Lss
Well-known
I think the key thing is that any party providing something different from mainstream should bend over backwards to provide uncompromised support for the most popular tools. Fuji did not initially do this, I hear things have since improved to a usable level. Sigma still have not done this. It's mostly their loss, but (potential) users also suffer.
Foveon is the true differentiator in this space.
Foveon is the true differentiator in this space.
willie_901
Veteran
If this is the case the Fujifilm's management should be fired.
Developing an entirely new color-filter array is expensive and time consuming. That's a massive expenditure of resources to implement a marketing gimmick. There are much more efficient ways to differentiate products via marketing.
burancap
Veteran
And furthermore, how does a "marketing gimmick" cause such admitted division amongst users? The output is distinctly different and acknowledged so.
I never bought a Fuji because of the X-Trans sensor. It was because they had good ergonomics, classic dials / rings, and were relatively cheap.
Kwesi
Well-known
willie_901
Veteran
At this point in time the Adobe ACR demosaicing is competent. After doing some comparisons I found all the major raw rendering platforms have slight advantages and disadvantages. This certainly was not the case when the XTrans cameras were initially released.
XTrans raw does have two fundamental disadvantages with ACR. First, the best rendering results will not be obtained if one uses the same post-production techniques one uses for Bayer raw. So there is a learning curve to climb. For instance sometimes a small change in color temperature can significantly improve improve the rendering. The sharpening parameter differences are well documented. Second, different scenes can require rather different rendering parameters to produce the very best results. To some extent this is also the case for Bayer raw, but in my experience XTRans raw is more requires more attention.
I worked with D700 NEFs for many years.The D700 sensor is a rather long in the tooth; the pixel pitches and density is different, so direct comparisons with XTrans raw are questionable, However, in my experience the XTrans raw contains more information. That is, XTrans raw is more robust when it comes to highlight recover and shadow detail.
As far as moiré goes. XTrans raw will show moiré. The LR selective brush tool works very well for effected regions. Oddly, I also occasionally saw moiré in some D700 images which has a AA filter. XTrans raw has less non-moiré rendering artifacts for very fine detail such as speaker grids. But the difference is irrelevant since these sort of effects are only seen with ridiculously zoomed crops. I agree with Bill that moiré is not much of an issue in digital photography.
It turns out Fujifilm has a business group that manufactures color-filter arrays, Fujifilm Electronic Materials. I think one of the advantages of the XTrans system is the characteristics of the sensor's color-filter array. Of course this is only conjecture.
As far as ISO goes, the Japanese camera industry conforms to two ISO standards defined by the Camera & Imaging Products Association, CIPA, guidelines. These guidelines state members of CIPA must measure sensitivity using either the Standard Output Sensitivity (SOS) or Recommended Exposure Index (REI) methods. It is unfortunate Fujifilm uses a method that is different than other brands. But unless Fujifilm is non-compliant with CIPA standards, they are not cheating. If they are cheating, than CIPA membership is worthless. In some ways the entire point is moot for raw files. The sensor only operates at one ISO - base ISO. Increasing ISO just increases the analog signal amplification after the shutter closes. ISO-less cameras (Nikon D7000) don't amplify the signals at all. Instead the increased brightness is achieved by digital multiplication after the data leaves the analog to digital converter. Contemporary sensor technology for many brands is approaching ISO-less behavior. This is why 14 bit ADCs are becoming common. One oddity with Fujifilm is above ISO 1600 analog amplification is no longer used. ISO brightness is achieved entirely using digital multiplication.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
Hi Bill.
Please don't take this the wrong way but I am not remotely technical when it comes to photography. It either works or it doesn't. I neither know nor care why the Fuji works. In my experience / opinion, it just does. Despite most of my photography (90%) being on film (Nikon SLR and Hasselblad / Rolleiflex MF) I have D800 an XPro 1 and an X100. I've seen a lot of words written about this and that but all I care about is what comes out of the CF or SD card. I use LR4 mostly and I just can't fault what I get from Fuji or Nikon.
I love my Fujis and, when it's time to change or upgrade, in a few years, they will owe me nothing.
Please don't take this the wrong way but I am not remotely technical when it comes to photography. It either works or it doesn't. I neither know nor care why the Fuji works. In my experience / opinion, it just does. Despite most of my photography (90%) being on film (Nikon SLR and Hasselblad / Rolleiflex MF) I have D800 an XPro 1 and an X100. I've seen a lot of words written about this and that but all I care about is what comes out of the CF or SD card. I use LR4 mostly and I just can't fault what I get from Fuji or Nikon.
I love my Fujis and, when it's time to change or upgrade, in a few years, they will owe me nothing.
honozooloo
Established
Bill,
As many others have said, not many of us decided on the Fuji system purely because of the X-Trans sensor itself. The compact size, price point, and glass have also persuaded many of us to invest in Fuji X gear.
