Jump to content

Your X camera wishlist


Conflan

Recommended Posts

I created this thread for a purpose: give to Fujifilm managers and engineers something inspiring to read at breakfast before going to work.

 

Here we can write about the features we would like to see en the next Fujifilm camera, or the firmware updates we would like to get on ours cameras.

 

Here I start with my wishlist:

 

 

1) When AUTO ISO is activated, it is necessary to SHOW THE ISO setting the camera is going to use IN REAL TIME, and not only half pressing the shutter button.

 

 

So, instead of showing "AUTO,MaximumIso" it should show "AUTO,ActualIso" or "MaximumIso,ActualIso".

 

It is just like the Pentax implementation on the TAv mode:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb6qNXKgBfI

 

It is a major bug I noticed on all Fujifilm bodies and it makes me hesitate if I have to follow with the (otherwise beautiful) system.

 

2) Another tricky thing about changing ISO: turning the dial I would like to CHANGE ISO SETTINGS WITHOUT INTERRUPTING THE SCENE I AM FRAMING, just changing the little iso number at the bottom, the same way aperture and shutter speed changes are displayed.  Fuji please, learn from Pentax, they are doing it the RIGHT way.

 

ISO, aperture, shutter speed and exp. compensation are the 4 parameters that we must have always under control, and we must see their values in real - time, without half or full pressing any button.

 

3) another feature I would appreciate is the possibility to CREATE NEW FOLDERS into the sd card directly from the camera. It is a very useful function I used a lot with other cameras.

 

4) I hope that X-E series will not disappear, sold my X-E1 because it was too slow and needed a tiltable screen more than anything else. So my wish is a X-E3 with a tiltable screen and a dial I can dedicate to ISO setitngs.

 

I ask pardon for my baaad english!!

 

Now it's your turn....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would love the following:

 

  • Let´s call it the Fujifilm X200 with a new sensor, specs pretty much like a X100T, 23mm f/2 lens, and a screen like on the X-T1.... tiltable. Or they could make it with a full frame sensor and a 35mm f/2 lens. I don´t even need an OVF anymore. The EVF on the T is so good I could easily live with that.
  • A pure monochrome like the Leica Monochrome. Either with a native XF lens mount or a X100T version called X100MT  :D

Other than that I am really pleased with the X-T1 and the X100T as they are. On my trip to Marrakesh I actually only missed the tiltable screen on the X100T.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just really like the next sensor to have a native Iso of 100, instead of 800 at the moment, where you have to bring in a tonne of noise to get the most out of your dynamic range.

Reducing the sensor’s native sensitivity from ISO 200 to 100 would render the sensor one f-stop less sensitive, increasing noise at every ISO setting. I rather doubt anyone would want that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing the base ISO would be a problem, anyway, because the actual Fuji base ISO is 140, not 200. They call it 200 because the shadows are pushed up half a stop even when you are using the lowest ISO and you don't think you are using the dynamic range feature. It's actually recorded like that for the raws. It's only the 200% and 400% options which are then done with further processing, which aren't saved as the raw but are saved to the .JPG. It's a way of faking that the sensor has more dynamic range than it actually does. Canon do it, too, as their ISO 100 is, for most of their sensors, actually ISO 80 or so.
Also, Fuji's sensors are a form of 'ISOless' sensor, so the noise technically stays the same no matter how much you push or pull the file. you just notice it more the more you push the file because of dynamic band compression. So you can simply underexpose an ISO 200 file, or expose normally and reduce the exposure in processing, and you get the same results as if Fuji let you shoot at ISO 100.

So, Fuji could reduce the sensor's base ISO down to 100 and it wouldn't increase the noise, but it would really mean you would be shooting at about ISO 64 and there wouldn't actually be any benefit to it. It would just mean that ISO 100 would then be allowed for raw files, instead of only being for .JPG. I don't disagree that it would be nice to have the option, but it truly would be pointless.

... That's assuming they stick with the same sensor, though. If they make a new sensor then who knows! They could certainly make a native ISO 100 sensor with less noise.

 

 

As for myself, the main thing I would like is simply higher resolution. If they can reduce the noise at the same time then that's good, but the same noise at a larger size is fine. It's been very hard to convince clients that 16mp is enough, and getting to 20mp—the arbitrary number many of them have decided is the minimum—would simply make my lif easier. No more having to explain or excuse, I could just hand over a 20mp file and be done.

Oh, and of course, something with a deeper buffer, proper tethering and longer battery life. 25+ raw files, plain USB tether to either Lightroom or Capture One without BS plug-ins working through a wrapper, and a minimum 500 shots per battery charge, hopefully giving about 700 in actual use. Or a mains adapter! Make the X-T2 a proper studio camera and I'll be very, very happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My next X camera I would like to stay at 16 MP and and any sensor improvements weighted towards improved DR and High ISO performance. 

