X-trans raw files compared?

D

Denton

Established
Local time
11:20 AM
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
167
I've compared the jpeg output of my Canon 5D, Leica M9 and the Fuji X-E1 at 1600 ISO and find the Fuji to be as detailed, less noise. Of course I'm relying on the in-camera raw>jpeg conversion. Has anyone any experience comparing the raw files and evaluating their quality directly?

Pleasantly pleased with the Fuji system and will likely simplify my digital equipment by eliminating the few Canon lenses and body I have and use the Fuji for editorial and portrait assignments.
Denton
 
I strongly suggest you use Capture One 7 for raw conversions from the x-trans sensor- the Fuji software is IMPOSSIBLE to use and Lightroom 4 has difficulty dealing with the non-bayer grid. The colours seem smeared in foliage, etc in LR4. Capture One 7 seems to have nailed it- excellent results.
 
Agree Capture One as a RAW processor. I use it for all my RAW files. I never shoot jpegs and have no interest in doing so when a RAW file is available.

I don't have a Leica but comparing at ISO 1600 my 5D MKII is considerably better than my X-E1. It's almost noise free. The Fuji is good and is indeed my main "go anywhere" camera, but the Canon gets the nod for commercial work.
 
Bob Wilson said:
I strongly suggest you use Capture One 7 for raw conversions from the x-trans sensor- the Fuji software is IMPOSSIBLE to use and Lightroom 4 has difficulty dealing with the non-bayer grid. The colours seem smeared in foliage, etc in LR4. Capture One 7 seems to have nailed it- excellent results.
Click to expand...

Aperture works great with the Fuji RAW files.
 
Yes, using the best raw processor for the respective file is helpful. I take it that no one has done a direct comparison?

The 5DMII files are good, but i sold this camera and no longer have it for comparison. I'm not interested in buying a DSLR again.
Cheers.
 
I'm hoping that eventually Fuji will release a full frame X Trans sensor, at which point my DSLR equipment will be off loaded and it'll be game over for me.
 
This spring I happened to take a couple of very similar late afternoon photos of a multi-million dollar home with the D700-Nikkor 16-35/4 G (on a tripod) and the Fuji XP-1 with the 14/2.8 hand held. ISO, shutter speed and aperture were similar and the !6-35 was set to 20mm.

I made raw files with both cameras and processed them in LR 4. Both images were modified by Adobe's default lens correction parameters. I carefully optimized each image independently. The result was very different Sharpening, Defringing and Clarity rendering parameters for the two images. This is not a surprise since the Fuji has no AA filter and the demosaicing algorithms are different too.

Absurd pixel peeping of the frame edges, centers, foliage detail, shadow noise, etc., etc. revealed only one significant difference. The Fuji photograph had more detail. I attribute this solely to the 16 MP sensor vs the D700's 12 MP.

The marketing people chose the Fuji image but this was probably due to the slightly different camera angle. I did not move the D700 because I was taking a photo every 5 minutes to get the most attractive late afternoon light.

The D700 sensor is old, but the XTrans image was truly competitive.
 
I have some thoughts about RAW processing in another thread - http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2207761&postcount=7

I do concur that it seems like Capture One 7 and Iridient are top, with Aperture not far behind. However I've got alot invested in my Lightroom Library (keywords, ratings, organization/collections) and I have to weigh that factor against using or switching to, a different raw processing app. In the end I've been able to 'bend' Lightroom to deliver the results I want (which are about 96-98% of what I can get from Capture One).
 
Yes, as far as files from the X-Pro1, Leica M9 & M(240), & Nikon D700, using Capture One, as suggested by others. IMHO, the X-Pro1's files are approximately as detailed as the M9, but w/the low noise level of the D700. A shame Fuji doesn't supply a full-frame version to Leica, because that would be sweet.

Denton said:
I've compared the jpeg output of my Canon 5D, Leica M9 and the Fuji X-E1 at 1600 ISO and find the Fuji to be as detailed, less noise. Of course I'm relying on the in-camera raw>jpeg conversion. Has anyone any experience comparing the raw files and evaluating their quality directly?

