Why doesn't Fujifilm have good exposure bracketing in their X serise?

[Avotius]

All Fujifilm X series cameras only do 3 frame exposure bracketing at 1/3 2/3 or 1 stop. Why? Lazy coders?

Just about every other camera manufacturer that maters does better than them. Even my prehistoric Canon 20D had 3 frame 2 stop which frankly is bare minimum for bracketing.

In fact its so annoys me I find myself considering jumping ship to Sony so I can have 5 @ 3 stops.

 

[Kate-the-Great]

Just guessing, but- (over?)confidence in the metering system and dynamic range of the X-system cameras perhaps? This based on me not even noticing this limitation on my X-E1 because the metering is so accurate and the DR is so wide that I can just shoot, whereas I need to bracket and choose with my 5D and bracket and blend with my EOS M to get good shots.

Still an odd omission though. Not laziness, but perhaps hubris or just expecting a different type of shooting than DSLR users are used to. Good thing there are so many cameras with various features to choose from! Sony makes good stuff.

 

[willie_901]

I suggest your only option is to jump ship.

There is no excuse whatsoever for this psuedo-limitation. Fujifilm does not deserve the business of any photographer who prefers to use seven, automated exposure brackets.

It is beyond my comprehension Fujifilm has not responded to 3 or 4 years of customers complaining about the capricious and arbitrary three-stop exposure bracketing limitation.

There's no reason to believe Fujifilm will ever change. This is frustrating and just plain silly.

In my case I only must exposure bracket when the camera is on a tripod. As Kate mentions, three, one stop brackets works well for Xtrans exposure blending. It is a coincidence that pushing raw files with ISO 200 exposure three stops (~ISO 1600) is my personal limit for color work. This implies three, one-stop brackets is sufficient (for me anyway). But I never do this for commercial gigs unless there is absolutely no other option. However I often resort to a one to two stop selective shadow push combined with a ~half-stop highlight region pull with a single exposure. This, for me, is a viable post-production technique for commercial images. I'm sure most cameras with high signal-to-noise ratio CMOS data streams would work just as well or better.

You can find photographers who feel blending seven exposure brackets to overcome dynamic range limitations is always superior to three exposure brackets I do not dispute their conclusion. Occasionally I take seven manually (my subjects don't move). Of course the extra four exposures give one more options during post-production blending. Blending seven automated exposure brackets is a valid technique... end of story.

For non-commercial, handheld photography I often use 1/3 or 1/2 stop automatic exposure bracketing to select a raw file with optimal highlight retention. This is useful when careful exposure is not practical or when I'm too lazy to optimize highlight region exposure. Three exposure bracketing is not a severe limitation for this application.

But no matter how well the Xtrans data stream performs, there is absolutely no logical or technical reason to offer only three automated exposure brackets.

 

[rpavich]

I suggest your only option is to jump ship.

There is no excuse whatsoever for this psuedo-limitation. Fujifilm does not deserve the business of any photographer who prefers to use seven, automated exposure brackets.

It is beyond my comprehension Fujifilm has not responded to 3 or 4 years of customers complaining about the capricious and arbitrary three-stop exposure bracketing limitation.

There's no reason to believe Fujifilm will ever change. This is frustrating and just plain silly.

In my case I only must exposure bracket when the camera is on a tripod. As Kate mentions, three, one stop brackets works well for Xtrans exposure blending. It is a coincidence that pushing raw files with ISO 200 exposure three stops (~ISO 1600) is my personal limit for color work. This implies three, one-stop brackets is sufficient (for me anyway). But I never do this for commercial gigs unless there is absolutely no other option. However I often resort to a one to two stop selective shadow push combined with a ~half-stop highlight region pull with a single exposure. This, for me, is a viable post-production technique for commercial images. I'm sure most cameras with high signal-to-noise ratio CMOS data streams would work just as well or better.