I've used X-Trans based cameras (XE-2, X-Pro, X-T1) and the 14mm, 18mm, 23mm, 35mm, and 56mm almost exclusively in my freelance work the past two years, and can tell you that personally, it's been a great experience.
The X-Trans seems to yield a touch better sharpness than my Canon gear (my last Canon cameras were a 5D mk2, 1DS III and 1D mk IV), even though I can't be sure if that's attributable to purely sensor performance because Fuji's glass has been, in my opinion, EXCELLENT. I also prefer the high ISO look of Fuji X files because they get "grainy" but not "splotchy" the way my Canon files used to look at ISO 3200+ especially in the shadow areas...my personal opinion is that high-ISO shots from the Fuji X print better, in the sense that they are as grainy as their competition, but that grain looks more "natural." Most importantly for me...the Fuji family's COLOR is far superior. Less color correction in post especially when shooting under artificial or mixed light saves me a few minutes an image in post...which translates into hours or even days of time saved per year. Also, Canon and Nikon were never in the film business, and I assume that the color's better because Fuji "gets" color in a way that Canon and Nikon do not, given the three companies' pedigrees. My only real complaint about Fuji's color output has occurred in really messed up lighting conditions, like a portrait lit only by red neon or some other terrible lighting situation...and I think all the digital gear I've ever used hasn't reacted very well to such situations.
One last point regarding the X-Trans: Moire. In all my time using the X-system, I've only managed to provoke one glaring example of Moire:
See the first segment of the walkway after the railing ends. This was taken with an X-Pro and 18mm lens stopped down to f/8 I believe.
I've shot portraits of people wearing thick and fine-woven cloth semi frequently, and haven't managed to coax moire artifacting from the sensor; the only time it seems to rear it's head is when I shoot a horizontally-repeating pattern, usually from an angle (the only other instance I saw a hint of moire was in a vented AC duct on the outside of a building, and that was not as severe as this example).
As for the rest of the system, it's evolved from something slow (X-Pro 1 +35mm lens) to something quite fast (X-T1 +23mm lens) in every sense of the word, from AF speeds to AF tracking to framerate. Sure, it's got drawbacks but so does everything else on the market if you squint hard enough. I think that we live in an amazing era where most of the new cameras on the market are capable of being quite good, and this generation of standard APS-C systems are on par with each other, Bayer or not.
When I considered all of the X-systems factors together holistically, it was just the right package for my shooting style, needs, and preferences, and I've been extremely happy with my results. With every camera system being capable of producing good or even great results, for me the X-systems size, form factor, and performance has been just the right fit.
It's pretty killer having all the options we have these days, isn't it?
As many others have said, not many of us decided on the Fuji system purely because of the X-Trans sensor itself. The compact size, price point, and glass have also persuaded many of us to invest in Fuji X gear.
I've used X-Trans based cameras (XE-2, X-Pro, X-T1) and the 14mm, 18mm, 23mm, 35mm, and 56mm almost exclusively in my freelance work the past two years, and can tell you that personally, it's been a great experience.
The X-Trans seems to yield a touch better sharpness than my Canon gear (my last Canon cameras were a 5D mk2, 1DS III and 1D mk IV), even though I can't be sure if that's attributable to purely sensor performance because Fuji's glass has been, in my opinion, EXCELLENT. I also prefer the high ISO look of Fuji X files because they get "grainy" but not "splotchy" the way my Canon files used to look at ISO 3200+ especially in the shadow areas...my personal opinion is that high-ISO shots from the Fuji X print better, in the sense that they are as grainy as their competition, but that grain looks more "natural." Most importantly for me...the Fuji family's COLOR is far superior. Less color correction in post especially when shooting under artificial or mixed light saves me a few minutes an image in post...which translates into hours or even days of time saved per year. Also, Canon and Nikon were never in the film business, and I assume that the color's better because Fuji "gets" color in a way that Canon and Nikon do not, given the three companies' pedigrees. My only real complaint about Fuji's color output has occurred in really messed up lighting conditions, like a portrait lit only by red neon or some other terrible lighting situation...and I think all the digital gear I've ever used hasn't reacted very well to such situations.
One last point regarding the X-Trans: Moire. In all my time using the X-system, I've only managed to provoke one glaring example of Moire:
See the first segment of the walkway after the railing ends. This was taken with an X-Pro and 18mm lens stopped down to f/8 I believe.
I've shot portraits of people wearing thick and fine-woven cloth semi frequently, and haven't managed to coax moire artifacting from the sensor; the only time it seems to rear it's head is when I shoot a horizontally-repeating pattern, usually from an angle (the only other instance I saw a hint of moire was in a vented AC duct on the outside of a building, and that was not as severe as this example).
