Ste_S
Well-known
PKR
Veteran
Has anyone seen the DXOMark review on the Fuji Phovia 100F Flavor Instant Noodle Product ?
Oh, I forgot, DXOMark doesn't review Fujifilm products...
Fujifilm Launches Provia 100F-Flavored Instant Noodles
Michael Zhang / PedaPixel
https://petapixel.com/2018/07/16/fujifilm-launches-film-simulation-instant-noodles/
.
Oh, I forgot, DXOMark doesn't review Fujifilm products...
Fujifilm Launches Provia 100F-Flavored Instant Noodles
Michael Zhang / PedaPixel
https://petapixel.com/2018/07/16/fujifilm-launches-film-simulation-instant-noodles/
.
NickTrop
Veteran
DXOMark doesn't review Fuji cameras because of technical issues related to their X-Trans sensors, addressed in the link below. Given some of the purported issues with this sensor (and I can't speak directly to them, as I don't own one with an X-Trans but do own an older Fuji point-n-shoot digicam and a fixed lens film rangefinder and very much like them both) this may be a good thing for Fuji.
https://petapixel.com/2016/01/26/why-dxomark-doesnt-test-fujifilm-cameras/
https://petapixel.com/2016/01/26/why-dxomark-doesnt-test-fujifilm-cameras/
PKR
Veteran
NickTrop
Veteran
Purported issues with the X-Trans sensors, such as the "waxy skin tone problem" might garner bad reviews on DXO. Better they not be on the list. In fairness, can't speak to it. Just some internet chatter I've read. Representative sample:
https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-the-promise-and-the-problem-31407fa43452
Dogman
Veteran
Seems to be more of a technical issue with DXOMark's testing procedure. As stated in the article:
“We do not measure X-Trans sensor because of the specific technology,” a DxOMark spokesman tells PetaPixel. “We would need a lot of time to adapt our protocol for such sensor and we did not had (sic) the chance to do that.”
Axel
singleshooter
Bad pictures that allegedly show "issues" of (especially Fuji-) sensors are as old as the internet.
Don't buy Fujis or Sigmas!
You could determine these "alleged issues" never show up in your photos...
I have fun to buy such a outsider from time to time and check it out for myself.
Much more fun than reading boring camera tests
Don't buy Fujis or Sigmas!
You could determine these "alleged issues" never show up in your photos...
I have fun to buy such a outsider from time to time and check it out for myself.
Much more fun than reading boring camera tests
NickTrop
Veteran
Bad pictures that allegedly show "issues" of (especially Fuji-) sensors are as old as the internet.
Don't buy Fujis or Sigmas!
You could determine these "alleged issues" never show up in your photos...
I have fun to buy such a outsider from time to time and check it out for myself.
Much more fun than reading boring camera tests
You can't post any remark in favor of one item, critical of another without upsetting the brand-loyal. I mean try going online and saying you don't like any of the new Star Wars films, and the series should have ended after Return of the Jedi, since the story was told then -- FIN! The End... sometime! This this is like having separate movies for each character in The Godfather (Godfather III should have never been made either). Or turning The Wizard of Oz into a franchise with 19 films. Story was told. You want more? Another chapter or three? Too bad. It's over. Sorry. Time for bed now, hon.
... but I digress.
And to your point -- sorry, I don't have thousands to squander on camera purchases to try out for myself. But to each his own.
NickTrop
Veteran
Disagree. DXOmark goes into detail why this is so. They test a boat load of equipment -- lenses and sensors, one of the most extensive available online, are reasonably current, have a free database that enables comparisons even (mighty sporting of them, I say) based on a technical standard every other manufacturer uses that Fuji doesn't conform to. Since they're a business, I'm sure it doesn't make business sense resource-wise to have separate testing protocols and procedures for one manufacturer that doesn't conform. "We don't had the chance to do that" is a polite (albeit grammatically incorrect) way to say this.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Nick,
I'm curious as to whether you apply the same rigorous rules to everything that you purchase? There are tests done on almost everything you could possibly want to purchase, so it follows from the methodology used in your choice of camera equipment that you own the verified "best for the buck" car, washing machine, toaster oven, sneakers, underwear, toilet paper, etc etc.