You can find photographers who feel blending seven exposure brackets to overcome dynamic range limitations is always superior to three exposure brackets I do not dispute their conclusion. Occasionally I take seven manually (my subjects don't move). Of course the extra four exposures give one more options during post-production blending. Blending seven automated exposure brackets is a valid technique... end of story.

For non-commercial, handheld photography I often use 1/3 or 1/2 stop automatic exposure bracketing to select a raw file with optimal highlight retention. This is useful when careful exposure is not practical or when I'm too lazy to optimize highlight region exposure. Three exposure bracketing is not a severe limitation for this application.

But no matter how well the Xtrans data stream performs, there is absolutely no logical or technical reason to offer only three automated exposure brackets.

Good to know hyperbole is not just confined to the Fuji forum.

 

[Avotius]

Yeah I get everything you all say here. Maybe the Fuji system is more pointed towards a different crowd but not adding better bracketing is just plain stupid. After this I poked around Google and found that there are complaints everywhere about this. I have an opportunity to purchase a Sony A7R2 next month to replace my aging Canon 5D and am seriously considering selling of my Fuji kit as well because of this bracketing issue and the problem we still have with raw files, also sort of because Fuji seems stuck at 16 megapixles and I need more than 24 for my commercial work because of new size requirements imposed by my biggest client. I am not very enthusiastic about Sony's faux Zeiss lenses (or any of the Sony lenses frankly...) because I think Fuji has hit a home run with their optics but gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[YYV_146]

Yeah I get everything you all say here. Maybe the Fuji system is more pointed towards a different crowd but not adding better bracketing is just plain stupid. After this I poked around Google and found that there are complaints everywhere about this. I have an opportunity to purchase a Sony A7R2 next month to replace my aging Canon 5D and am seriously considering selling of my Fuji kit as well because of this bracketing issue and the problem we still have with raw files, also sort of because Fuji seems stuck at 16 megapixles and I need more than 24 for my commercial work because of new size requirements imposed by my biggest client. I am not very enthusiastic about Sony's faux Zeiss lenses (or any of the Sony lenses frankly...) because I think Fuji has hit a home run with their optics but gotta do what you gotta do.

The new FF FE primes are very good. I think it's unfair to compare XF lenses with the FE lenses since APS-C optics will always be easier to design given the parameters, as well as the prices Fuji charges. As APS-C lenses go Fuji has done an amazing job, certainly much better than Sony APS-C, but at the end of the day they are APS-C and not FF.

However, lenses such as the FE 55mm and 35mm are among the very best of any brand. I have the FE 16-35mm and feel that it is optically superior to the Canon 16-35mm F4 at 16-24mm, which IMO is what counts for ultra-wides. I have a full Leica M setup, but I find myself building a FE system for when I can't effectively use manual focus or shoot with an on-camera flash.

For me, I never figured out how to properly work with X-trans files (I've heard that the issue has been mitigated, though). The look on prints just isn't quite there, and dynamic range of the new Fuji cameras stay at 2011-2012 levels, since they use the same sensor from the Xpro-1. I sold off all my Fuji gear shortly after buying the XE-2, and haven't looked back since. Currently I have two A7Rii's on pre-order...they'll replace both of my A7's and my 645D. I don't think it's a camera anyone can go wrong with, as long as your computer and storage can keep up with the file sizes.

 

[Avotius]

I have been pondering this bracketing issue for a while now and I do like that Sony gives you a lot more than you really need with 3 or 5 shots at up to 3 ev apart which is just crazy overkill but none the less you have a lot of options with it. I don't know why Fuji is so stubborn about this as I see many people are annoyed about it and it seems it would be a very simple fix.

I want to get my hands on a A7ii to get an idea of the feel as its said it is the same as the A7Rii then I will make up my mind to switch or not. Looking forward to full frame again.

 

[Avotius]

The new FF FE primes are very good. I think it's unfair to compare XF lenses with the FE lenses since APS-C optics will always be easier to design given the parameters, as well as the prices Fuji charges. As APS-C lenses go Fuji has done an amazing job, certainly much better than Sony APS-C, but at the end of the day they are APS-C and not FF.