As for the rest of the system, it's evolved from something slow (X-Pro 1 +35mm lens) to something quite fast (X-T1 +23mm lens) in every sense of the word, from AF speeds to AF tracking to framerate. Sure, it's got drawbacks but so does everything else on the market if you squint hard enough. I think that we live in an amazing era where most of the new cameras on the market are capable of being quite good, and this generation of standard APS-C systems are on par with each other, Bayer or not.
When I considered all of the X-systems factors together holistically, it was just the right package for my shooting style, needs, and preferences, and I've been extremely happy with my results. With every camera system being capable of producing good or even great results, for me the X-systems size, form factor, and performance has been just the right fit.
It's pretty killer having all the options we have these days, isn't it?
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Me too, at first
Me too, at first
I came quite close to ditching my XPro1 when I first got it. I went through the various PP vendors as they were touted to be the answer to the problem. None seemed to be able to come up with image quality that equaled the X100. Then it seems that they finally got it figured out. I first noticed it in Aperture, now all of them seem to be able to get things right. I have this nice array of programs to choose from now, the economy thanks you Fuji.
Me too, at first
I came quite close to ditching my XPro1 when I first got it. I went through the various PP vendors as they were touted to be the answer to the problem. None seemed to be able to come up with image quality that equaled the X100. Then it seems that they finally got it figured out. I first noticed it in Aperture, now all of them seem to be able to get things right. I have this nice array of programs to choose from now, the economy thanks you Fuji.
DwF
Well-known
Positive on Fuji!
Positive on Fuji!
Thank you Bill for initiating this thread. I enjoyed your Leica Manual and writing for some time before I could so much as enjoy an M body.
I am not particularly scientific or technical in my approach to photography. I make practical decisions, feel confident about the technique and experience I do have, my aesthetic sense and as Paul Jenkin said here "it either works or doesn't; I feel I know what works for me. Of course when I worked in B&W I did play with chemistry to get what I wanted or hoped to achieve anyway.
I came to the X100 and X100S from an M9 and Leicas before that from M2 on including the X1, and M8. Having owned an X100 and X100S at one time, I had the opportunity to compare the two. Admittedly I didn't test in very diverse conditions but used a tripod and took care to line settings up to the extent I was able. As with just about any two cameras, adjustments were needed in the process of bringing files/images to life. I found the X100S took getting used to and while I have Iridient software, I mostly these days shoot Jpeg with the X100S; it works nicely for me in most applications including some low light, and I have made beautiful enlargements from Jpeg.
While I am sure the comments here about greens, lifeless color, lack of microcontrast and muddle come from real experience, this is not my mine. To the contrary, I have fewer issues processing Fuji files than other digital cameras I've owned including the M9 and with possible exception of the Leica X1. And I have been thrilled by results I have gotten from my Fuji X-trans cameras.
I am happy to have these new Fuji cameras regardless of sensor and look forward to see where they go from here -hopefully another X Pro 2 with OVF.
David
Positive on Fuji!
Thank you Bill for initiating this thread. I enjoyed your Leica Manual and writing for some time before I could so much as enjoy an M body.
I am not particularly scientific or technical in my approach to photography. I make practical decisions, feel confident about the technique and experience I do have, my aesthetic sense and as Paul Jenkin said here "it either works or doesn't; I feel I know what works for me. Of course when I worked in B&W I did play with chemistry to get what I wanted or hoped to achieve anyway.
I came to the X100 and X100S from an M9 and Leicas before that from M2 on including the X1, and M8. Having owned an X100 and X100S at one time, I had the opportunity to compare the two. Admittedly I didn't test in very diverse conditions but used a tripod and took care to line settings up to the extent I was able. As with just about any two cameras, adjustments were needed in the process of bringing files/images to life. I found the X100S took getting used to and while I have Iridient software, I mostly these days shoot Jpeg with the X100S; it works nicely for me in most applications including some low light, and I have made beautiful enlargements from Jpeg.
While I am sure the comments here about greens, lifeless color, lack of microcontrast and muddle come from real experience, this is not my mine. To the contrary, I have fewer issues processing Fuji files than other digital cameras I've owned including the M9 and with possible exception of the Leica X1. And I have been thrilled by results I have gotten from my Fuji X-trans cameras.
I am happy to have these new Fuji cameras regardless of sensor and look forward to see where they go from here -hopefully another X Pro 2 with OVF.
David
Sam N
Well-known
I am happy with the output from the X100s, but I haven't used the other 16mp sony-based APS-C sensors.
Can someone with an X-A1 and another X camera just make a couple test shots with the same lens and settings and post the raw files?
EDIT: It turns out someone did exactly that:
http://www.fujirumors.com/x-a1-vs-x-m1-the-shootout/
Can someone with an X-A1 and another X camera just make a couple test shots with the same lens and settings and post the raw files?