Myself, I read reviews, often extensively, but generally buy what I want regardless. To me a great deal of satisfaction comes from discovering the way to the use something in the most effective manner for my needs. There is no enjoyment for me in starting out with "perfection." I'd much rather discover it. To me the journey is an important step, but I recognize that I'm different from many people in that regard.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
Dear Tim,
In the 1960s and 1970s, my parents used to subscribe to Which? Magazine, then the leading UK consumer testing magazine.
I never did, because by the time I left home I had realized that whenever I actually knew anything about the products they were testing, their tests were grotesquely oversimplified and usually came to the wrong conclusion. Time has served only to reinforce this view.
Cheers,
R.
NickTrop
Veteran
See. I disagree. I use data to make purchase -- often. Like a business. Extract every ounce of value out of my hard earned dollar possible without being penny wise or succumbing to price-inflating marketeering tactics.
In the case of a camera body, I want the technically best sensor -- since that's your "digital film" (and you're rather stuck with it) for the least amount of money spent. That's your "film" and if it actually was film, I'd want the film with the least grain, capable of the highest resolution, best colors etc. available for a cost that is reasonable.
Alls I'm saying. This camera has the technically best electronic "film" based on reliable 3rd-party testing, for the least (and not by a little) number of dollars spent.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Nick,
Sure. Why not rely on a partially-informed over-simplification of "quality" by someone who knows little or nothing about what they are testing, but is contractually obliged to test it anyway?
Completely ignore whether it suits you or not, and whether it has unique advantages that are ignored by the testing protocols. Why do otherwise?
The same approach gave us Stalin's and Mao's Five-Year Plans, which always worked perfectly.
Cheers,
R.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
I understand you analogy regards your camera body being your film. On the same note, why do you think there are many film ISO ratings and not just one with the best balance of them all? My thought is that your choice of film depends on what result you want to achieve, what your subject is, what you mood is, etc. Some people like grain (for dramatic effects) and some others like the less grain possible.
On the same thought train, I would say camera body (and gear selection in general) depends highly on the same variable (including budget), so no, I don't think there is an ultimate and unique equipment that fits us all.
Best regards
Marcelo
NickTrop
Veteran
Grain, mood, "what have you" is added in post now. No need to select a particular "film stock" (or if you do, it's a mimicking algorithim for the analog stock.) However, there is a basic "core" to the component -- common attributes that affects image quality that is latent to the sensor and must exist prior to whatever manipulation you may later do as a baseline to achieve your vision.
What are these core attributes?
1. Bit depth
2. Dynamic range
3. High ISO capability
4. Color accuracy
5. Resolution
A sensor, as an electroic component, can indeed be measured for its capabilities in each of the core areas listed above. And they can be rated against each other in a way that is valid based on measuring each. Can you really argue that you want a camera whose sensor is less accurate color, and lower dynamic ranges, and worse S/N in low light to achieve some sort of artistic vision?
I don't think you want to be making a case for this.
Further, there is a sweet spot where you are getting the highest values in each of these core metrics without overspending to for what amounts, effectively, to "bragging rights" but has no discernible impact on real world image quality. Like that care that costs $10,000 more because its HP bests the number two car by a point.
CMur12
Veteran
Nick, I think your position is valid, well reasoned, and well defended. I don't see how anyone can deny these points as you just summed them up.
Some people are using this thread to defend or promote other aspects of photography (such as, "it's not the camera, it's the photographer," which isn't what this thread is about).
From what others are saying, I see the difference of opinion being in how important the specifications you reference are to each photographer. If they were the only consideration, everyone would buy the same brand. I think, however, that we can safely say that all the major brands are producing very good cameras and that all are capable of excellent results.
As it is, some buy other brands for the ergonomics, for certain features, for certain specialized lenses only available with that brand. Some may already be heavily invested in another brand, so it makes little sense to completely change systems for minor improvements that most people won't be able to see in the final print.
Then there is the fact that I just bought a used Canon - quite a lovely, competent camera, really - so let's stop all this Nikon flatulence so that you don't give me buyer's remorse!
- Murray
Some people are using this thread to defend or promote other aspects of photography (such as, "it's not the camera, it's the photographer," which isn't what this thread is about).
From what others are saying, I see the difference of opinion being in how important the specifications you reference are to each photographer. If they were the only consideration, everyone would buy the same brand. I think, however, that we can safely say that all the major brands are producing very good cameras and that all are capable of excellent results.
As it is, some buy other brands for the ergonomics, for certain features, for certain specialized lenses only available with that brand. Some may already be heavily invested in another brand, so it makes little sense to completely change systems for minor improvements that most people won't be able to see in the final print.