 

Better battery life and faster AF

 

If Fuji is going to offer an APS-C camera with 24+ MP, then please keep developing a 16MP version... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, I was definitely talking about a new sensor, not doing pointless witchcraft on the current one.

In that case we would have to wait for Sony to develop a sensor with the desired specs … Sensors, as a rule, have the same native sensitivity regardless of the pixel size – somewhere between ISO 100 and 200. Larger pixels receive more photons so more electrons can be collected, but they also store a larger electric charge before they overflow. As a result their ISO figure is roughly the same as that of a sensor with smaller pixels.

 

Now if you wanted to reduce the native sensitivity you could make the pixels less sensitive, say by reducing the light-sensitive area or by doing away with microlenses. But all that would give you was a less sensitive sensor, without any gains in signal-to-noise ratio or dynamic range.

 

Alternatively you could try to increase the pixels’ capacity for electric charges so more electrons could be stored, resulting in less noise and more dynamic range. But how would that be achieved? There is only so much space on the silicon chip. There are a couple of technologies looking promising, the quantum film sensor for example, but as these technologies could also increase the efficiency of converting light into electricity, the ISO number wouldn’t necessarily go down – it might just as well go up.

 

In the analogue era we have learned to associate low ISO figures with high resolution, less grain (noise), and high dynamic range. With sensors these rules don’t apply anymore, not in exactly the same way anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case we would have to wait for Sony to develop a sensor with the desired specs … Sensors, as a rule, have the same native sensitivity regardless of the pixel size – somewhere between ISO 100 and 200. Larger pixels receive more photons so more electrons can be collected, but they also store a larger electric charge before they overflow. As a result their ISO figure is roughly the same as that of a sensor with smaller pixels.

 

Now if you wanted to reduce the native sensitivity you could make the pixels less sensitive, say by reducing the light-sensitive area or by doing away with microlenses. But all that would give you was a less sensitive sensor, without any gains in signal-to-noise ratio or dynamic range

As stated above, I'd be happy if the next Fuji sensor was comparable to the Nikon D7200. So Sony had already developed it. Is probably the same sensor as the Sony A6100 too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aceflibble where did you read about this "ISO-less" characteristic of the Xtrans sensor?

 

Onestly this is the first time I hear about it :huh:

Fujilove.com did a big post about it recently, but it's info that has floated around since I first began paying attention to Fuji cameras, so I don't remember where I first read about it. Testing it myself, it does seem to be true and I see no reason to doubt it considering most digital sensors do either only have one true ISO or a more limited ISO range than they claim to have. (Hence 'boost' ISO settings.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

aceflibble where did you read about this "ISO-less" characteristic of the Xtrans sensor?

This characteristic isn’t specific to the X-Trans sensor; it is a property of all recent Sony sensors (and some others). I think the discussion started with an article by Guillermo Lujik (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guillermoluijk.com%2Farticle%2Fsnr%2Findex.htm&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=EN&ie=UTF-8) in 2011. This was about Nikon, Pentax, and Sony cameras originally but much the same applied to other cameras using similar sensors. When the X100 was introduced, some people wondered why it didn’t increase amplification over ISO 1600 – whether you choose ISO 1600, 3200, or 6400, the camera stores the same data in the raw file, only the ISO value in the Exif metadata changes. This way Fuji was exploiting the ISO-lessness of the sensor but back then, few people were aware of the concept of an ISO-less sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated above, I'd be happy if the next Fuji sensor was comparable to the Nikon D7200. So Sony had already developed it. Is probably the same sensor as the Sony A6100 too.

Sure, but the lower sensitivity of that sensor doesn’t confer any advantages. It is a fine sensor but it isn’t its lower native sensitivity that is responsible for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but the lower sensitivity of that sensor doesn’t confer any advantages. It is a fine sensor but it isn’t its lower native sensitivity that is responsible for that.

What are you basing this on? The dynamic range of the d7200 at Iso 100 has been measured up to 2 stops better than a canon full frame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you prove your statement?

Given that this is common knowledge, why should I? Ask Fuji if you are doubtful. This reluctance to increase amplification (not just analogue amplification but also digital multiplication) above a certain ISO level has been the hallmark of Fuji cameras ever since the X100.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you basing this on? The dynamic range of the d7200 at Iso 100 has been measured up to 2 stops better than a canon full frame.

