Ricoh or Fuji X Pro 1

[kuuan]

I do not doubt the anecdotal evidence you mention about the preference for the rendering of certain cameras that happen to have older, lower signal-to-noise ratio CCD sensors.

The point is whatever advantage they posses is not related to how the semiconductor sensor array is designed and manufactured. The pin photodiode process is not unique to CCD or CMOS semiconductor arrays.

What may be unique are other properties of the total sensor design – especially the properties of the color filter array. The less the red, blue and green filters pass other frequencies than red, blue or green, the more closely the data (spatial electrical charge) matches the mathematical requirements of the Bayer interpolation algorithms. Unfortunately the total light energy is reduced as well. So the trade off is color rendering/tonality or more signal. Some brands went for signal-to-noise ratio while other brands choose rendering/tonality. In those early years consumers purchased brands with the properties they felt were important. This is not necessarily the situation right now.

Oddly I have not read many complaints about the rendering/tonality of Leica digital cameras with newer CMOS technology. I suspect this is because Leica uses high quality color-filter array technologies in both their older CCD and newer CMOS sensors.

thank you for that.
Obviously I know nothing about technicalities, but since you know very well, please let me ask in my very unscientific way:
May AA filters play a role in color rendition? Resp. the lack of AA filter of e.g. the M module and the 'new solution' of the Fuji-X which, if I understand right, also does without AA filter, possibly play a role in what is perceived as 'good' color rendition?

I remember a big difference when I changed from Pentax *istDs to K-x, incidently former using CCD, later CMOS. With the *istDs I could make out very distinct individual color renditions of different vintage lenses, to a point that, from the colors, I could tell which lens was used. On the K-x these differences could not or hardly be perceived. NEX5N, in this regard, is similar to the K-x, possibly a bit 'better', Ricoh M module without AA filter seems to show the differences of colors rendition of vintage lenses more pronounced again.

( the above personal observation seems to be somewhat backed by reactions to my photos: Images taken with the *istDs + Takumars, without exaggerating, had received dozens of comments mentioning wonderful colors. Some even wanted to find out my 'secret', it mostly had been pinned to the Takumars, some then bought a number of Takumars themselves. After I had started using K-x these comments pretty much disappeared. I should mention that I also had started to use more and more other than Takumar lenses then, specially since using mirrorless. Images taken with the GXR M receive more comments mentioning wonderful colors again.)

 

[nongfuspring]

So, I'm really fond of the style of the Fuji, not exactly the most profound reason for wanting it. But I'd not want to downgrade in performance for style only. I'd probably eventually get some Fuji lenses, but only M mount lenses at first. If the X pro had the split image feature, it would be a no brainer.

If you're into using M mount lenses I can't really recommend the x pro, RF lenses generally don't perform that well on the x-trans cameras. If you were to seriously use M mount lenses on a fuji, you should get the x-t1 or the x-e2 rather than the xp1 because of the better focussing aids and higher res EVF. The GXR seems to do much much better with M mount than the fujis because of the microlenses.

I originally got an x-e1 to use with legacy lenses since on paper it looked like a good option. The experience was generally not great though, especially with 35mm and wider since there was quite a bit of smudging, colour shift, etc. I normally don't mind imperfections (part of why I like old lenses) but I didn't really like what they did on the x-trans. I'd assume the GXR would let through more "authentic" character than the xp1

The native lenses though, are amazing. If you buy an xp1, the reason should be the glass.

 

[willie_901]

Moire patterns and false color artifacts are more visible when a Bayer array sensor does not have an AA filter. If we ignore moire, then color rendition could be affected by the absence of an AA filter. False color artifacts can be addressed using PS in post production and are more obvious in high contrast regions.

If I remember the K-x actually vibrates the sensor with a pseudo-random motion to minimize aliasing artifacts. Fujifilm has a completely different approach by using an aperiodic color filter array.

Other factors are important as well. Focus, pixel pitch, camera motion, lens quality and pixel density all affect the level of false color artifacts.

 

[Godfrey]

Can you post some of these miraculously soulful images? I frankly want to see what your talking about

The GXR-M's customized sensor mates extraordinarily well with a lot of the lenses that cause problems on the M9, M240, M8, etc. Lenses like the Color Skopar 21, 25, and 28, the Zeiss Biogons, some of the older Leica lenses.

Soul ... I don't know how to gauge that, but it produces lovely results far beyond what you'd expect from a 12 Mpixel sensor.

Bicyclist On Jurby Road - Ballaugh, Isle of Man 2011
M-Rokkor 90mm f/4


Dodging Rain - Dublin, Ireland 2011
Color Skopar 21mm f/4


The Wave - Liverpool 2011
Color-Skopar 21mm f/4


Passing - Coleman Underpass, San Jose 2011
Color-Skopar 50mm f/2.5


Communicating #69 - Santa Clara 2011
Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5


Jumble - San Jose 2012
M-Rokkor 40mm f/2


Overhead Lunch - Tate Modern, London 2011
Color-Skopar 21mm f/4​

It's a unique and unusual camera. I haven't used mine in some time, really should sell it simply because I have way too many cameras, but it produced many many lovely photos for me.

