but I knew going in that it would not. I was willing to make that trade-off in order to not carry around a D700 and the choice worked out fine. Going into the XP-1 now, I expect even better from Fuji - and thus I asked the original question of people who'd shot both.

Not every less-than-'this camera is amaaaaaaazing' statement about the X100 or XP1 requires defenders to take to the ramparts and fight off the Visigoths. The cameras aren't perfect. The former certainly doesn't and the latter may not perform at the level of a D700 and that's fine - doesn't make them bad cameras in any way.

In any case, I'm not sure what kind of PP creates detail where it has been lost to ISO increases. PP couldn't replace detail that the D700 lost above 6400, either.
 
celluloidprop said:
It's not about expecting too much - ideally the X100 would have matched or exceeded the D700, but I knew going in that it would not. I was willing to make that trade-off in order to not carry around a D700 and the choice worked out fine. Going into the XP-1 now, I expect even better from Fuji - and thus I asked the original question of people who'd shot both.

Not every less-than-'this camera is amaaaaaaazing' statement about the X100 or XP1 requires defenders to take to the ramparts and fight off the Visigoths. The cameras aren't perfect. The former certainly doesn't and the latter may not perform at the level of a D700 and that's fine - doesn't make them bad cameras in any way.
Click to expand...

Fair enough...

In any case, I'm not sure what kind of PP creates detail where it has been lost to ISO increases. PP couldn't replace detail that the D700 lost above 6400, either.
Click to expand...

true, no detail gained, but ... other aspects might be gained. whatever, I'm sorry to have posted here and to have wasted your time. I'll know in a few days hopefully if the X-Pro1 is better in this respect.
 
"As you can see for yourself, there is very little noise up to ISO 3200 and colour fidelity is excellent throughout the entire ISO range. ISO 6400 is very, very good and I would still use it (with a little noise reduction) for large prints. I would even use ISO 12800 and 25600 for small prints or for the web. Keep in mind that when you are using high ISO (1600 and above), accurate exposure is critical - if you need to correct an underexposed image in post processing, you will introduce additional noise, especially in the shadows."

He's right, accurate exposure is a must. This is way beyond what my D700 could do...

http://holyfstop.blogspot.com/2012/03/two-weeks-with-fujifilm-x-pro1.html

X-Pro1, ISO 25,600

xp1-iso-25600.jpg
 
I find the x100 useable up to about iso5000 in JPEG. The raws are noisier without actually having any more detail. Embrace the JPEG engine in the camera, and turn the noise reduction down to medium low if you want more detail.

There are other tricks too - Provia mode will show more banding/noise as it's less contrasty. Velvia and Astia are better in low light because they clip the blacks slightly.
 
As stated: it's important to get the exposure correct. It's not a matter of poor light, it's a matter of getting the correct exposure for that light.

I know my D700 could not come close to that, perfectly lit or not.
 
gavinlg said:
I find the x100 useable up to about iso5000 in JPEG. The raws are noisier without actually having any more detail. Embrace the JPEG engine in the camera, and turn the noise reduction down to medium low if you want more detail.

There are other tricks too - Provia mode will show more banding/noise as it's less contrasty. Velvia and Astia are better in low light because they clip the blacks slightly.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting! Too bad you cannot save all of these options in Custom Settings. Would have loved to instantly switch between Raw, Standard film simulation with Silent Mode, and then Jpg, Astia with focusing light, for instance.

Would have been more convemient than to remember to go back and change things all over the menus when switching between saved settings.
 
jsrockit said:
Perhaps you are expecting too much from 3200? Perhaps they aren't exposed correctly? Perhaps you aren't doing enough PP?

I don't know what the deal is for your needs, but the X100 can perform at 3200 and can be printed. I just don't want people to read this and start a new myth about the X100 (i.e. not usable at 3200).
Click to expand...


All that was said by myself and another poster is that the Fuji's in camera processing 'does it's thing' to to the raw output before you can take it to lightroom or wherever. I agree that they would print perfectly fine but when you look closely at a 3200 raw file straight out of the Fuji the in camera noise reduction has already done stuff that you can't undo. This doesn't seem to happen at ISO 1600 which as Willie said is obviously the cameras comfort zone.

I'm curious to know if the Xpro does the same.

'Usability' is very subjective IMO.
 
Isn't the Raw file precicely that... Raw? So with in-camera noise reduction turned off, this format has to be the origin of any Jpg generated? I don't know, that's how I understood the format. Don't know much about this topic really.

When we get profiles for Lightroom and other Raw file processor apps, won't a Raw file always have at least as high quality as anything made from it in camera?
 
Keith said:
All that was said by myself and another poster is that the Fuji's in camera processing 'does it's thing' to to the raw output before you can take it to lightroom or wherever. I agree that they would print perfectly fine but when you look closely at a 3200 raw file straight out of the Fuji the in camera noise reduction has already done stuff that you can't undo. This doesn't seem to happen at ISO 1600 which as Willie said is obviously the cameras comfort zone.

I'm curious to know if the Xpro does the same.

'Usability' is very subjective IMO.
Click to expand...

I just ran a check of RAW iso performance from iso 800-6400, and I couldn't see any difference in softening or apparent noise reduction other than the deterioration of quality usually associated with going up in ISO. I'm fairly confident that they don't do any raw processing at any ISO. However I know that Nikon uses software processing on their RAW files, which is why astrophotographers overwhelmingly use canons (unprocessed raws), so anything is possible.

At any rate, the JPEG files are much better in terms of detail and noise performance than the RAWs imo. The fuji processing is excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom