GaryLH
Veteran
If I want sharp, detailed prints that I want to be able to blow up big (extremely rare for me to print big), I would use a Merrill or the new Quattro based foveon sensor my self. I used Bayer or xtran based sensor cameras for their ability to be able to handle much higher iso situations.
I like Fuji xtran sensor based cameras for
- back to basics design approach
- Fuji colors
- Fuji native lens quality (they are very good for their price point)
I think that part of the problem is a workflow/sw issue myself.. Display quality and calibration most likely plays a part of it as well. Very few of us (myself included) can afford a truly professional grade monitor..but we can do some work on color calibration for both the display and the printer.
Not all sw packages do well on a specific Fuji raw file, people have remarked in the past that sometimes RPP does better than capture one or ps or LR for a specific raw file.
I am mainly an Aperture user... I use RPP sometimes on certain files. I found that the raw files were ok in general w/ aperture... But they look better after I added the raw file fine tuning option sub-pane from aperture into my work flow for example. As u have said nothing beats the foveon senser.
Those files that u are not liking.. things to try
- I also say try Silky Pix since Fuji worked w/ then to get the raw conversion right
- try in camera raw to jpg conversion
- try other sw like iridient (I have good things about it)
In a perfect world (for me that is), I would love to have a Sigma foveon based camera w/ the control and ovf/evf layout of my xp1.. Which will most likely never happen
. There is probably more hope in wishing Sigma brings their Art lenses to the Fuji csc cameras.
Good luck
Gary
I like Fuji xtran sensor based cameras for
- back to basics design approach
- Fuji colors
- Fuji native lens quality (they are very good for their price point)
I think that part of the problem is a workflow/sw issue myself.. Display quality and calibration most likely plays a part of it as well. Very few of us (myself included) can afford a truly professional grade monitor..but we can do some work on color calibration for both the display and the printer.
Not all sw packages do well on a specific Fuji raw file, people have remarked in the past that sometimes RPP does better than capture one or ps or LR for a specific raw file.
I am mainly an Aperture user... I use RPP sometimes on certain files. I found that the raw files were ok in general w/ aperture... But they look better after I added the raw file fine tuning option sub-pane from aperture into my work flow for example. As u have said nothing beats the foveon senser.
Those files that u are not liking.. things to try
- I also say try Silky Pix since Fuji worked w/ then to get the raw conversion right
- try in camera raw to jpg conversion
- try other sw like iridient (I have good things about it)
In a perfect world (for me that is), I would love to have a Sigma foveon based camera w/ the control and ovf/evf layout of my xp1.. Which will most likely never happen
. There is probably more hope in wishing Sigma brings their Art lenses to the Fuji csc cameras. Good luck
Gary
Sparrow
Veteran
... then I do hope you'll be voting for Jean-Claude Juncker for president then ... Oh no, hang on ...
Paddy C
Unused film collector
The problems with the X-Trans sensor in certain conditions have been well documented and are, from what I've read and seen, unavoidable if you shoot certain subjects.
The particular print I'm referring to was a large print that had an area of seaweed on rocks in which the watercolour effect was clearly evident. Other prints of the same size and by the same photographer did not exhibit any noticeable problems of that nature.
I think the fuji line is appealing due to the camera design and the great lenses (which are also relatively reasonably priced). From what I've seen, however, I'm not convinced the X-Trans provides benefits that outweigh the negatives. This has to do with the difficulty in processing raw X-Trans files and the issue with ISO "cheating" on fuji's part.
As always, YMMV.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
As with many things in life, it probably boils down to personal taste / subjectivity.
Personally, I love my X100s. I think it's a fantastic performer for the money.
I just returned from a trip to New Zealand. Instead of lugging around my Canon 5DmkII + lenses, I took the X100s. It was liberating.
Sure, there were a couple of moments where I wished I had brought my dSLR, but overall I didn't regret taking the X100s.
Sample pic: Whatipu, New Zealand. Autumn 2014. No retouching -- jpeg straight from the camera. Probably would look better with some massaging / post, but too busy for that at the moment.
Personally, I love my X100s. I think it's a fantastic performer for the money.
I just returned from a trip to New Zealand. Instead of lugging around my Canon 5DmkII + lenses, I took the X100s. It was liberating.
Sure, there were a couple of moments where I wished I had brought my dSLR, but overall I didn't regret taking the X100s.
Sample pic: Whatipu, New Zealand. Autumn 2014. No retouching -- jpeg straight from the camera. Probably would look better with some massaging / post, but too busy for that at the moment.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I tried three Fuji digital cameras and just couldn't get on with them. Details in the ergonomics bugged me, and continued to bug way past the usual accommodation time. But the sensor output is what put the end to my interest .. Some have gotten beautiful results from these cameras, but I can't seem to find the patience to do so.
I prefer to work with cameras whose sensors produce data that is more easily malleable and consistent to work with.
G
I prefer to work with cameras whose sensors produce data that is more easily malleable and consistent to work with.
G
rbelyell
Well-known
ive had and loved the original x100 since the beginning. im a fuji 'fan'. i wanted an xp1 since it came out, but was 'stuck' in other gear it took me awhile to disentangle from. when i finally got the xp1 i loved the 'user' experience as it was similar to the x100. i personally was overwhelmingly underwhelmed and deflated by the files. raw or jpeg, whatever lens whatever condition. so different from the x100, and as said above, in a 100% subjective way, displeasing to me.
now it could be the software or workflow, but ya' know what? i dont care 'cause at this point in time, it just shouldnt be that hard. its the next generation from the x100, not the prior generation. same thing when i went from the x10 to x20, overwhelmingly different and disappointing. if fuji cant figure out how to easily amd effectively work with the software thats been on the market for a decade, whose fault is that? im hoping vs hope the xp2'll be a totally reworked sensor so i can get back behind them.
now it could be the software or workflow, but ya' know what? i dont care 'cause at this point in time, it just shouldnt be that hard. its the next generation from the x100, not the prior generation. same thing when i went from the x10 to x20, overwhelmingly different and disappointing. if fuji cant figure out how to easily amd effectively work with the software thats been on the market for a decade, whose fault is that? im hoping vs hope the xp2'll be a totally reworked sensor so i can get back behind them.
GaryLH
Veteran
Hey u guys tried and just did not work out for u. Peace..
Bayer sensor algos took some time to perfect I would suspect as well...but given how bad some of the initial sensor were, I suspect we really never noticed it (early CCD days). I think adobe did not put a lot of effort into support for Fuji raw. They saw it as a major change to what they knew how to get working plus Fuji shot themselves in the foot big time by bringing adobe and others on board late in the game.
Whether we are talking Bayer or xtran, they need algos to figure out true edge locations, use color info from adjacent pixels to figure not only true color but tonal quality as well..
Gary
Bayer sensor algos took some time to perfect I would suspect as well...but given how bad some of the initial sensor were, I suspect we really never noticed it (early CCD days). I think adobe did not put a lot of effort into support for Fuji raw. They saw it as a major change to what they knew how to get working plus Fuji shot themselves in the foot big time by bringing adobe and others on board late in the game.
Whether we are talking Bayer or xtran, they need algos to figure out true edge locations, use color info from adjacent pixels to figure not only true color but tonal quality as well..
Gary
DNG
Film Friendly
I don't see any "Watercolor" effect... I really believe it is the RAW editors getting it wrong... no issue with SilkyPix, no issue with Photo Ninga or Capture One 7 Pro
Issues with Adobe RAW editors across all their RAW programs...
And, I get plenty of extra fine detail, and lovely foliage rendering.
Just Saying..
I know most use LR for all their work, and may need to for their profession in photography... to those, who don't like how LR does XTrans... Open it in SlikyPix, make basic adjustments, and batch convert to 16bit TIFFS, bring into LR to tighty up. SlikyPix can copy all your adjustments from one edited image, and you can paste them on similarly exposed images... quick and done... mark all with a 'blue" flag, then it is easy and fast to select all the "edited" files to batch convert.
Anyway... it can be a fast editor also...
Give Adobe time (as a few others)... they should update their RAW editor soon, with enough complaints.
Why I like the Xtrans.... incredible finer details, beautiful colors, smooth noise,
Many may not want to RAW edit with anther software, I can understand that also, But, if they want to give the XTrans a fair shake... as an image sensor you may like... then, until Adobe updates their RAW editor, you should use the OEM RAW editor, and give it a shot to see what is available from the Xtrans.
SlikyPix is definitely faster than Photo Ninga,
And Capture One 7 Pro is on par with LR tools, if you want a much better User Interface., but at a price compared to LR.
Issues with Adobe RAW editors across all their RAW programs...
And, I get plenty of extra fine detail, and lovely foliage rendering.
Just Saying..
I know most use LR for all their work, and may need to for their profession in photography... to those, who don't like how LR does XTrans... Open it in SlikyPix, make basic adjustments, and batch convert to 16bit TIFFS, bring into LR to tighty up. SlikyPix can copy all your adjustments from one edited image, and you can paste them on similarly exposed images... quick and done... mark all with a 'blue" flag, then it is easy and fast to select all the "edited" files to batch convert.
Anyway... it can be a fast editor also...
Give Adobe time (as a few others)... they should update their RAW editor soon, with enough complaints.
Why I like the Xtrans.... incredible finer details, beautiful colors, smooth noise,
Many may not want to RAW edit with anther software, I can understand that also, But, if they want to give the XTrans a fair shake... as an image sensor you may like... then, until Adobe updates their RAW editor, you should use the OEM RAW editor, and give it a shot to see what is available from the Xtrans.
SlikyPix is definitely faster than Photo Ninga,
And Capture One 7 Pro is on par with LR tools, if you want a much better User Interface., but at a price compared to LR.
goamules
Well-known
I have one question for the OP: How many different cameras have you bought in the last 5 years? If more than two, you are comparing specs too much, and shooting too little.
All these cameras are fantastic. People are too hard to please, and trying to hard to find flaws. I have no clue what the "watercolor" effect is, and don't care to find out. I shoot my cameras and enjoy what they can do. I don't get the O'scopes and spectrum analyzers out to figure out what I don't like.
All these cameras are fantastic. People are too hard to please, and trying to hard to find flaws. I have no clue what the "watercolor" effect is, and don't care to find out. I shoot my cameras and enjoy what they can do. I don't get the O'scopes and spectrum analyzers out to figure out what I don't like.
YYV_146
Well-known
I bought 9 bodies since 2008, but now only have three (Two A7s, a NEX-7)plus a GM1 that is sometimes mine, but not always...
IMO there is nothing wrong with poking around until you've found the body or lens that works for you. Not all of us have easy access to loaner bodies, and (at least for myself) a week or two isn't enough to judge if I want to work with a body long-term or not. And of course sometimes you want funds to do something and sells a camera, then decides to try something new instead of buying the same one...
willie_901
Veteran
The Xtrans cameras are popular for these reasons.
o Many people only use JPEGs. People seem to like XTrans in-camera JPEG rendering. I can't comment on this because I never use in-camera JPEGs.
o The raw files can produce excellent results. I process .RAF raw files several days a week for gigs. The detail and acuity is better than the D700 .NEF files I’ve processed for essentially identical work since 2010.
o The XF lenses are extremely cost effective. The main reason I stopped thinking about alternates to the X_Series platform is the lenses.
o Fujifilm responds well to customer feedback. Even the X00 benefitted from a major firmware update after the X100S started to ship. Fujifilm is constantly improving the camera and lenses.
o The cost, performance and compact size seem very well balanced. Replaced a rolling suitcase with a medium sized back pack when I haul all my stuff to gigs. I recently shot an event for 2 1/2 hours with a XT-1 – 56/1.2 and a second XT-1 with the 35/1.4. My back and neck did not hurt. The low light performance was excellent.
Some Comments
Green luminance detail loss: There is no way the ADC can play any role. The ADC can add read noise. The ADC can clip. The ADC can not have enough bits to model the full range of color luminance. These are not the case. If there is something I’m missing about the ADC’s role in acuity please educate me.
Fujifilm has an entire division that designs and manufactures color-filter array lenses for a variety of digital imaging applications. It is unlikely Fujifilm uses CFA's from other sources. The anecdotal claim of pleasing color rendition for Fujifilm cameras is most likely related to the design and manufacture of Fujifilm CFA microlenses.
The CFA lens frequency response and frequency-filtering overlap plays a larger role than many realize. The alleged CCD look is more likely to be due to CFA lens differences than semiconductor or manufacturing differences. The electrical charge in both cases is stored in the electron-charge potential well of a PIN diode. A charge is a charge is a charge.
