X-Pro2 Review at TheCameraStoreTV (episode filmed on X-Pro2)

[Patrick FR]

The X-Pro2 is overall a little step forward over the X-T1 in terms of Dynamic Range, ISO-performance, AF-speed.

 

More here: http://www.fujirumors.com/fuji-x-pro2-vs-nikon-d7200-fuji-is-still-owning-for-overall-color-look-feel-contrast-out-of-the-box-thecamerastoretv/

[Adam Woodhouse]

It is great to finally see some video footage out of the X-Pro2.  I'm glad they used the camera to do the video.  They should do that with all of their camera reviews!  That in itself would be part of the review.

[flysurfer]

They sometimes do. I actually liked the video quality a lot. As for the contents, it seems like TCS and Fuji Canada may be a little bit at odds over something.

[EyesUnclouded]

Ooook...

 

First of all I'm glad that the X-Pro2 seems to have stirred the interest of, not only the loyal customer base but, the general photographic public too. I've seen this from groups and pages I manage in social media and even several personal communications with fellow photographers. In that regard, serious "no strings attached" reviews are needed.

 

I think the video tries to be objective (and the guys at the camerastoretv generally are) but falls short due to a couple of (crucial) details:

 

1) The now infamous "Fuji is cheating with their ISO" statement.

 

Please check, if you haven't already, this older article:

 

https://photographylife.com/does-fuji-cheat-with-its-sensors

 

and especially Iliah Borg's answer in the comments, which, IMO puts the matter to rest once and for all.

 

All that said, I have always found that Fuji files pushed in PP to the point that they are "equivalent" exposure-wise to competitive cameras, always show better detail and noise characteristics. This is a point Nasim makes in the article also.

 

So, no, you don't have to shoot the X-Pro2 at 12800 ISO and the D7200 at 6400 ISO to "make them equivalent".

 

2) The RAW conversion issue.

 

Again, we are usually shown samples of RAWs processed through ACR (LR or PS) for both cameras, in similar comparisons. We all know how insufficient ACR still is in processing X-Trans files, especially for sharpness and noise. In particular, noise patterns look rather unatural with ACR, while other coverters (e.g. Photo Ninja with Noise Ninja) offer much better processing.

 

I wish Fuji could work with Adobe to offer a better solution, but, for the time being, such comparisons are not "real world", in my opinion. A Fuji-X user with high demands on final image quality, would probably chose a RAW conversion software that delivers the best possible results.

 

All in all I think the review was objective and honest, but seen from a more "consumer oriented" view. The X-Pro2 especially is not directed to the consumer market. But, having said that, I'll repeat I wish Fuji made things simpler...

[flysurfer]

 

 

So, no, you don't have to shoot the X-Pro2 at 12800 ISO and the D7200 at 6400 ISO to "make them equivalent".

 

 

Of course not. And everybody with a minimum of competence knows that.

 

However, Nikon is cheating with Nikon wrt ISO. For example, the Nikon 1 V3 needs 1/60s while the Nikon 610 needs 1/125s at the same aperture and ISO settings to output JPEGs with similar brightness. Click here, then click on the INFO buttons to see the awful truth nobody ever mentions anywhere on the web.

 

Nikon cameras are all over the place wrt ISO. That's because they are using REI ISO, which allows them to calibrate each camera as they see fit. Sony and Canon are using REI, as well, with similar results. Fuji is using SOS ISO, and all Fujifilm APS-C cameras are pretty much identical when it comes to ISO calibration. The sensor doesn't matter, be it 12 MP Bayer, 16 MP Bayer, 16 MP X-Trans or 24 MP X-Trans. All models have the same calibration in order to not confuse their users who expect consistency. Consistency, of course, is something Nikon users can only dream of, as each new model is kind of a surprise package—even within the mirrorless Nikon 1 line.

[Adam Woodhouse]

When I use to shoot two different Nikon full frame cameras at once (as each had a different lens), sometimes the exact same settings on both cameras could not be done because one rendered the image a little darker than the other.  At the time I thought it was because the different lens let in a different amount of light, even though their aperture value was the same.  I really didn't think much of it as the goal was to set the correct setting for the camera/lens combo I was using at the time to get a proper result.  If one needed a half stop different setting than the other ... so be it.

 

Does Fuji 'cheat' in regards to their ISO values in comparison to exposure results and camera settings when compared to others .... maybe.  But I'm sure they would argue that their exposure metering is unique to them and comparing against another manufacturer is comparing 'apples to oranges'.  In the end most don't care ... they set the camera to what i needs to be set to and focus on capturing memorable images.

