twopointeight
Well-known
Just shot a family portrait today of about 24 people. Canon 5DMK2 w/50 1.2 was the main camera and back-up was an Xpro-1 with 35mm lens. Took incident readings of natural light, no strobes. The Canon exposed dead on but the Fuji looks 1/2 to 1 stop under, still workable with RAW but I'll probably use only the Canon files. Anybody notice this exposure difference?
macjim
Well-known
I used to set mine to underexpose but after having its first free service, it now seems to underexpose a little. That's better than overexposing in my mind as I can recover detail later on the computer. If you find it constantly underexposing, then try adjusting the settings in the menu, if you're a JPG shooter, or use the exposure compensation via the +/- dial.
brbo
Well-known
Wasn't there a talk about Fuji X-series not being completely honest about ISO value? So if you would meter with Fuji it would set the exposure correctly, but since you used off-camera meter the Fuji's ISO shenanigans caught you out?
willie_901
Veteran
Fujifilm, and all other Japanese brands are members of CIPA, The Camera & Imaging Products Association, a Japanese trade organization.
CIPA sets standards and the members their members agree to follow.
For still-camera, light-meter calibration CIPA members may use either the,Standard Output Sensitivity method or Recommended Exposure Index method.
These meter calibration methods are not identical.
We think of the meter calibration as ISO because the meter tells us (or the camera) what to do for a given ISO setting. At base ISO the meter predicts when the brightest regions will exceed the sensor's full-well capacity. Above base ISO, the meter predicts when the amplified analog signal levels from the brightest regions will exceed the maximum DC voltage capacity of the analog-to-digital converter
DxO uses a completely different measure, the saturation based sensitivity method. This has nothing to do with the meter calibration. It actually reflects measures the sensor's average full-well capacity. SO far DxO has decided to test XTrans sensors.
To make matters even worse, ISO, The International Organization for Standardization defines and measures meter calibration completely differently than CIPA and DxO. And ISO has several approved methods and standards ISO members may use.
If Fujifilm is not following either CIPA guidelines then perhaps:
*
o CIPA is an ineffective organization because they should fine Fujifilm and then throw them out of CIPA. This means all the other Japanese camera brands are throwing their money away by maintaining participation in CIPA
o Or, Fujifilm is bribing CIPA
o Or, Fujifilm controls CIPA politically and the other Japanese brands have no influence on CIPA enforcement
o Or the other Japanese brands don't care and have not complained to CIPA
However, Fujifilm is doing itself a disservice by creating the impression they are cheating or misleading customers even if they actually adhere to one of the CIPA standards. And, they also making life difficult for people who use hand-held meters. This seems unnecessary to me.
I wish Fujifilm would use the meter calibration methods other CIPA members use.
CIPA sets standards and the members their members agree to follow.
For still-camera, light-meter calibration CIPA members may use either the,Standard Output Sensitivity method or Recommended Exposure Index method.
These meter calibration methods are not identical.
We think of the meter calibration as ISO because the meter tells us (or the camera) what to do for a given ISO setting. At base ISO the meter predicts when the brightest regions will exceed the sensor's full-well capacity. Above base ISO, the meter predicts when the amplified analog signal levels from the brightest regions will exceed the maximum DC voltage capacity of the analog-to-digital converter
DxO uses a completely different measure, the saturation based sensitivity method. This has nothing to do with the meter calibration. It actually reflects measures the sensor's average full-well capacity. SO far DxO has decided to test XTrans sensors.
To make matters even worse, ISO, The International Organization for Standardization defines and measures meter calibration completely differently than CIPA and DxO. And ISO has several approved methods and standards ISO members may use.
If Fujifilm is not following either CIPA guidelines then perhaps:
*
o CIPA is an ineffective organization because they should fine Fujifilm and then throw them out of CIPA. This means all the other Japanese camera brands are throwing their money away by maintaining participation in CIPA
o Or, Fujifilm is bribing CIPA
o Or, Fujifilm controls CIPA politically and the other Japanese brands have no influence on CIPA enforcement
o Or the other Japanese brands don't care and have not complained to CIPA
However, Fujifilm is doing itself a disservice by creating the impression they are cheating or misleading customers even if they actually adhere to one of the CIPA standards. And, they also making life difficult for people who use hand-held meters. This seems unnecessary to me.
I wish Fujifilm would use the meter calibration methods other CIPA members use.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Funny, I get very good exposures with my X10 and X100. Maybe they don't have the same issues as the X-Pro1.
twopointeight
Well-known
Thanks for these responses and interesting industry information. Practically speaking, I won't be mixing Fuji and Canon together again.
gavinlg
Veteran
What ISO were you using?
twopointeight
Well-known
400 ISO. Today in a similar situation it slightly overexposed, but that's using the auto exposure of the Xpro1 with no incident meters or Canons involved.
dmc
Bessa Driver
Send your camera in for service. My X-Pro1 exposes correctly, so yours should as well. This whole Fuji conspiracy thing is rather dubious and, quite frankly, not believable.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
macjim
Well-known
Having re-read this I thought I'd clear up my comments. Before the service I set the compensation to -⅓ but since the service, it was left on 0 and it seems to now expose very slightly under. Admittedly the images were taken on an overcast day so that could be the cause but I have taken some shots yesterday in bright conditions. I'll see how they have come out and if different to the previous, I'll let you know.
I still prefer the image to come out of the camera slightly under expose as you can recover details easily, one highlights are blown, there gone.
I find that the Fuji cameras meter very loosely... compared to the Sony A7r.
willie_901
Veteran
Metering systems and algorithms are relevant and rarely discussed in "Fujifilm inflates ISO" threads.
If by coincidence the meters happened to be identically calibrated for different cameras, there could still be differences in how the matrix, average and even spot readings are implemented between brands.
This doesn't change the negative PR Fujifilm needlessly brought on itself by being different.
I shot an event last weekend with two XT-1s and found the metering to be a bit hot. On both bodies.
If by coincidence the meters happened to be identically calibrated for different cameras, there could still be differences in how the matrix, average and even spot readings are implemented between brands.
This doesn't change the negative PR Fujifilm needlessly brought on itself by being different.
I shot an event last weekend with two XT-1s and found the metering to be a bit hot. On both bodies.
brbo
Well-known
How is Fuji's (or Canon's) metering system relevant in the OP situation? Neither was used.
willie_901
Veteran
It is not relevant to the OP.
It is relevant to your assumptions and allegations.
It is relevant to your assumptions and allegations.