However, lenses such as the FE 55mm and 35mm are among the very best of any brand. I have the FE 16-35mm and feel that it is optically superior to the Canon 16-35mm F4 at 16-24mm, which IMO is what counts for ultra-wides. I have a full Leica M setup, but I find myself building a FE system for when I can't effectively use manual focus or shoot with an on-camera flash.

For me, I never figured out how to properly work with X-trans files (I've heard that the issue has been mitigated, though). The look on prints just isn't quite there, and dynamic range of the new Fuji cameras stay at 2011-2012 levels, since they use the same sensor from the Xpro-1. I sold off all my Fuji gear shortly after buying the XE-2, and haven't looked back since. Currently I have two A7Rii's on pre-order...they'll replace both of my A7's and my 645D. I don't think it's a camera anyone can go wrong with, as long as your computer and storage can keep up with the file sizes.

Yup to all you say here. I think its time for me to stop screwing around with smaller sensor cameras and just bite the bullet. Those Zeiss primes are pretty neat looking but so expensive, as is Zeiss/Sony though. I will be getting the 16-35 f4 probably at the beginning because I doubt my Canon 17-40 with adapter will hold up on a 42 megapixel body.

I also never seemed to bond with the Fuji's raw files. For most things they are fine but it seems they need extra work to get what I want out of them and I found Capture One does a better job on them than Lightroom which is fine, just messes with my workflow a bit from my Canon stuff.

 

[porktaco]

I suggest your only option is to jump ship.

There is no excuse whatsoever for this psuedo-limitation. Fujifilm does not deserve the business of any photographer who prefers to use seven, automated exposure brackets.

It is beyond my comprehension Fujifilm has not responded to 3 or 4 years of customers complaining about the capricious and arbitrary three-stop exposure bracketing limitation.

There's no reason to believe Fujifilm will ever change. This is frustrating and just plain silly.

In my case I only must exposure bracket when the camera is on a tripod. As Kate mentions, three, one stop brackets works well for Xtrans exposure blending. It is a coincidence that pushing raw files with ISO 200 exposure three stops (~ISO 1600) is my personal limit for color work. This implies three, one-stop brackets is sufficient (for me anyway). But I never do this for commercial gigs unless there is absolutely no other option. However I often resort to a one to two stop selective shadow push combined with a ~half-stop highlight region pull with a single exposure. This, for me, is a viable post-production technique for commercial images. I'm sure most cameras with high signal-to-noise ratio CMOS data streams would work just as well or better.

You can find photographers who feel blending seven exposure brackets to overcome dynamic range limitations is always superior to three exposure brackets I do not dispute their conclusion. Occasionally I take seven manually (my subjects don't move). Of course the extra four exposures give one more options during post-production blending. Blending seven automated exposure brackets is a valid technique... end of story.

For non-commercial, handheld photography I often use 1/3 or 1/2 stop automatic exposure bracketing to select a raw file with optimal highlight retention. This is useful when careful exposure is not practical or when I'm too lazy to optimize highlight region exposure. Three exposure bracketing is not a severe limitation for this application.

But no matter how well the Xtrans data stream performs, there is absolutely no logical or technical reason to offer only three automated exposure brackets.

*** slow clap ***

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I don't understand why you'd need 2-stop intervals. Is the metering on the Canon 20D so bad that it needs to bracket by such a wide margin?

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Another thought: In the film era, it was my experience that bracketing 1-stop or less on either side of meter reading was the norm. Maybe Fuji engineers have designed cameras what would emulate that… maybe to market to us old guys that like to feel like we haven't strayed too far from our roots. 🙂

 

[YYV_146]

I don't understand why you'd need 2-stop intervals. Is the metering on the Canon 20D so bad that it needs to bracket by such a wide margin?

Ideally you want each frame of an HDR sequence to have minimal exposure overlap with the others. This means that you want as wide an exposure difference between the frames as possible while retaining some processing latitude, to avoid throwing away data at the bright or dark ends.

I usually bracket at 2EV and then clip each frame to a small range of exposure. Then I overlay the frames from darkest to brightest. This is time-intensive, but achieves somewhat "normal" tonality within an HDR file.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Ideally you want each frame of an HDR sequence to have minimal exposure overlap with the others. This means that you want as wide an exposure difference between the frames as possible while retaining some processing latitude, to avoid throwing away data at the bright or dark ends.

I usually bracket at 2EV and then clip each frame to a small range of exposure. Then I overlay the frames from darkest to brightest. This is time-intensive, but achieves somewhat "normal" tonality within an HDR file.

Ah... I see. I wasn't aware that the OP was using bracketted frames for HDR. Again, I slipped into my old film-way of thinking. 🙄

 

[willie_901]

The issue is not just HDR (which implies tone mapping), but exposure blending. The latter is a subtle way to exceed the camera's analog dynamic range. The former can be used such that the viewer does not realize tone mapping was used... but typically tone mapping is as subtle as a smack on the fingers with a sledge hammer.

 

[Avotius]

Yeah I am using *gasp* HDR but it is for commercial use mostly and I tend to avoid tone mapping because of the dreamy look and focus more on exposure fusion. Yesterday I was playing around with the Canon 5D mk3 doing 7@2 and found that to be useful yet overkill as well, and also I was really unimpressed with the new 16-35 f4 lens which seems no better than my 17-40 f4. I think Sony may be the way forward, except for its horrible battery life.

 

[YYV_146]

Yeah I am using *gasp* HDR but it is for commercial use mostly and I tend to avoid tone mapping because of the dreamy look and focus more on exposure fusion. Yesterday I was playing around with the Canon 5D mk3 doing 7@2 and found that to be useful yet overkill as well, and also I was really unimpressed with the new 16-35 f4 lens which seems no better than my 17-40 f4. I think Sony may be the way forward, except for its horrible battery life.

I've found that for the type of "work" that I do, which typically tends to be concentrated in 1-2 hour sessions, a single original battery will power through the entire event. The extreme example is football where one battery doesn't last the typical full game, but will get you through 1,000-1,500 frames of continuous bursts. On the other hand, if your work is spread out over an entire day and you like to constantly keep the A7 on, that may be the problem.

I also use cellphone battery packs to top up the A7 during full-day trips. I plug the camera in during lunch and dinner, and it adds ~35% for half an hour of charging. I really wish Sony built fast USB charging into the A7, though.

 

[btgc]

Would it be hard to make exp. correction by three notches each side and let users adjust step size themselves - third, half or full stop?

 

[Avotius]

I've found that for the type of "work" that I do, which typically tends to be concentrated in 1-2 hour sessions, a single original battery will power through the entire event. The extreme example is football where one battery doesn't last the typical full game, but will get you through 1,000-1,500 frames of continuous bursts. On the other hand, if your work is spread out over an entire day and you like to constantly keep the A7 on, that may be the problem.

I also use cellphone battery packs to top up the A7 during full-day trips. I plug the camera in during lunch and dinner, and it adds ~35% for half an hour of charging. I really wish Sony built fast USB charging into the A7, though.

It's funny, I was playing with an A7ii and a6000 and had my 10400 mha power bank and plugged it in and it started charging the camera, though I could not use the camera while it was doing so despite whatever I set the USB mode to I was thrilled to see it worked. Pretty good idea! My power bank has 2 amp max input and 2.1 amp max output and seemed to charge the a6000 at roughly 1% a minute. Useful for getting a bit extra juice!

 

[Pherdinand]

if your subjects move, you're doomed anyway. If they don't move, you can do it all manually. Yes it's a bit more effort.

I don't see a big problem, really.
But then, i don't blend 7 exposures for HDR, true.

 

[willie_901]

Would it be hard to make exp. correction by three notches each side and let users adjust step size themselves - third, half or full stop?

No, it is trivial. This assumes the subjects are static. I manually bracket the shutter time. in auto aperture mode one can use the exposure compensation dial.