Pleasantly pleased with the Fuji system and will likely simplify my digital equipment by eliminating the few Canon lenses and body I have and use the Fuji for editorial and portrait assignments.
Denton
Click to expand...
 
and that Fuji make something to the sensor so wider than 35 or 40mm M and LTM lenses look as they should on Fujis...
 
fer_fdi said:
and that Fuji make something to the sensor so wider than 35 or 40mm M and LTM lenses look as they should on Fujis...
Click to expand...

Why should they? They are in the business of making money by selling their own products, not adding product cost in order to appease a certain photography population.

The ricoh gxr w/ m module was a dedicated unit which I believe was a last resort to help save the gxr line from going into extinction IMHO.

The Nex from Sony w/ the 16mp just happen to work fine, the previous gen before the 5n not so much and the Nex 7 also had issues w/ wides. Sony never admitted to doing anything special.. The 5r and 6 seem to be ok w/ the rff lenses as well.. Until the next gen 7 comes out or the full frame, it is unclear if those same wide angle rf lenses will work as well on them as they did on the 5n, 5r or 6. If they end up working as well, then a case can be made that Sony took the extra steps..

Gary
 
i recently took an X-E1 on a trip to Yangshuo, China where there were fields and fields of grass, some rivers and lots of mountains (Karst landscape it's called) and the jpegs showed some pretty bad watercolor effects. i only have LR4.4 but would it do a better job than the camera's own processor?

i also took along my DP2 Merrill which made the X-E1 look like child's play
 
FA Limited said:
i also took along my DP2 Merrill which made the X-E1 look like child's play
Click to expand...

Let's see, possible responses:
1. You didn't shoot RAW, YOU MUST Spend $300 (Capture One 7) dollars and SHOOT RAW to get the best out of it.
2. Low-ISO, Of course FUJI will LOSE compared to a camera that only works below ISO 600
3. DId I mention RAW? FUJI X-TRANS IS AMAZING ONLY IN RAW.
3a. Did you view the images at 150%??? Pixel per Pixel the FUJI wins ALWAYS.
4. Why didn't you shoot it at night, that's where the X-trans destroys everything, (Like the M9, of course the M9, hey, it's better than the M9)
5. There's going to be firmware update to address this issue, possibly a Foveon Sensor image effect too.
6. Maybe the Foveon is just that damned good for landscapes. :D but I won't say that and keep saying the X-Trans sensor is amazing despite it being APS-C which everyone must keep saying every other post.


------ Please read above with sarcasm.

I really love the Foveon sensor, and given the right situation it can really shine.. I did see some odd X-Trans effects when I did own them, but not enough to ever bother me.. Only odd color and a kind of .. soft look to the images that I never got with Foveon or M8/M9. Again this can always be attributed to user "error" or lack of proper "programs" to extract all the goodness :D I'll wait until it's all sorted for me before I make another attempt at an X-camera.
 
ReeRay said:
I don't have a Leica but comparing at ISO 1600 my 5D MKII is considerably better than my X-E1. It's almost noise free.
Click to expand...

This wasn't my experience at all. Both are relatively noise free at 1600. That said, I've used the Xtrans bodies more than the 5D MKII.
 
GaryLH said:
...
The ricoh gxr w/ m module was a dedicated unit which I believe was a last resort to help save the gxr line from going into extinction IMHO.
Click to expand...

There's a photo enthusiast deep in the bowels of Ricoh. I believe that someone created a mock-up of a Ricoh GXR and showed it to Ricoh at one of the shows, that enthusiast saw it and flew with the concept. It sold a good number of GXR cameras, and is still the best digital body for M-mount lenses outside of the Leicas themselves. The NEX 6 is almost as good, where it isn't it has other pluses like the EVF ... :)

G
 
8 raw developers compared

8 raw developers compared

I guess this is an apt blog post today.. Given FA limited problems w/ the Fuji files in China. Rico over at fuji rumors website just posted this. Actually it is 7 sw developers and 1 built in raw to jpg developer (the one inside the Fuji camera).

I have not read the complete writeup yet. This appears to be the start of a multi segment blog post. For each sample shot, there are 8 different versions. U get to vote on which one looked the best. There is a shot in there that may be representative of the issue that FA limited had.

http://www.fujirumors.com/ultimate-raw-converter-shootout/

Btw.. Anything from iso 100-200 the dp Merrill's will do better then a lot of cameras out there. Past iso 800 for color work, the Fuji is the winner IMHO. BW on the other hand w/ proper post processing techniques, the Merrill will do well to iso 3200.

Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom