Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Herco got a reaction from Drunken Monk in X-Pro 2 or X-Pro 3   
    The size of the photocells in the 24Mp sensor is approx. 8% larger than in the 26Mp. The gain differs about 20% so there is certainly an advantage for the 26Mp sensor. However, with higher gain there's also slightly higher noise. To correct that, the NR profile of the 26Mp is slightly different. The end result is barely visible in real live low light RAWs (in Capture One). That coincides with the Sony specs for the sensors. Both 24Mp and 26Mp sensor are from Sony and the 26Mp in Fuji is the same sensor as the 61Mp in the A7RIV and in the GFX100. Only cut to a different size.
  2. Like
    Herco got a reaction from Drunken Monk in X-Pro 2 or X-Pro 3   
    There's a lot of misconception re. the sensor generations Fuji uses. In essence there's no visible image quality difference between the 24Mp X-TransIII/Processor and the 26Mp X-TransIV/Processor. The 2Mp are negligible. There's virtually no visible difference in low-light performance as well. The BSI (back-side illuminated) technology of the 26Mp sensor has a theoretical advantage here because the metal wiring layer is not on top of the photocells, but beneath them. However, the photocells of the 24Mp are larger and therefor the yield of the 26Mp BSI-sensor is lower than the 24Mp FSI sensor (front-side illuminated). That glitches out almost all advantages here.
    What does make a difference is the number of AF pixels on the 26Mp sensor (much higher) and the shorter circuits due to the BSI technology of the 26Mp sensor. That allows for greater throughput capacity and quicker AF. Top that with a more powerful processor in the 26Mp camera's and you have snappier AF and higher video bit rates (up to 400 Mbps).
    The main differences between the x-pro2 (I'm a long-time owner) and the x-pro3 (tried it extensively) are the LCD screen and the viewfinder. The hidden LCD screen could be very beneficial to a street shooter (from the hip). However, imo it sucks to have to open it for menu access and menu access through the EVF is cumbersome when you wear glasses (and have thumbprints all over them). I prefer a screen like the X100V were the user has options to choose how to use it and which is nicely integrated in the body. The sub monitor is imo a useless gadget as there's not backlighting button like on the X-H1/GFX50S. 
    The viewfinder for me is the real dealbreaker on the X-Pro3. Though it is larger and brighter, in OVF mode (which is why I bought the X-Pro) there's only one magnification left (x0.50) rather than the 2 magnification levels of the X-Pro2. That renders the X-Pro3 in OVF mode useless for lenses shorter than 23mm and longer than 35mm. I can't use my 16/18mm and my beloved 50mm anymore on the X-Pro3 in OVF unless I settle with a very tiny frame or frame lines outside my OVF. For now I'm sticking to the X-Pro2.
  3. Like
    Herco got a reaction from XT-3 Owner in Love my X-T3 but a bit disappointed in some software details   
    The only way -to my knowledge- to prevent the camera to go to My Menu every time you enter the menu button, is to leave the My Menu completely empty. The purpose of My Menu is to have quick access to the most used menu items, hence it always starts there. Should  you decide not to use the My Menu, you can always add 4 most used feature to the Q-menu and activate them with the Q-button and the touch interface of that menu.
    From what you describe the 18-55 can do a couple of things in the background. When PRE-AF is ON, the camera will always focus. It could be that it still does when in replay mode (I haven't checked it as I don't have that lens). Another (more likely) noise could be that of the OIS. On the 18-55 there's a switch for that. Try it in OFF mode and see whether the noise persists.
    The focus peaking for manual focus indeed needs an upgrade. I also have experience with an A7RIV and an SL2 and they have better focus peaking esp. during magnification. Esp. the A7RIV with the Loxia lenses works brilliant. The issue with Fuji is that indeed when magnifying the peaking gives a very flickery image. So either quiet it down of switch FP off when magnification is activated. Another issue is that for some Fuji cameras (e.g. my beloved X-Pro2) the focus peaking color yellow is not available for some inexplicable reason. Yellow is for most shooting situations the most visible color (at least in my experience).
