Jump to content

I wish...

petergabriel
 Share

Recommended Posts

petergabriel Rising Star

petergabriel

Posted
Posted

... that Fujifilm had kept the resolution at 16mp on the xp2 and xt2.

With the new processor, the high iso performance would (i believe) be out of this world and the AF would probably be even faster than now. Right now the increased resolution has given high iso performance on par with x trans 2 (some state worse). I would much rather have kept the already fine resolution and perhaps/most likely have had one of the best high iso camera available to man.

 

This is purely speculation, but valid at that. What are your thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
kimcarsons Collaborator

kimcarsons

Posted
Posted (edited)

I agree. I was happy with the IQ and resolution of the X-Pro1. A 16MP X-Trans III sensor would have had better low light performance (perhaps 1/2 to 1 stop), less rolling shutter, faster burst rate, faster EVF, higher video frame rates, no crop in 4K video mode, etc. That extra 8MP really isn't doing anything for me. It's also annoying that there's no 16MP JPEG mode, (M is 12MP). 

Edited by kimcarsons
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
johant Mentor

johant

Posted
Posted

I posted the same thought in another thread. At the same time, it is extremely unlikely.

 

The market demands more pixels, and they depend on a third party for their sensors.

 

I was happy with 12mp. And I don't see why I would need to double that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick05 Collaborator

Nick05

Posted
Posted

I'm happy with the performance of the new 24MP sensor. I haven't had my X-T2 long enough to actually compare to the X-Pro2, but based on a few shots I had taken, not side by side so not a great comparison, the X-Pro2 looked cleaner at high ISO. I have already sold the X-T1, so I won't be able to compare them side by side. Overall, I really like the amount of detail the new sensor captures and think the noise is well controlled. I was initially disappointed to hear the 24MP resolution when announced. I didn't even want over 24MP in my old FF DSLR cameras. If they came out with a lower MP sensor, I'd be curious to test it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted (edited)

well Johan, the reason that many “ upgraded” was ... because “ New" and “ Improved" are the key words in advertising ever since this was invented. :ph34r:

 

Whether “ new” and “ improved “ is also better, remains to be seen. Ive have seen mediocre photographers making mediocre work with their old camera and keep lingering in mediocrity even after “ upgrading”. 

 

The new box contained the same old chops but was way more expensive and for some brought the need about to buy new computer and new software ( because some old software doesn’t recognize the new camera, you can go around that but some simply bought new software to go with the new camera. Why not? it is all New & Improved after all!)

 

This is the fool's merry-go-round of the fool’s mulberry bush, and of course, perfectly attuned with the idea that wealth is measured with how much you spend (gdp) not in how much you know or do with the things that you already have without the need to consume things that are above your needs or capabilities.

 

NewImproved_ecomm_1024x1024.jpg?v=140718

Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites
asathor Enthusiast

asathor

Posted
Posted

The greatest advantage of the 24Mp over the 16Mp is that the ~20% higher linear resolution allow you to crop more. For an improved 16MP to perform better in the real world should be 1-2 stops faster so it could be used with zooms that fill the frame at all times - and of course perfect zooms. Of course it is fun to imagine a 16Mp with 2 stops lower noise that most likely spank the D500 for a few month anyway - but wait Nikon would also have chosen that sensor. It does look to me like there the is an upcoming speed-bump on the road to higher resolution - but since marketing departments does not understand anything but large numbers - they fix that with processing (brilliantly engineered, patented, mystical, galactic and of course New and Improved processing).

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...