Then there is the fact that I just bought a used Canon - quite a lovely, competent camera, really - so let's stop all this Nikon flatulence so that you don't give me buyer's remorse!
- Murray
gnuyork
Well-known
Ha! I agree with that. The new ones do nothing for me, especially the new, new ones.
PKR
Veteran
Well Nick, I think my criteria for camera/sensor selection is far different than yours.
I took many pictures using film for many years. I worked both commercially and did my personal work with film. I used many different emulsions in a few formats. But, about 95% of my color work was with Kodachrome 64 and my B&W work was with Plus X, both in 135.
I made my selection of these two films based on their "look". Kodachrome 64, while not as high in resolution as Kodachrome 25, was my choice. The same for Plus X. There were better films if resolution was the primary interest.
When I began studying camera sensors, back in 2004, I looked at everything on the market that was in Nikon F mount. My lens collection drove my purchases. Today, many things have changed. I found I could get almost all I needed from a 12mp sensor. I crop a bit, but not always. So, my selection search for sensor "look" was broad. There were many choices in 12mp and greater sensors. If I need 40mp, I rent a Phase One.
I pay little attention to the findings of the pixel people. I look for an image file that looks pretty good out of the camera, that's good to my taste; as it was with film. I want a camera that's easy for me to see through. If I can't see my composition well, no world class sensor will make up for that necessity. And, it's got to be comfortable in my hands and easy to use.
Something I've noticed about my taste in image files.. bigger photo sites, (lower site density) are more appealing to my taste in digital imagery.
I just see the "camera world" differently than you do.
One statistic I do pay attention to is, repair frequency.
DXOMark isn't of any help to me in selecting camera hardware.
I ignore most "internet chatter", save for repair nightmare stories in great quantity.
Just one more thought, I have digital cameras in both FF (FX) and APS-C formats. The FX gear mates to both new and old Nikon lenses. The APS-C gear has it's own lenses. Both systems produce high quality files. I, like many others, prefer good DOF when using wide lenses (my most used are 50,35, 28 or equivalent APS-C). So, I find myself using the smaller format gear more than the FF. Both are good but, I get better DOF with the smaller format. Lots of pros have moved to Fuji. A lot of it is about their great selection of Prime Lenses.
I honestly think that, most of the good digital cameras on the market will produce fine results. I think it's far better that a photographer use a camera he's comfortable with, than some item chosen because of a point score on a pixel oriented site... whose score won't likely be seen manifest as superior, in a finished print or web file.
NickTrop
Veteran
Thank you, Murray! A few people have seen the light -- faith in humanity restored.
Neither do I! Yeesh.
The ole "false dilemma" people fall for all the time...
Aww -- and you were doing so well up until this point! I will, however, refine my position further. Yes, the roadmap I prescribed allows for other choices but only under these conditions:
1. Money is no object and you want THE very best from an image quality specifications stand-point. In which case you would purchase those cameras whose sensor ratings = 100.
2. Or, you weight a particular spec, such as dynamic range or low light performance, above other specs. You want the best "low light camera" currently available, for example, and are willing to sacrifice in other areas.
3. You have considerable dosh invested in glass in another mount or format (cropped).
Enjoy your Canon. They're inexplicably the market leader by quite a margin so they must be doing something right -- but whatever it is they're doing right, sure ain't their Canon sensors. And don't confuse me with a Nikon fanboy, though I like their lineup just fine. Back when I got my first cropped sensor DSLR in '09, I based that decision on "who would come out with a competent affordable fast 50mm equivalent", which happened to be Nikon (35/1.8 DX). If it was Canon, I would have bought into a Canon cropped system. Today, if the "sweet spot" was Canon, this thread would be about some Canon camera.Then there is the fact that I just bought a used Canon - quite a lovely, competent camera, really - so let's stop all this Nikon flatulence so that you don't give me buyer's remorse!
- Murray
David Hughes
David Hughes
Talking of measuring things, Nick, can I ask what size prints you regularly do? This has an important bearing on the subject, like tripods, mirror locks and so on...
Regards, David
Regards, David
Axel
singleshooter
Old outsiders are not expensive. Mostly you can buy them cheap and sell them nearly for the same price if you want.
The rational component of this thread is first time washed away from its title.
The second point is to bring in your personal and subjective view for "best bang for a buck" in photography general interest.
If you do so you have to expect other opinions
My 5ct