It's pretty well known that I have little love for the Fuji X-Trans sensor. The Ricoh GXR-M raw files are robust, process easily, and look better than most of what I've seen out of a Fuji X-Pro1 even with the excellent Fuji lenses, despite the deficit in pixels. It's a special little camera.

G

 

[stompyq]

^ Fair enough Godfrey. I particularly like the first image

 

[kuuan]

...
If I remember the K-x actually vibrates the sensor with a pseudo-random motion to minimize aliasing artifacts. Fujifilm has a completely different approach by using an aperiodic color filter array.

Other factors are important as well. Focus, pixel pitch, camera motion, lens quality and pixel density all affect the level of false color artifacts.

the simulated AA filter through sensor vibration came quite a bit later, I think with the K-3, the K-x uses streight AA filter.
there are so many theoretical factors having an influence, kind of making a point for just look and see

...
The GXR-M's customized sensor mates extraordinarily well with a lot of the lenses that cause problems on the M9, M240, M8, etc. Lenses like the Color Skopar 21, 25, and 28, the Zeiss Biogons, some of the older Leica lenses.
Soul ... I don't know how to gauge that, but it produces lovely results far beyond what you'd expect from a 12 Mpixel sensor.
It's a unique and unusual camera. I haven't used mine in some time, really should sell it simply because I have way too many cameras, but it produced many many lovely photos for me.

It's pretty well known that I have little love for the Fuji X-Trans sensor. The Ricoh GXR-M raw files are robust, process easily, and look better than most of what I've seen out of a Fuji X-Pro1 even with the excellent Fuji lenses, despite the deficit in pixels. It's a special little camera.
G

nice set of photos Godfrey.
The M module 'only' having 12MP might fool someone. Comparing the RAW files of my 12MP M Module to those of my 16MP NEX5n I found that those from the 12MP Ricoh are bigger files, and resulting photos, if I can make out a difference in resolution at all, rather show more detail on the 12MP without AA filter than those with the 16MP with a reportedly weak AA filter

Of course 'soul' in this context had to be a polarizing term. Trying to prove 'miraculously soulful' images to anyone taking issue with the term certainly will be a fuitile exercise. No need for it neither, it's more the wording itself that is the issue here.

The M module still seems to be doing best of all mirrorless with rangefinder wide angles. Generally the images taken with it show striking 'clarity'.

some samples taken with the 15mm Heliar and 25mm Skopar, no corner treatments or any other special editing ( all taken from a single flickr page of mine, that is they are not all that carefully chosen or selected. I am battling with inferior connection right now, to load those took abt. an hour, selecting more carefully would take way too long )

with the 15mm Heliar:

with the f4/25mm Skopar:

The Fujis also tempt me very much though, and this thread teaches me more about them.
If I bought another camera I would not know if I chose a Sony A7 for the FF or a Fuji X-T1 for the superior handling

 

[Piers]

Response part 1 - Fuji v. A12 M

Response part 1 - Fuji v. A12 M

The A12 seems to be the only body that can cope with a sharp image to the edge of the frame for a true wide angle eg Zeiss 21mm Biogon - I found the Fuji with M adapter does not retain sharpness to the corners with the same lens; also the Fuji wide angles (I now have the 14mm 2.8) although excellent somehow do not have the same "character".

Here are some Landscape images with the A12M + Zeiss 21mm Biogon C - where the A12 excels: amazing detail at iso 200 to 400.

So if you want to use wide angle M lenses keep the Ricoh...

http://www.scenae.co.uk/landsc_web/content/_0011515_large.html
http://www.scenae.co.uk/landsc_web/content/_0011460_large.html
http://www.scenae.co.uk/landsc_web/content/_0011476_large.html
http://www.scenae.co.uk/landsc_web/content/_0011409_large.html

 

[Piers]

Response part 2 - Fuji v. A12 M

Response part 2 - Fuji v. A12 M

So did I follow my own advice? Well no - for the available light and live action work I do now, I really need the extra iso speed so I use the Fuji EX1 (not a proper rf!) with Zeiss 50mm m Planar and amazing Zeiss 100mm macro planar with an F adapter.

For a wider angle, I recently replaced my early model Fuji X100 with the X100S (+ the 14mm 2.8 if pressed)

So with regret (as I don't have the space or the inclination not to "travel light") I am placing my two Ricoh GXR bodies + two A 12 Leica M units + two electronic viewfinders on EBAY via a local agent this weekend - I'll post links and can answer any individual questions (via my website www.scenae.co.uk)

I have to say, I'm one of those photographers who grow frustrated with any system after a few years and move on - although I sometimes look back with regret. But I have always needed to fund the next move by selling current equipment. Needless to say the camera store loves me...