As explained in #9, a lower native sensitivity doesn’t improve dynamic range. If Sony could manage to increase the native sensitivity to ISO 160 or 200 the dynamic range would still be as high. The reduced sensitivity is the price to pay for the increased resolution but that may change in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an over-exaggeration, but if you look at the x100 measurements on dxomark, you can see they do some funky stuff with high Iso sensitivity.

Dxomark is unable to deal with cameras that don’t increase amplification in proportion to the ISO setting so according to their measurements, the sensitivity of the X100 at ISO 3200 and 6400 is just the same as the sensitivity at ISO 1600.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that this is common knowledge, why should I? Ask Fuji if you are doubtful.

Given that we now have people claiming it's common knowledge that zooms have on par IQ with primes without bringing any kind of material whatsoever to support it, I'd say this is not really an answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So getting back to the original topic, I would like to seen a decent flash system. While I understand that some people might need/want an all singing, all dancing set up I would also like to see a set of options for flash that also caters to those of us who want something more effective than the current option but don't want to spend a fortune.

 

Lenses - in my dream world Fuji would make a 16-35 zoom for APS, high quality but also relatively compact, f2 or f2.8 if needed to keep it compact. Perhaps a 16-70; and an f4 version of the 50-150, with a corresponding reduction in weight and size.

 

Cameras - as X-E3 please. Anyway you like. Just make sure if had a better or interchangeable eyecup and that I can set LCD/EVF preferences separately for shooting and playback.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But if the sensitivity doesn't change between ISO 1600/3200/6400, how could the camera then produce an even exposure?

 

Since I am into photography I read about the "exposure triangle", aperture - times - ISO

 

Now, if rising the ISO value, say from 1600 to 3200, doesn't almplify the signal, how can we see the results we see?

 

I am genuinely curious :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lenses - in my dream world Fuji would make a 16-35 zoom for APS, high quality but also relatively compact, f2 or f2.8 if needed to keep it compact.

I would happily trade my 18-55 for that! The 35-55 range is not really useful for general purpose to me, as it doesn't make very good portraits at 55 f/4, and I see no reason to zoom from 35 to 55 to capture something instead of moving a few steps closer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Now, if rising the ISO value, say from 1600 to 3200, doesn't almplify the signal, how can we see the results we see?

 

There's basically two ways the ISO and image brightness can appear to increase or decrease with a digital sensor. The first way is, like with film, to increase the actual sensitivity of the sensor to exaggerate the light it is seeing. Most digital cameras can only do this within a very limited range, and some do not do this at all. These cameras are sometimes called 'ISOless' because the ISO isn't actually changing.

The second way is for the sensor to record the same light at the same sensitivity and to use software to increase the brightness of the image. This can either be done within the camera, after the sensor has produced an image but before that image has been saved, or it can be done outside of the camera, where you import a dark image into a program like Lightroom or Photoshop and raise the exposure level. Or, of course, you can do a bit of both, and you can only increase the brightness in certain parts of the image.

 

The Fuji cameras, for example, say their base ISO is 200. Really their base ISO is 140, but the camera raises the brightness of the shadow areas after the image has been captured but before the image has been saved. The effect is shadows look like they were captured at ISO 200 but highlights look like they were captured at ISO 140, in total expanding the dynamic range of the image. When you load the image up in Lightroom, or anywhere else, the file has been written to say it was shot at ISO 200, which is a bit of a lie.

 

Now, I'm not a sensor developer. (Shocking surprise, I know!) I can't explain exactly at what point different companies' sensors start amplifying the signal (first method) and at which point they start amplifying the image (second method). The Fuji ISO 200/140 thing has been common knowledge for years and tested by many sites, so we do know that is one ISO where Fuji are increasing the image brightness after capture. Since that is the lowest ISO they allow a raw file to record, it is fair to assume this is happening at every other ISO, too.

 

edit: I know I am simplifying things greatly, but I hope you get the idea of how these things basically work, anyway.

 

 

 

So getting back to the original topic, I would like to seen a decent flash system. While I understand that some people might need/want an all singing, all dancing set up I would also like to see a set of options for flash that also caters to those of us who want something more effective than the current option but don't want to spend a fortune.

 

Nissin i40 flashes work TTL either on-camera or through Canon-compatable cords. There's no wireless TTL for Fuji, but if you use something like the Cactus system, you can still control power and zoom remotely. Best thing is, both systems are really cheap. A Cactus flashgun costs about one quarter what a Canon or Nikon flashgun of the same size costs. I don't remember the price of the Nissin units, but I do know they're cheap, too. So you can have full control remotely or full TTL corded and spend far less than you would if you used any other brand. The Cactus system can even mix in Canon and Nikon flashes, so if you have any existing flashguns you can keep using those.

Of course, if you get into bigger studio units, they all work fine with Fuji already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...