    Another issue is that for many menu settings there's no help function or explanation in the menu. After many years of Fuji I know most settings by heart, but it took me a while. It would be easy to have a line of text explaining the menu setting at hand. Most other cameras have such a feature. Fuji only does this for certain settings like film simulations, but consistent use would improve the usability.
    Finally, some menu options are named differently on the various Fuji cameras. On the X-Pro2 there's the option "preview pic. effect" which is called "natural live view" on the X-H1. Those things can be easily aligned, even though there could be a small tech. difference between the two options. Other than that I think the Fuji menus are quite good and at least a lot clearer than the older Sony menus (not the A7SIII) but not as good as the Leica and Canon menus. It sits nicely in between 😉
  4. Thanks
    Herco got a reaction from katbo in X-T30 front command dial only decreases   
    You should try and assign other features to the front dial command and see if it acts similarly. I've had this issue with an X-Pro2 (though with the back command dial) and it turned out to be a moist-issue. It started after a walk in some mild rain on Iceland and only after the camera was serviced it disappeared... Could it be the same issue for you?
  5. Like
    Herco got a reaction from PutoConstante in Help me choose an all around camera! XP1, XE1 or XE3   
    The 'Fuji-colors' are mostly a product of the JPEG-engine in the cameras. While there is a slight difference between the 16MP and the 24MP, most differences are due to the JPEG engine and between lenses. Some of the older lenses (the fast 23, 35 and 56) have a 'special' film-like quality. It has mostly to do with how they render color and contrast. Using these lenses on the newer cameras, results in the same effect. Fuji-purists sometimes praise the older 16MP sensor for its character, but to my eye the 24MP sensor is just as good and has the resolution to do additional cropping. I've owned 6 Fuji cameras over the past 9 years (and still own 2) and the newer cams are just as good as the older ones (if not better).
    I've had the XP1 but upgrading to the XP2 didn't affect the colors in RAW. In fact, the JPEG-engine in the newer cams (like the XP2 and the XE3) can also control the film grain and has a few more film simulations that can be an advantage. Esp. Classic Chrome can be made to look similar to the 'Leica-look' (I've used a/o the M8 and the M262).
    To learn more check out fujiweekly.com and the film recipes outlined there. Also check-out the RAW and JPEG manuals of Thomas Fitzgerald. He gives very good advise on how to set sharpening and noise reduction. Fuji's JPEG engines are too aggressive to my liking, so I dial down NR to -2 or -3 on the 24MP-cameras and Sharpening to -1 or -2. I use Capture One as imo it works way better with RAF-files than LR.
    PS. with the new XP3 out, second-hand prices for the XP2 dropped. While not as low-priced as a used XE3, an XP2 is now great value-for-money. 
  6. Like
    Herco got a reaction from Andi Anggono in Erasing (deleting) photos in camera vs.on computer   
    For some reason Fuji cameras are quite susceptible to read/write errors on SD cards. I've had multiple issues (incl. lost images) with several different Fuji cameras, so I use the following 'workflow' to reduce the chance of error:
    always use Fuji recommended SD cards use two exact same cards if the camera has two slots insert them gently straight in and out format both cards in the camera before a shoot regularly copy (not move!) all images on the card to your computer then (re)format both cards in your camera (never on your computer) do not take out one card to view images on a computer/tablet and then put it back in the camera for further shooting (I share the images via my phone to a Dropbox to view them on bigger screens. Or in the studio I work tethered.) That way you don't have to select and delete images one by one or by group in your camera, which is a tedious process.
    In general: SD cards are not meant for long-term storage of images. Just for shooting and transport to your safe storage on a computer and back-up drives.
  7. Thanks
    Herco got a reaction from Federica in XF 18-135mm lens vs XF 55-200mm lens   
    Without knowing your type of photography, I would guess that the 18-135 will in practice replace your 16-50 (unless you need its compactness). The 55-200 is much more an extension of what you already have. Both are fine lenses, but designed for different purposes.