[flysurfer]

 

 

Does Fuji 'cheat' in regards to their ISO values in comparison to exposure results and camera settings when compared to others .... maybe.  But I'm sure they would argue that their exposure metering is unique to them and comparing against another manufacturer is comparing 'apples to oranges'.  In the end most don't care ... they set the camera to what i needs to be set to and focus on capturing memorable images.

 

It's not unique at all. It's SOS ISO, which is more objectively defined than REI ISO and used by several companies, like Fuji and Olympus. The SOS standard allows a deviation of ± 1/3 EV from its definition, and Fuji tends to use this leeway to the downside. So in many cases, Fuji JPEGs would turn out 1/3 EV darker than JPEGs from other cameras. Of course, all of this is common knowledge (heck, it's on Wikipedia!), but it seems that many so-called "experts" from "review websites" don't have the slightest clue about any of it.

[Aswald]

The X-Pro2 is overall a little step forward over the X-T1 in terms of Dynamic Range, ISO-performance, AF-speed.

 

More here: http://www.fujirumors.com/fuji-x-pro2-vs-nikon-d7200-fuji-is-still-owning-for-overall-color-look-feel-contrast-out-of-the-box-thecamerastoretv/

 

Thanks Patrick! It's now making the wait even more painful!   :lol:  

[Formbox]

Of course not. And everybody with a minimum of competence knows that.

 

However, Nikon is cheating with Nikon wrt ISO. For example, the Nikon 1 V3 needs 1/60s while the Nikon 610 needs 1/125s at the same aperture and ISO settings to output JPEGs with similar brightness. Click here, then click on the INFO buttons to see the awful truth nobody ever mentions anywhere on the web.

 

 

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?

[flysurfer]

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?

 

The majority of cameras at DPR is at 1/80s for f/5.6, including many SOS cameras. IIRC, Panasonic is also sometimes at 1/60s. So there's a deviation of -1/3 EV from the majority, which is within the ± 1/3 EV requirements of SOS. That a Nikon 610 is defining ISO about 1 EV higher than a Nikon 1 V3 is really Nikon's problem (or better: their users' problem).

 

I like consistency, and luckily I get that within all Fuji APS-C cameras. 

[milandro]

it’s certainly a very nice video and it does provide a lot of informations and comparisons which I’ve been asking for a long time to see. Improvements are most certainly there but one has to make up one’s mind whether the amount of improvements justifies the expenditure.

 

I really like the joystick and the increased number of focussing points. All the rest, although certainly interesting, leaves me, for the time being, rather cold.

 

I like the video quality but the image, although showing great resolution, has patches of uniform colors on the face of the interviewed person and , although it might be argued that my Imac monitor isn’t up the the performance of the best monitors around it is certainly better than others. However video is not a thing of my concern and for any intent and purpose that I might ever wish, what I’ve got is plenty and this would be even more.

[Formbox]

So there's a deviation of -1/3 EV from the majority, which is within the ± 1/3 EV requirements of SOS. That a Nikon 610 is defining ISO about 1 EV higher than a Nikon 1 V3 is really Nikon's problem (or better: their users' problem).

 

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.

[umad?]

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.

 

There is no Sony Sensor in the D7200. 

 

The problem with those home made tests is, that they aren't scientific at all. With good light, there is little difference in noise performance (you could throw in a X-T1 or even a X100 and probably won't see big differences).

 

The difference become visible, when you use the camera in low light (and with longer exposure times). 

 

And of course there are things you can to do a basic sensor to improve it's performance. Efficient microlenses, cfa, read out. Even cooling when it comes to longer exposures. And that's not all by far. 

 

 

And that's just the technical side. There is the aestetical side too. How much detail is there at higher ISOs? How does the dynamic do? Are there banding or color shifts when pushing the file/shadows? And finally: how does the noise look? Personally I think that the noise from the random Fuji X-Trans has a very film like look to it

[Formbox]

There is no Sony Sensor in the D7200. 

 

 

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.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Formbox

[flysurfer]

There is no Sony Sensor in the D7200. 

 

The problem with those home made tests is, that they aren't scientific at all. With good light, there is little difference in noise performance (you could throw in a X-T1 or even a X100 and probably won't see big differences).

 

The difference become visible, when you use the camera in low light (and with longer exposure times). 

 

And of course there are things you can to do a basic sensor to improve it's performance. Efficient microlenses, cfa, read out. Even cooling when it comes to longer exposures. And that's not all by far. 