The Bayer and XTrans interpolation algorithms attempt to model continuous color from discontinuous data. The Bayer data is very well understood. There has been over a decade of refinement for Bayer interpolation. The XTrans model is completely different. The XTrans model is more complicated because besides modeling color, the CFA pattern is also attempting to suppress moire. It took Adobe two years to get this right. Some people still don’t think they have it right (more on this later). Fujifilm made a significant blunder by not supporting in-camera flat TIFF output from Xtrans cameras.
I use all the primes except the 60mm macro lens. They are excellent for their intended purpose. For instance, the 18/2 pancake image edges suffer from a high degree of digital barrel-distortion correction. The rest of the frame is sharp. This works well for reportage as you have a 28/2.8 equivalent that is convenient to carry. The 23/1.4 is one of the largest, but optically it can do anything (except maybe astro and IR work). The lens coatings are excellent. The 10-24/4 outperforms the three Nikkors and the Tokina ultra-wide zoom lenses I owned.
It does take patience and practice to get the most out of Xtrans raw files. You have to be willing to learn new tricks. And very different scenes often require different methods. Bayer rendering is simpler and requires less initial effort from the photographer. LR 5.4 with the Fujifilm Camera Calibration Profiles is a significant step forward. After LR 5.4 came out I experimented with other raw rendering platforms. I found some were better at somethings and worse at others. In the end I found LR 5.4 had no fundamental disadvantages. In early versions of LR I had one X-Pro 1 photo with a pine tree trunk that never looked quite right. The trunk had a low pixel density because it was in the background. LR 5.4 is the first time the bark rendered properly.
I started looking as numerous photos with foliage from my D700. I noticed the greens were not exactly crisp and distinct in these images either. That said, I would not recommend the XTrans cameras to photographers who specialize in landscape photography. I am not such a person. If I was I doubt I would choose any APS-C camera/lens system.
Different photography platforms exist for a very good reason. Different people have different priorities. They work differently. Someone may spend hours getting a wet chemistry print just right but hate spending 15 minutes optimizing a raw file rendering, and vice-versa. Some people find Xtrans rendering useful, and some don’t. This seems normal to me.
o Many people only use JPEGs. People seem to like XTrans in-camera JPEG rendering. I can't comment on this because I never use in-camera JPEGs.
o The raw files can produce excellent results. I process .RAF raw files several days a week for gigs. The detail and acuity is better than the D700 .NEF files I’ve processed for essentially identical work since 2010.
o The XF lenses are extremely cost effective. The main reason I stopped thinking about alternates to the X_Series platform is the lenses.
o Fujifilm responds well to customer feedback. Even the X00 benefitted from a major firmware update after the X100S started to ship. Fujifilm is constantly improving the camera and lenses.
o The cost, performance and compact size seem very well balanced. Replaced a rolling suitcase with a medium sized back pack when I haul all my stuff to gigs. I recently shot an event for 2 1/2 hours with a XT-1 – 56/1.2 and a second XT-1 with the 35/1.4. My back and neck did not hurt. The low light performance was excellent.
Some Comments
Green luminance detail loss: There is no way the ADC can play any role. The ADC can add read noise. The ADC can clip. The ADC can not have enough bits to model the full range of color luminance. These are not the case. If there is something I’m missing about the ADC’s role in acuity please educate me.
Fujifilm has an entire division that designs and manufactures color-filter array lenses for a variety of digital imaging applications. It is unlikely Fujifilm uses CFA's from other sources. The anecdotal claim of pleasing color rendition for Fujifilm cameras is most likely related to the design and manufacture of Fujifilm CFA microlenses.
The CFA lens frequency response and frequency-filtering overlap plays a larger role than many realize. The alleged CCD look is more likely to be due to CFA lens differences than semiconductor or manufacturing differences. The electrical charge in both cases is stored in the electron-charge potential well of a PIN diode. A charge is a charge is a charge.
The Bayer and XTrans interpolation algorithms attempt to model continuous color from discontinuous data. The Bayer data is very well understood. There has been over a decade of refinement for Bayer interpolation. The XTrans model is completely different. The XTrans model is more complicated because besides modeling color, the CFA pattern is also attempting to suppress moire. It took Adobe two years to get this right. Some people still don’t think they have it right (more on this later). Fujifilm made a significant blunder by not supporting in-camera flat TIFF output from Xtrans cameras.