    The 18-135 is Fuji's version of a 'super zoom' lens: a lens with a zoom factor of at least 7x to 10x zoom. Usually these super zoom lenses suffer from a lot of compromises, but this is actually quite a good one with good 'sharpness' and contrast except perhaps for the far corners and edges. It's a true 'travel lens' that for many people is almost 'glued' to their camera. Together with the 10-24 you'd have a very universal combo. However, don't expect it to have 'exquisite bokeh' and shallow depth-of-field for portraits. Around 50mm the max. aperture is f5, so the DoF can't be really shallow. The OIS is very good so the smaller apertures can be compensated with longer shutter speeds without blurred images due to camera shake.
    The 55-200 is a true tele zoom lens. Not a lot of people need the longer focal lengths (beyond 200mm in full frame equivalent terms or 135mm in Fuji's APS-C format), but if you do -like for sports, wildlife or landscape details- it's a very good lens. In pure sharpness it even 'beats' Fuji's professional 40-150 tele zoom, but that one has a bit better contrast and a constant f2.8 aperture. I would not worry too much about the Weather Resistance (WR) thing. First, your camera isn't WR, so that is the limiting factor. Secondly, if you take a few precautions, also non-WR lenses can be used in a light drizzle or rain without you worrying about it. My guess is that you're not the photo reporter waiting in the downpour for that perfect shot in a football match. The OIS in the 55-200 however, is very useful when you start zooming in. At 200mm (300 in full-frame) it becomes hard to carefully focus and keep a steady shot. 
  8. Like
    Herco got a reaction from George_P in Is the Fujifilm X RAW studio essential to workflow?   
    There’s another reason not to depend on Fuji’s X Raw Studio. It only allows you to process raw files captured by the exact same type of camera with which the shot was made. When you upgrade your Fuji camera to a newer model you can’t process the raw files made with the older camera anymore. So moving up from an X-Pro2 to an X-Pro3 and your older files can’t be processed in XRaw Studio... 
  9. Like
    Herco got a reaction from Jim White in XE-3 sale?   
    The main benefit of the 24Mp sensor in the X-E3 vs. the 16Mp sensor in the X-E2s is that the 24Mp gives you more room for cropping your image. The visible difference in (un-cropped) image quality you'll only start to notice in larger prints (larger than about 30x45cm). A main advantage of the X-E3 over the X-E2s is the much faster and decisive AF, although that also depends on the lenses you use. For me the joystick is a real benefit. The cleaner back without the D-Pad gives me a natural resting place for my thumb without the risk of unintentional operating D-Pad buttons. You have to take into account that you have a few less buttons to configure freely though...
  10. Like
    Herco got a reaction from George_P in ANY tips on how to shoot underexposed photos like this?   
    I guess your goal is to have the face stand out and the background 'disappear' in the shadows. Spot metering can be tricky since it very much depends on where you aim. There are great differences in luminosity in the face. If you need perfect exposure there are two options:  (1) meter on a grey card near the face and fix that reading in manual mode or (2) use a separate light meter for ambient light reading near the face. Both options are a bit cumbersome though. The multi-metering mode of Fuji is quite good and will take the focus point into account. So when you focus on the face and expose, it will know that is the main subject. However, to get the darker shadows, you may want to correct 2/3rds or 1 stop with the exposure compensation. In general make sure you don't overexpose on the left side of the face or on the shoulder, since in post processing it's easier to correct a slightly darker image than an overexposed one.
  11. Like
    Herco got a reaction from lysander in X100V, the weather sealing question   
    Third party options of adapter ring that screw onto the lens combined with a good UV- or protection filter work just as good. I believe JJC has a good one. Make sure the optional lens hood works with a bayonet. That's easier than a filter thread screw-in one.
  12. Like
    Herco got a reaction from le boecere in How good is the improved lens on 100V?   
    I’m not sure that the new lens has less resolution. The ‘old lens’ was designed for a 12/16Mp sensor. I’ve once read that Fuji designs the current XF lenses for approx. 32Mp max.
    Nevertheless I can tell you the new lens is a clear step up. The ‘close focus haze’ is gone and that alone was for me a big improvement compaed to the The typical corner softness is mostly gone and visually I’d say that the V is now at least as good as the XF23/f2 (if not better). Having said that, the XF23/f1.4 still ‘beats’ the two f2’s. In contrast, micro contrast, color rendering and overall sharpness.
    The question is where do you use it for? Typical street and reporting photography often doesn’t need razor sharp corners. Portability and inconspicuous format are more important. The Summicrons and the Voigtlanders aren’t perfect either, but they have a kind of ‘magic’ that the X100-series has too. I think you can call that ‘sprezzatura’ (the imperfection that makes perfect). For pixel peepers and e.g. critical landscape and archtecture work I’d recommend the 1.4.
    However, dpreview.com has X100V sample RAF-files you can download and peep for yourself. They also did a good comparison of IQ between the V and the F.
  13. Like
    Herco got a reaction from johant in X100V, the weather sealing question   
    Generally that is very true. However, with the X100-series it's a bit different. The adapter ring fits onto the lens by removing the front ring of the lens and replacing it with the adapter ring. This is a bayonet lock. The adapter ring then holds the filter and lens hood (through a bayonet). There are also lens hoods that screw-in. These can't be connected to the adapter ring but have to be on top of the filter instead. That's inconvenient because when you loosen them, you often also unscrew the filter.
  14. Like
    Herco got a reaction from johant in X100V, the weather sealing question   
    Third party options of adapter ring that screw onto the lens combined with a good UV- or protection filter work just as good. I believe JJC has a good one. Make sure the optional lens hood works with a bayonet. That's easier than a filter thread screw-in one.
  15. Like
    Herco got a reaction from atyl1972 in XH-1 in 2020   
    The X-Trans sensors are amongst the best APS-C sensors on the market. The X-H1 is no exception. Obviously, the IQ is exactly the same as all other models with the 24Mp sensor, but IMO there’s also no visible difference with the newer 26Mp sensor. Perhaps except for marginally less noise at high ISO. Which is something to avoid in landscapes anyway... The IBIS in the X-H1 can be an advantage when not using a tripod but that’s just about the only difference with the 24Mp siblings.
    Having said that, the most important factor will be the lens. Not all Fujinon’s are equal in this. For landscape I can recommend the 14/2.8, the 16/1.4(esp.), 23/1.4 and the 10-24/4. The 16/2.8, 18/2, 18-135 and the 23/2 are less ideal for landscape and architecture. They all suffer from softness and a lack of contrast in the corners and edges. Worst wide open, but also stopped down never reaching the level of the aforementioned. The Zeiss 12/2.8 is very good too. Both standard zooms (the 18-55 and the 16-55) are equally good for landscape. I have no experience with the 16-80 and the 8-16.
    Another factor is post processing. I prefer Capture One for this. I think it’s superior over all other full-feature solutions I’ve tried incl. Lightroom. Esp. in landscape, you need good details without artefacts, nice contrast and pleasing greens. When using the in-camera jpeg engine, dial-down the sharpening to at least -2 if not more. Fuji tends to have a very agressive sharpening, that esp. affects landscape with small details. It can become unnatural sharp in standard settings.
    I’ve tried many camera’s as a semi-pro but IMO the only way for landscape to get a better IQ is to go to medium format sensors (e.g. GFX) or to high-resolution fullframe sensors (e.g. A7RIV, Z7, SL2 or S1R) with the best possible glass for that mount. We’re talking about totally difference price points though. Moving to standard resolution fullframe sensors offers only a small improvement in IQ. In fact, a friend of me owning an EOS RP prefers my X-H1 for (urban) landscape. That’s how good the x-system cameras are. 
  16. Like
    Herco got a reaction from atyl1972 in XH-1 in 2020   
    I tried the X-T3 for a couple of days, but I prefer the X-H1 because of the build quality, the grip, the shutter and IBIS. The X-T4 is probably a closer call (IBIS, similar shutter and larger battery), but in terms of IQ there’s virtually no difference between the three. AF is better though on the X-T3 and esp. the X-T4. The 80 is a fantastic lens. Razor sharp and great micro contrast. It handles well on an X-H1 with it’s bigger grip. The 16-55 is pro quality and very all-round but should you have some budget left, buying a separate 16/1.4 for (urban) landscape is a great investment. It is visibly better than the 16-55 @16. By the way, a 16-55 combines very good with IBIS on the X-H1 or X-T4. For that lens IBIS is a real benefit (for me at least).
  17. Thanks
    Herco got a reaction from Jazz1 in XH-1 in 2020   
    Hi Jazz1, 
    I have both the x-pro2 and the x-h1. Despite the same sensor/processor inside, these are very different cameras. Also in terms of lenses that match best. The H1 is a very universal camera in true DSLR-style. I use it mainly for studio portraits, fashion and landscape (tilting LCD on the tripod). It easily accommodates the ‘larger’ lenses like the 16-55, the 56 and the 90 and in case of landscape the fast 16 and 23. The Pro2 is much smaller and most of the lenses mentioned above feel very large on the Pro2 and they obstruct the OVF. For that camera I have the f2 primes (23, 35 and 50) as well as the 14mm. I use the Pro2 for street and travel. Of the two it’s my favourite. I’ve always loved the ‘rangefinder-style’. Even though it is sometimes limiting. In that sense they complement each other. The Pro2 invites you to a slower style of photography.
    I did take a brief look at the Pro3. Technically, the main difference is the more consistent and reliable autofocus (which is the main feature of the 26Mp sensor/processor). Functionally, I have a few problems with the Pro3 compared to the Pro2. The main issue for me is the single magnification of the OVF. That makes it very hard to use the OVF with anything wider than 23mm or longer than 35mm. The Pro2 in OVF mode has a dual magnification that enables anything between 16mm and 56mm. Overall the VF of the Pro3 is better in terms of brightness, size and eyepoint (for people who wear glasses), but the magnification for me is a dealbreaker. Note that if you wear glasses, the H1 viewfinder is generally easier to view as it is bigger and brighter. Another issue for me is the hidden LCD. It’s an extra effort to go into the menus for me. I would have loved an LCD as on the X100V. The small sub screen to me is a useless gadget as there’s no backlit feature like on the H1.
    Talking about the X100V, I’m tempted to switch my Pro2 for an X100V. It might actually be a better match with the H1. Even less overlap. The main issue of the H1 (apart from battery life) is portability. It’s actually even bigger than a full frame Sony A7. In that sense the X100V might be the best complementary camera to an H1...
  18. Thanks
    Herco reacted to Jacques Gaines in Who's opinion do you most trust on Youtube about Fuji?   
    My God this was eye opening. I just so happened to be one of those YouTubers. I try my best to be as objective as possible in my reviews but must admit that to survive on YouTube and actually make it on the platform, Youtubers eventually get too tempted by affiliate links and the like. As a person doing this from the other side I would strongly advise all of you to not expect a whole bunch of objectivity from a YouTuber with a great deal of success. Why? Well basically all YouTubers start with good intention and realize at one point that giving away info does not pay the bills. If the Youtuber is paying the bills really well? . . . You do the math.  I am not offering an excuse for us, I am just making the observation. Also, just putting this out there, look for videos about the process and less about the gear. When I look at my stats and see that my video on gear has gotten 20,000 views and my video about a natural light photo shoot with the X-T3 has only gotten 400 views. . .  You can guess what the next video is going to be about. You guys should not be looking at YouTube for your next gear choice and more as a way to be inspired and motivated to go out and shoot. I will not change YouTube nor do I claim to have the best channel out there but the answer to this question all depends on what you want to get out of the channel. Cheers....Now go out and shoot!  
  19. Like
    Herco reacted to le boecere in Please Fuji, come back...   
    Welcome to the forum, Herco.  I'm replying because I'm much older, yet your concerns are mine, and better stated than I might have been able to write.  A couple of your phrases might be a clue as to what could be happening to Fujifilm cameras:
    "All stills photography, almost no video."  Me too, but I think there are only two or three other Fujifilm stills shooters left in Western civilization, and a half-dozen traditional photographers will not sustain any camera company.  I believe the camera-market fashion has moved to "video", and cell-phone features (i.e.;selfie touch-screen).  
    You also give your age at 57 years.  I've read that the historic success of the X-100 and X-Pro1 was because they were designed and marketed by "photographers".  I believe that most post-modern companies are now run by people under 35, and I've got to believe that if they happen to be photographers, "camera" means cell-phone, "view-finder" means selfie, and "photography" means video ~ and their plan is to market their products to their own demographic market (under 35 years of age).
  20. Like
    Herco reacted to andrei89 in Please Fuji, come back...   
    i think there are still many more pure photographers out there (only interested in photos, that is) than hybrid shooters
    however, the latter are quite vocal and the platform they're on - youtube - is encouraging video rather than photo shooting whereas photographers have many platforms on which to show their work but none are even at half the level youtube is at, meaning monetisation, encouraging originality, dealing with fraud and so on
    that is why, in my opinion, all camera companies have to and will embrace video features to be able to sell their products (forget leica, they are too niche)...we who don't care about video just have to suck it up
  21. Like
    Herco got a reaction from le boecere in Please Fuji, come back...   
    Let me first introduce myself. 57 years and amateur photographer since the age of 12, although with intervals. My passion lies with portrait, fashion, street and urban landscape. All stills photography, almost no video.
    I started with an Olympus OM1 (which I still have and occasionally use) but have been around the block: from Olympus to Nikon to Pentax to Minolta to Canon and Leica. I took a few years off of photography, until someone lend me his X-Pro1 for a day. It reminded me of my M6 and M8. The X-Pro1 was far from perfect. However the camera grew on me and the image quality was so beautiful that it kept me wanting to shoot more.
    When the X-Pro2 came along I immediately upgraded and after a year or so I added an X-T2, which later on I swapped for an X-H1. The X-H1 is a bit big for Fuji standards, but after the EOS 5D its a breeze. In the meanwhile I own 9 XF lenses. Mostly primes, but also the 16-55 (hence the X-H1 for its IBIS). 90mm is the longest focal length I need (and have).
    For me the X-H1 also marks the transition point of Fujifilm. From this point onwards Fuji started to lose me. Let me explain.
    First of all next to the X-T10/20/30 Fuji launched the X-T100/200 line rendering the beautiful X-E line redundant and from what I hear, repealed soon. I understand the commercial viability of video capabilities and a DSLR-style over a rangefinder-style, but speaking of crowded market segments...
    Next to that Fuji launched the X-T3 only a few months after introducing the X-H1. I would have understood this if the hybrid X-H1 had the 26Mp sensor soon followed by the X-T3 with a similar sensor. But cannibalizing a flagship model within half a year or so, dramatically drop its price and discard of any meaningful firmware update for more than 1.5 years, is an insult to buyers. That kind of corporate behaviour is what we previously accused Nikon, Canon and Sony for, but they’ve bettered their lifes. 
    It seems that history is repeating itself with the new X-T4 versus the X-T3. In a few years Fuji went from “video as an after-thougth” to “video-first”. There’s little progress in the X-T4 when it comes to stills. You could even say some degress: the fully articulating screen is not for stills photographers. Occasionally ‘killing your darlings’ is part of progress, but this almost feels like leaving a group of customers behind.
    In the meanwhile Fuji also launched the X-Pro3. I can dig dropping the d-pad and the reversed tilted screen. The titanium top- and bottom plates are a nice touch, but add little to the quality of the camera. What I can’t understand is getting rid of the dual magnification for the OVF. That renders any lens wider than 23mm or longer than 50mm useless in combination with the OVF, which is the main attraction of the X-Pro3. Leica already understood this decades ago...
    Probably Fuji’s best matured camera is the X100V. The style, new lens and tilted screen has defined today’s ultimate street camera. In fact I even consider swapping my beloved X-Pro2 for an X100V. The X100V shows that clearly defining a product line and improve and innovate on a regular basis is a better strategy than creating new and mixing existing product lines. It also makes it easier to maintain a stable pricing strategy.
    My hope is now on the X-H2 to restore ratio in Fuji’s product line-up and break with the recent ‘video-first’ mantra. However, considering the X-H was meant to be the hybrid stills/video camera, I fear the worst. I guess I’m part of a dying breed but Fuji please don’t make me want to buy an A7R...
  22. Like
    Herco got a reaction from dward in Are you going to leave Fuji because of IBIS and Flippy screens?   
    I would have loved to see a better positioning of the different product lines at Fuji. The X-T4 is now a bit like Gerald Undone has put it: "jack of all trades, master of some". I would have hoped that the X-H line was focused on hybrid video/stills use incl. IBIS, flippy screen, decent ports (like a headphone port!). That would free up the X-T line to be the better stills camera. It would allow Fuji to have two teams really focusing to build the best in both categories. The X100V shows that with good positioning and focus on purpose, Fuji can build the best (fixed lens street) camera on the market.
  23. Like
    Herco got a reaction from le boecere in Who's opinion do you most trust on Youtube about Fuji?   
    My shortlist: Chris and Jordan from DPReview, bigheadtaco, Denae & Andrew, Dustin Abbott, Ted Forbes (Art of...) and grandmaster Hugh Brownstone (3bmep). For inspiration I turn to Ted Vieira... not so short list after all and the common denominator is that they refrain from "awesome", "epic" and "I have more gear than God"... 😉 adding Gordon Laing to my long list...
  24. Thanks
    Herco reacted to Doug Pardee in Fuji XT questions   
    1. DxO refuses to have anything to do with X-Trans sensors. Until very recently, they refused to have anything to do with Fujifilm at all, even their Bayer-sensored cameras.
    2. Fujifilm -- along with Olympus, Panasonic, and Ricoh/Pentax -- honors the traditional "18% gray" brightness target value. That brightness goal was set during the days of B&W photography, and we've learned that color photographs tend to look a bit "underexposed" at that brightness level. For that reason, Canon's DSLRs derate the ISO number, so that you get about one stop brighter image -- about 35% gray. Sony does the same, and Nikon changed over about a decade back. So the "Big 3" manufacturers all use an ISO rating system that produces images about a stop brighter than those produced by Fuji/Oly/Panny/Pentax.
    What is measured as ISO 200 on the old "18% gray" plan is now being marked as ISO 100 by the big brands. In fact, when NIkon made the change, people commented about how Nikon DSLRs used to only go down to ISO 200 but now were going down to ISO 100. To get 18% gray on one of the big guy's cameras, you need to meter at twice the ISO that the camera is set to. [By the way, Canon tried the 18% gray target in the Rebel XTi/400D DSLR, and people complained about how dark its pictures were.]
    When using in-camera metering on Fuji, the multi-zone metering runs about a stop brighter than the "dumb" metering modes. That way Fuji produces the same bright color images that the Big 3 manufacturers do -- in Multi metering mode. But the difference in brightness between in-camera metering modes catches a lot of people off-guard.
    Personal opinion: the days of "18% gray" are behind us. Canon, Nikon, and Sony have long abandoned that standard, and virtually nobody has complained. It's probably time for Fuji/Oly/Panny/Pentax to make the change, too.
  25. Like
    Herco got a reaction from androniksupersonik in Fuji Raw converter with panorama stitching capabilities   
    I'm working with both now to find out if ON1 can do all that I need. The difference between older versions of ON1 and C1 where much greater (in favour of C1) but the ON1 2020 edition has improved a lot esp. for Fuji shooters.
    So far I think C1 is still better in color editing, the Fuji film profiles (quite a bit better), b&w controls and still somewhat better in sharpening and noise reduction. ON1 has a better digital asset management (importing, culling, keywords, managing raw+jpeg...), some very nice effect filters and is easier to use. However, note that presets and filters in ON1 can easily become a bit 'too colourful' and 'over-edited'. You have to hold back a little bit and apply the opacity slider generously.
    With 'easier to use' I mean that in ON1 some adjustments are combined in handy filters you can apply, whereas in C1 you need to combine multiple tools to achieve the same results.
    In general: C1 is IMO more aimed at professionals and high-end users, while ON1 is aimed at enthousiasts. I don't use pano stitching and HDR so for me there's no clear winner yet... but if I would do pano and HDR I would definitely download the trail version of ON1 and have a very close look at it.
  • Create New...