 

 

And that's just the technical side. There is the aestetical side too. How much detail is there at higher ISOs? How does the dynamic do? Are there banding or color shifts when pushing the file/shadows? And finally: how does the noise look? Personally I think that the noise from the random Fuji X-Trans has a very film like look to it

 

Exactly. Measuring noise doesn't tell us much. Fujifilm is indeed ADDING noise in its Acros simulation to produce a more pleasing (naturally grainy) result. Not to forget the new grain function to add "analog film grain" to color film simulations. So just measuring noise and saying "less is better" only shows that the test itself is quite incompetent. We have to look at the structure of the noise, how does it flow from dark to brighter areas, how fine is it, does it cluster, it is "pleasing" or not? For this, we have to look at different RAW converters, as they are responsible for the demosaicing and the "look" of the final image.

 

IME, X-Processor Pro produces more pleasing noise than Lightroom. This wasn't the case with EXR II, where high-ISO noise in SOOC JPEGs would often look more clustered. Of course, much of this is also a matter of personal taste. Just like you can't say that a red car is always better than a blue one. 

[flysurfer]

 

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.

 

Nikon is very good at image processing, and they also know how to use the ISOless camera concept. The thing with the D7200 and D5500 is that noise is just one of several parameters to judge ISOless performance (aka dynamic range). There's also color consistency in push situations, and this is where I found the weakness in the D7200. It's complicated, and you really have to approach it with an open mind. 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. 

[umad?]

1. 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!

 

2. 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.

 

3. 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.

 

1. Because it says Toshiba on the chip There are teardowns of the camera on the web that show, that it's a toshiba sensor. But it doesn't really matter who makes it, the sensor is great! 

 

2. The problem is, that the camerastore guys know nearly as little as Jon Snow does  

I like them for entertainment, but they aren't really very good with physics or comparison ^^

 

Thing is: as I said, in good light there won't be huge differences in noise performance. What we see there is the noise from the light itself and there is just no way around it.

The differences (in noise) due to the technology can be found in darker regions, when pushing files or at very high ISOs.

 

Many manufacturers have tried to fool customers into thinking, that the new sensor is a lot better. For example the A7R II need about 1/3 EV more light for the same brightness than the mk1 version.

Of course one could argue, that Fuji always used a different ISO standard, but the X-Pro2 at least gives the same brightness as the last gen (X-T10, X-E2...)

Olympus went a little bit further: the OMD EM10 mk2 seems to overstate the exposure time. That's very dangerous!

 

Fuji improved their jpg engine (and has a more powerful processor) and the resulting jpgs are a lot better, than the sensor itself.

 

 

Anyway, here is the DPReview comparison.  

Personally I think the X-Pro2 looks very good. Even better than the others. 

Download the RAWs and compare for yourself. Even when you remove the color noise from the D7200, the X-Pro2 (for me) has an advantage in noise, detail and color. The last point is very interesting: while in the ISOless comparison the D7200 looks much better, when you push the files (or just recover the shadows), I think the X-Pro2 is cleaner. Furthermore the D7200 introduces some color shift. 

 

 

 

This isn't to make the X-Pro2 the best camera or trash talk all others. The D7200 is a good DSLR and the price is awesome. The A7R II still has a better sensor than the X-Pro2. 

 

But it looks like we now have the best APS-C sensor on the market as well as the best APS-C lenses in terms of lens speed. 

[Formbox]

1. Because it says Toshiba on the chip

 

2. The problem is, that the camerastore guys know nearly as little as Jon Snow does

I like them for entertainment, but they aren't really very good with physics or comparison ^^

 

Thing is: as I said, in good light there won't be huge differences in noise performance. What we see there is the noise from the light itself and there is just no way around it.

The differences (in noise) due to the technology can be found in darker regions, when pushing files or at very high ISOs.

 

Fuji improved their jpg engine (and has a more powerful processor) and the resulting jpgs are a lot better, than the sensor itself.

 

But it looks like we now have the best APS-C sensor on the market as well as the best APS-C lenses in terms of lens speed. 

 

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.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Formbox

[danwells]

One advantage to the X-Pro 2 is that the Fujinons are the best quality lens system out there overall, with the possible exception of Leica. Yes, you can pick and choose Nikkors or Canons that are just as nice, but there are also a lot of duds, There are very nice Sony lenses as well at a more limited selection of focal lengths... The great thing about Fuji is that all the Fujinons are at least "very good", with many choices better than that, and more than a few in the world-class category. Add that to one of the two best control interfaces around (I'd say Olympus is the other), and you have an overall system that just works.

[Formbox]

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