I use all the primes except the 60mm macro lens. They are excellent for their intended purpose. For instance, the 18/2 pancake image edges suffer from a high degree of digital barrel-distortion correction. The rest of the frame is sharp. This works well for reportage as you have a 28/2.8 equivalent that is convenient to carry. The 23/1.4 is one of the largest, but optically it can do anything (except maybe astro and IR work). The lens coatings are excellent. The 10-24/4 outperforms the three Nikkors and the Tokina ultra-wide zoom lenses I owned.
It does take patience and practice to get the most out of Xtrans raw files. You have to be willing to learn new tricks. And very different scenes often require different methods. Bayer rendering is simpler and requires less initial effort from the photographer. LR 5.4 with the Fujifilm Camera Calibration Profiles is a significant step forward. After LR 5.4 came out I experimented with other raw rendering platforms. I found some were better at somethings and worse at others. In the end I found LR 5.4 had no fundamental disadvantages. In early versions of LR I had one X-Pro 1 photo with a pine tree trunk that never looked quite right. The trunk had a low pixel density because it was in the background. LR 5.4 is the first time the bark rendered properly.
I started looking as numerous photos with foliage from my D700. I noticed the greens were not exactly crisp and distinct in these images either. That said, I would not recommend the XTrans cameras to photographers who specialize in landscape photography. I am not such a person. If I was I doubt I would choose any APS-C camera/lens system.
Different photography platforms exist for a very good reason. Different people have different priorities. They work differently. Someone may spend hours getting a wet chemistry print just right but hate spending 15 minutes optimizing a raw file rendering, and vice-versa. Some people find Xtrans rendering useful, and some don’t. This seems normal to me.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
While I'm not in the market for one of these, I thank you for increasing my level of understanding.
...Mike
back alley
IMAGES
from willie 901… The main reason I stopped thinking about alternates to the X_Series platform is the lenses."
i have to agree!
i really like everything about the lenses, especially the 23 and 56 lenses…i love how they look, feel, act, respond to my touch…and most importantly, how they make images! i've read that some do not like these 2 lenses on the xe1/2 bodies, thinking they are too big or heavy for the size of the camera…and i think they fit perfectly…almost made for each other…
i have to agree!
i really like everything about the lenses, especially the 23 and 56 lenses…i love how they look, feel, act, respond to my touch…and most importantly, how they make images! i've read that some do not like these 2 lenses on the xe1/2 bodies, thinking they are too big or heavy for the size of the camera…and i think they fit perfectly…almost made for each other…
TKH
Well-known
So the sensor is a problem?
Please tell me where is the problem?
Shot with the stone-old X-E1 in RAW and converted with the nasty Lightroom 5.4:
DSCF4560 von rainerduesmann auf Flickr
100% Crop:
Crop_-4560 von rainerduesmann auf Flickr
Please tell me where is the problem?
Shot with the stone-old X-E1 in RAW and converted with the nasty Lightroom 5.4:
DSCF4560 von rainerduesmann auf Flickr
100% Crop:
Crop_-4560 von rainerduesmann auf Flickr
--
Well-known
So how do you sharpen them if I may ask?
--
Well-known
--
Well-known
Thanks Gary for your input. Cannot try the in-camera conversion since the camera has been returned.
Xpanded
--
Well-known
... then I do hope you'll be voting for Jean-Claude Juncker for president then ... Oh no, hang on ...
3 more years and you are gone
--
Well-known
As with many things in life, it probably boils down to personal taste / subjectivity.
Personally, I love my X100s. I think it's a fantastic performer for the money.
I just returned from a trip to New Zealand. Instead of lugging around my Canon 5DmkII + lenses, I took the X100s. It was liberating.
Sure, there were a couple of moments where I wished I had brought my dSLR, but overall I didn't regret taking the X100s.
Sample pic: Whatipu, New Zealand. Autumn 2014. No retouching -- jpeg straight from the camera. Probably would look better with some massaging / post, but too busy for that at the moment.
Great hommage to Cartier-Bresson
--
Well-known
For the majority of cameras I concur - but I make an exception for Foveon based cameras.