EDIT: It turns out someone did exactly that:
http://www.fujirumors.com/x-a1-vs-x-m1-the-shootout/
daveleo
what?
My next comments are motivated by Sam_N's post above, but are aimed at the general audience here.
I contend, with 67% confidence , that, when comparing Fuji camera output, the postprocessing method (RAF-JPG) is irrelevant. If the final comparative files are JPGs viewed on a monitor, it is only important that they were all created the same way.
Therefore .... it is just as viable to compare out of camera JPGs as any other post-processed method.
Isn't that correct ?
EDIT: I am assuming, I think, that the RAF conversion routine in all Fuji cameras is the same. Big assumption.
I contend, with 67% confidence
, that, when comparing Fuji camera output, the postprocessing method (RAF-JPG) is irrelevant. If the final comparative files are JPGs viewed on a monitor, it is only important that they were all created the same way.Therefore
.... it is just as viable to compare out of camera JPGs as any other post-processed method.Isn't that correct ?
EDIT: I am assuming, I think, that the RAF conversion routine in all Fuji cameras is the same. Big assumption.
Sam N
Well-known
Not all jpegs are created equal, Dave. If you only shoot raw, all that matters is your raw converter and the in-camera routines don't enter into it.
daveleo
what?
Didn't mean to derail the thread here. I was seriously curious about RAF-RAF or JPG-JPG comparisons.
willie_901
Veteran
I think it is difficult to actually perform meaningful comparisons. Using default rendering parameters means neither Bayer or XTrans renderings are fully optimized. Carefully optimizing rendering for each means the results are dependent on the subjective decisions made by the person who created the renderings.
DwF
Well-known
I agree with this statement about meaningful comparisons and subjectivity in adjusting parameters. When I compared the X100 to the X100S that was my take away- I needed to optimize settings for each camera. The two are different, and it became clear that to arrive at a good solution, I needed to tweak this or that until the result was acceptable. They still had a slightly different look. neither one necessarily better. Both were very good.
pluton
Well-known
+1 here.
I acquired the XE1 and one lens as an experiment. Later I added one more lens. I'd probably have bought a digi-Leica if not for their ghastly quality control, but now the XE1 handles that shooting modality better anyway, since I can't properly use the 1953-era M viewfinder with my glasses on.
The X-files look fine; I find myself deleting the color to go mono just as often as I do with my Bayer-equipped cameras.
The detail rendering irregularities(when the Adobe raw converter is employed) do not show in reasonably-sized prints, period.
And, there's always Photo Ninja or one of the others.
The APSC format does not compete with medium format.
goamules
Well-known
Has anyone shown a comparison of who owns the market share? For everything Fuji is doing right, including the wonderful sensor, I'd suspect buyers are trammeling all the other cameras with other sensors.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Hysterical. Fuji was inspired by the random patterns of crystals in film. So I find it odd that Fuji is criticized for taking a more film-like approach to digital imaging. And they got rid of the AA filter and kept large enough photo sites to perform well at high ISO. Marketing gimmick? Or a camera that will make us old film shooters happy?
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I'm not convinced I've ever noticed any real differences.
Perhaps I should have the good manners to be ashamed of myself, or at least embarrassed
I'm also a LR (currently 5.7) user and haven't ever noticed any great issues editing within this software. The majority of the work and pictures I do with these cameras ends up in a monochrome presentation from RAW files so perhaps I'm missing out mostly on colour or jpg issues?
If anyone wants to they can follow my work website link to the 'reportage' weddings I do with just XPro's and X100T (any "street"-y type shots are also X-Trans) and point out any issues, seriously I'd take NO offense, because I'd like to know if I'm missing anything obvious...though some Silver Efex'ing may have made it impossible to tell now - I don't know.
Like film type being a huge matter of preference, or RF over SLR, I suppose we'll now have sensor type to add to the mix - which sounds like a pretty healthy state for photography to be in if choice is taken to be a good thing.
Perhaps I should have the good manners to be ashamed of myself, or at least embarrassed
I'm also a LR (currently 5.7) user and haven't ever noticed any great issues editing within this software. The majority of the work and pictures I do with these cameras ends up in a monochrome presentation from RAW files so perhaps I'm missing out mostly on colour or jpg issues?
If anyone wants to they can follow my work website link to the 'reportage' weddings I do with just XPro's and X100T (any "street"-y type shots are also X-Trans) and point out any issues, seriously I'd take NO offense, because I'd like to know if I'm missing anything obvious...though some Silver Efex'ing may have made it impossible to tell now - I don't know.
Like film type being a huge matter of preference, or RF over SLR, I suppose we'll now have sensor type to add to the mix - which sounds like a pretty healthy state for photography to be in if choice is taken to be a good thing.