Jump to content

JPG softer on X-T1 than X100S

rogerjeffs

By rogerjeffs
in Fuji X-T1 / Fuji X-T10

 Share

Recommended Posts

rogerjeffs Newbie

rogerjeffs

Posted
Posted

About a year ago I sold all my Canon gear and bought an X100S. I started off shooting in both RAW and JPG, as was my custom with my Canon. I quickly discovered that the JPGs looked as good or better than the raw files, at least when viewed in Lightroom, so I turned to shooting in JPG exclusively. I never changed any of the JPG settings.

Now I have acquired an X-T1 with a 18-55mm and a 14mm. I plan to use both cameras but for different situations. I started off shooting just JPG on the X-T1, as was my new habit , but I found that the images didn't seem as sharp as the ones I am getting from the X100S. I then reverted to shooting both RAW and JPG, and it seems to me that the JPGs look a bit soft (less detailed and less sharp)  compared to the unedited RAW images, and softer than the JPGs that come straight out of the X100S (same film simulation on both cameras). I am using the default JPG settings on the X-T1. I want the image quality on the X-T1 to be nigh identical to the X100S, which I really like. Is there a difference in the way the two cameras convert to JPG, should I be using other settings, or does this sound like there could be something wrong with my X-T1? Does anyone have any similar experience?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
rogerjeffs Newbie

rogerjeffs

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think I may have identified the cause myself in the process of trying to find or make comparative exposures as suggested by x-tc. I think there were 2 things happening:

1. When I compared RAW vs JPG from the X100S, i had an earlier version of Lightroom, and I think maybe it wasn't doing the RAW-files justice. The CC version of Lightroom is vastly superior at rendering RAW files from the X-trans sensor, so now I am seeing better resolution.

2. Most of the images from the X-T1 that I have taken so far have been i low light with high ISO. On careful examination, I think that the softening I was seeing is probably due to noise reduction in Fuji's converter. In the RAW files (default import to Lightroom) there is more noise than in the JPG files. If I reduce the noise in the RAW files to the same level as the JPG I seem to end up with pretty well the same result, though the Fuji noise reduction is marginally nicer, its got that Fuji touch. This is what made me sold on Fuji's system. It's difficult to define what is so good about the quality Fuji's X-trans images, there is something 3-dimensional and tactile about them, even when I get the shot wrong.

 

Sorry if I wasted other people's time on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...