Formbox

I did some RAW developments with the trial recently and think it uses the very very good Apple RAW COdec with lots of adjustments possible. Was very happy with the RAW conversions - up there with RAW Therapee and Aperture and a bit better or at least equal with iridient IMO.

I really like these shots! And nice way of processing too! Great look.

And Capture One 9

So here is Photo Ninja:

I think my artisticaly disappointing crop shows one thing: All converters are better than the jpg and pretty close to each other and e.p. viewed on a tablet, there is hardly a difference, leave alone web usage.

I upgraded to El capitan without Aperture being installed. Did not use it much after switching to LR. When I decided to check it out again with X-trans I opened the App store and reinstalled it with no problems.

So regarding the most natural look of fine details like the stone and sand I really like: Aperture with it´s grainy rendering RAW Therapee and Iridient pretty much indistiguable Silky Pix 7 (just remember to set the "demosaic" to 100) Lightroom 6.5 comes in last, even though the green foilage rendering is much improved, the fine texture of the stones look pretty unnatural. Same with sharpening through the NIk Presharpener Pro with Lightroom - it is the demosaicing proccess, which needs further tweeking I guess.

And the new Silkypix 7, demosaic set to 100 and the new "natural sharpening" if I recall the settings correct. Not bad, between Lightroom and Iridient I think.

Next up Iridient Good detail, AMAZE sharpening and basically more micro contrast by default I think.

The very good RAW Therapee, 3-pass rendering 5 times false color reduction... Good stone detail

Next Lightroom 6.5 Stone texture like a paint brush... sharpening set to amount 20, radius 0.6, detail 100

I did not deliver any proof for the good Aperture 3.6 rendering of X-trans. Aperture 3.6 is running under the newest OS X El capitan. Here are the crops - best I could do with the converters - but maybe Iridient experts could have done better - it is AMAZE set and 3-pass detail. Sorry for the mediocre view. It is shot on an X-Pro1 with the 56mm 1.2 @ 2.0 First up Apple Aperture 3.6...I like how the difficult stone texture is rendered....

IMO Apple Aperture (discontinued) or RAW Therapee (free) deliver even better results and are visually better than LR and the Fuji jpg regarding fine detail.

Well, I still prefer Apple Aperture and it renders Bayer and X-Trans beautiful - so I did not have to change my whole workflow, but I am not seeing much benefit. I guess that X-Trans marketing hype thing left me feeling a little disappointed. But I think as an analogy, its not a ford with an opel engine but more like a single car brand that uses a total different kind of wheels than all other car brands - if that is a good or bad thing depends on your personal time to get it to work. And if the "Pros" of this different wheels are quite minimal my position on it is, that it might be 75% marketing and 25% benefit. I am very interested in the new Sigma SD Quattro - because I see a huge difference in the RAW files. Still some claim, the X-Pro2 has "the best" APS-C Sensor right now and I was surprised to read that its sensor is basically performing on a level of the entry camera Nikon 5500 (490 €). Less moire but also less detail in the grass tiles. No offence. But I don´t want to sound to disappointed - it is great and much needed, that Fuji and Sigma push the borders of sensor tech and they should be applauded for their constant effords to push photografy further with it.

Interesting review, as they come to the same conclusion the video review of "The Camerastore", which we had a talk about the other day .. That is, that the sensor is equal to the sensor of a Nikon D5500 in therms of noise and that you have to compare them at a full stop difference, as Fujis ISO200 equals Nikons ISO100. Fuji X-Pro1 @ ISO200 compared to Nikon D5500 @ ISO 100 - equal shutter speeds, here is what they say: "It's widely assumed that Fujifilm's X-Trans sensors use low-noise Sony silicon behind their unusual color filter arrays, and the performance of the X-Pro2 is certainly up to that standard. Compared here with the Nikon D5500 (using the same shutter speeds so that they are working with the same amount of light), you can see very similar amounts of noise up to a 4EV push, and possibly a fraction more after a 5 stop push, though the difference may simply be one of grain structure, caused by the different demosaicing processes." link:http://www.dpreview....jifilm-x-pro2/6 So the X-Pro2 has no "magical" X-trans sensor, but one of the best APS-C sensors. Regarding the X-Trans array, I fail to see a "better" noise structure in the RAW files than a conventional sensor, but there seem to be some benefitts regarding moire. That said, I very happy with my X-Pro1 and it´s noise performance, but I would love it just as much with a conventional sensor I guess.

Well, hello again! Now the dreview of the X-Pro1 is out and they use the same test, coming to the same conclusion: Fuji X-Pro1 @ ISO200 compared to Nikon D5500 @ ISO 100 - equal shutter speeds, here is what they say: "It's widely assumed that Fujifilm's X-Trans sensors use low-noise Sony silicon behind their unusual color filter arrays, and the performance of the X-Pro2 is certainly up to that standard. Compared here with the Nikon D5500 (using the same shutter speeds so that they are working with the same amount of light), you can see very similar amounts of noise up to a 4EV push, and possibly a fraction more after a 5 stop push, though the difference may simply be one of grain structure, caused by the different demosaicing processes." link:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro2/6

X-Pro1: 1 Real AF-On back button Focus with smaller focus point size 2 The new layout for menu and EVF

1.) I stay corrected. 2.) The camera strore guys might be simple in their comparison, but the bottom line is IMO that all recent APS-C sensors are very very good and to me the differences look marginal from a practical standpoint. I am even able to drag wonderful results out of my "outdated" X-Pro1 sensor all the time Beside I never shot jpgs, no matter how good they´ll be. I was able to rescue 5 year old one-of-the-time shots with the advanced RAW conversion software of today. IMO the advancments in software noise reduction the last years is just awesome. As flysurfer said: "Being fixated on a single performance parameter doesn't help much, we need to look at the "big picture" and approach ISO performance from more than just one angle." That is true and my personal take on this is that you can even pull amazing High ISO images out of my old Canon 5D Mark I "Queen Mum" nowadays with Lightroom 6, Capture One 9 or DXO 10 Prime. And regarding the RAW "grain": I think the converter is the factor which grain you´ll get, if you prefer CO9 or DXO or LR or even Photo Ninja. Regarding that Acros simulation: Great work from Fuji! ( Note:I heard that you can get compact full frame cameras, all metal build, with aperture rings and full metal lenses for a bargain these days - like an F3HP. And they can utilise a real good Kodak Portra, Fuji 400H or Acros picture style called analog film. I might like it even more than VSCO ) Final word: I would buy the X-Pro2 even with a conventional bayer sensor. For me it´s the system as a whole, the usability, ergonomics and that great lens selection that Fuji got right. And right out of the box for such a young system.

Wow - how do you know? My last Info was either Sony or Toshiba but probably Sony... Anyway, they seem to be on par. Yeah, of course you can fine tune a sensor and use a better supporting hardware. And Fuji did a great job! Still this is about the review of the camera store, basically saying that Fuji is up there with the best but not better. I can shoot the same picture with the same exposure with my Nikon 2/3 stops lower ISO rating (fake Nikon ISO - resulting in a noise charcteristic on par with my Fuji. Regarding the RAW noise charakteristic only my Canon 5D and 6D was notably worse (banding), but the Nikon, Sony and Fujis I used are more or less the same. Just my 2 cent. I love Fuji, but sometimes I feel like this talk suggests that other Manufactors like Nikon have no idea how to make a good camera. And that´s just not the case. Their performance is every bit as good as the Fujis. And this review states just that - I think they might be right and the X-Pro2 is a very good job from Fuji.

So the Fujis have the more precise ISO rating, right? But like you said, couple of Nikons tend to have a 1 EV different ISO rating, the comparison in the Camera store video makes even more sense to me, as they compare same apereture and shutter speeds on both cameras, regardless what ever ISO the camera is making of it. And it is no surprise (and no shame at all for Fuji) that the Sony sensors in both cameras returned more or less the same noise in the image. Correct me if I am wrong, but Fuji can not magiclly change the core noise performance of the hardware IMO.

Thanks for the background infomation. If you use the dpreview compare tool, you can set a FUji X-Pro1 and will find it will also need a 1/60, trailing a 5D or Nikon Df witch settle around 1/80 and 1/100s. Even if Fuji uses the more precise SOS ISO, isn´t it still true that shooting with a required minimum shutter speed of p.e. 1/60s my X-Pro1 uses ISO3200 while a Nikon D610 Auto ISO would choose Nikons ISO 1600. So from a practical standpoint, streetshooting in dim light, wide open 1/60s to handhold, the comparison seems to make sense to me?

Sorry for the tweaked white balance in the first shot, which has a more natural color balance and the true color of the coat... First Crop is Lightroom 6.4

Surprise - I think Lightroom 6.4 got much better with X-Trans Raw files... I used unusual settings - compared to my FF camera: Sharpening Amount: 20 or leave at 25 (not good to move up...I use 80 with my FF) Radius: 1,0 Detail: 100% Clarity: +5 (if you like) Quality is now nearly indistinguishable to Apple Aperture 3.6 IMO and close to Iridient (with standard settings). Only Text seems to be still rendered better with the former... See Crops