Jump to content

Will Fujifilm Be Seduced By the "Dark" side?


Aswald

Recommended Posts

The α7s isn't actually any better at high ISO than any of the other Sony α7 cameras. It looks better at a pixel level because it has a lower resolution, but if you take those higher-resolution Sony cameras and simply scale their files down to the same 12mp file the α7s makes, you get the same results. Video is slightly different because it's not captured then scaled in quite the same way, so the α7s does produce slightly nicer results then. Tony Northrup reaffirmed all this seven months ago, when he was making those videos.  ;)

Of course, now there's the α7rII...

In any case, Fuji's sensors are already manufactured by Sony. (As are Nikon's.) The only practical difference between the sensors Sony makes for Fuji and the sensors used by Sony themselves (and Nikon) is the Fuji sensors are APS-C and Sony uses 35mm. If you take a Sony α7r or Nikon D800 and crop in, you get the same image as you'd get from an uncropped Fuji; their 36mp 35mm sensors and the Fuji 16mp APS-C sensor have virtually the same pixel pitch. With Fuji, you're already getting the same high-ISO performance as you get on those Sony cameras. The only difference is the Sonys give you a larger frame, so you have more to work with; at ISO 6400 and above, a 36mp photo scaled down to 10mp is going to look cleaner than a 16mp photo scaled in the same way. This is how the higher-resolution α7 cameras actually match the α7s in low-light performance, once you take the final image size into account.

Once people learn to think about how the final image looks and not how the captured image looks, you'll find there is much less excitement about every new sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. That makes perfect sense. :)

 

"Once people learn to think about how the final image looks and not how the captured image looks, you'll find there is much less excitement about every new sensor". This is very true...

 

I guess, with every advancement a sensor leading like SONY makes, it makes things a little all more exciting. No doubt it's technology will eventually trickle to other companies and a good as Fujifilm's high ISO performance is, it's always a wonder if it can be better with that extra 5% improvement. Especially for me or anyone here who are also waiting for the X-Pro2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.....dark side as in high ISO that is.... ;)

 

All the rumors about the X-Pro2 using a Sony sensor has suddenly begin to sound very enticing!

 

http://petapixel.com/2015/07/04/this-is-how-good-the-sony-a7s-is-with-low-light-and-high-iso/

 

Interesting that the Canon 1Dx was not included in that test - because I'm seeing nothing there that challenged the 1Dx. I know because I like to shoot hand held in the dark - and the 1Dx is the only camera that has come close ot getting me to part with such ridiculous sums of money to get one. In the end I sold all my Canon kit and settled with the X-Pro 1 which handled low light just as well.

 

I would still love to have an option to hand hold and shoot with a high ISO (204k is high for me) - but I'm also accepting that in truth - it is the software used to interpret the data from the sensor that gives the higher IOS settings, not the sensors themselves.

 

My X 100T more than covers my needs for now. I'm not prepared (or able) to commit myself to the myth that may be the X-Pro 2 or X-T2, and the mythical price tags that they will come with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. That makes perfect sense. :)

 

"Once people learn to think about how the final image looks and not how the captured image looks, you'll find there is much less excitement about every new sensor". This is very true...

 

I guess, with every advancement a sensor leading like SONY makes, it makes things a little all more exciting. No doubt it's technology will eventually trickle to other companies and a good as Fujifilm's high ISO performance is, it's always a wonder if it can be better with that extra 5% improvement. Especially for me or anyone here who are also waiting for the X-Pro2.

 

I'm perfectly happy with the high ISO performance of the current Fujis, but I just wish they could shoot at higher native ISOs (even one stop). It seems true that the Fuji's seem to meter about a third or have of a stop darker than other cameras (i.e. what an A6000 sees as ISO 5000 the X-T1 might see as 6400). I'm fine with that because I like the look of Fuji's higher ISOs, but I just wish I could take it farther to shoot RAW in darker situations.

 

Having said all that, of course I wouldn't complain if the newer batch of Fujis are cleaner at high ISOs. :)

 

I don't know how many people would agree with me, but I'd love to see Fuji split their sensors two ways. I'm all for 24MP on the next batch of bodies - I think it's the sweet spot between manageability and detail. But what I'd really like to see is them come out with an 8MP body and make it a low light beast. Personally, I'd like that to be the X-Pro line (so the X-T series is the studio camera and the X-Pro is the reportage camera), but a lot of people want the X-Pro to basically be X-T performance in a rangefinder body, so I'd settle for the X-E or X100 series. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the Canon 1Dx was not included in that test - because I'm seeing nothing there that challenged the 1Dx. I know because I like to shoot hand held in the dark - and the 1Dx is the only camera that has come close ot getting me to part with such ridiculous sums of money to get one.

I have a 1D X and I shoot almost exclusively in low light. Frankly, Fuji's low light performance is better when you provide the sensor with enough light and the NIkon and Sony cameras I've used have completely blown away the 1D X. If I wasn't so used to the Canon form factor and if I didn't have so much invested in Canon glass, I probably would have a Nikon D4 instead. Since picking up the Fujis, I now only use the 1D X in low light if I also need the speed, and I do so knowing I'm giving up a little image quality.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 1D X is good in low light, but it's not on the level of the Sony and NIkon, or the Fuji if you compensate for the smaller sensor.

 

 

It seems true that the Fuji's seem to meter about a third or have of a stop darker than other cameras (i.e. what an A6000 sees as ISO 5000 the X-T1 might see as 6400).

That's how Fuji fudges their dynamic range. ISO 200 is actually ISO 140, and the camera automatically pushes the shadows up. This is why ISO below 200 is not available when shooting raw. So yes, Fuji cameras will always meter darker than other brands and if you use a light meter you need to either remember that and compensate for it or you need to buy a digital light meter with profile support so you can set it up to meter specifically for the Fuji sensitivity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the Canon 1Dx was not included in that test - because I'm seeing nothing there that challenged the 1Dx. I know because I like to shoot hand held in the dark - and the 1Dx is the only camera that has come close ot getting me to part with such ridiculous sums of money to get one. In the end I sold all my Canon kit and settled with the X-Pro 1 which handled low light just as well.

 

I would still love to have an option to hand hold and shoot with a high ISO (204k is high for me) - but I'm also accepting that in truth - it is the software used to interpret the data from the sensor that gives the higher IOS settings, not the sensors themselves.

 

My X 100T more than covers my needs for now. I'm not prepared (or able) to commit myself to the myth that may be the X-Pro 2 or X-T2, and the mythical price tags that they will come with.

 

I absolute love the X100T!

 

Yes, about the only thing I dislike about the X-Pro series is the price! However, looking at the A7Rii price, it does ease the pain a bit.

 

For people who already have the X-Pro1 and lenses but don't need the speed of the X-T1, it makes sense to consider the X-Pro2. I haven't had much success in Fujifilm raw files but have good experiences with their jpegs. It will be a great addition if the X-Pro2 can shoot slightly higher which also makes the jpegs files come with less noise cancelling artifacts. It'll be really good for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many people would agree with me, but I'd love to see Fuji split their sensors two ways. I'm all for 24MP on the next batch of bodies - I think it's the sweet spot between manageability and detail. But what I'd really like to see is them come out with an 8MP body and make it a low light beast. Personally, I'd like that to be the X-Pro line (so the X-T series is the studio camera and the X-Pro is the reportage camera), but a lot of people want the X-Pro to basically be X-T performance in a rangefinder body, so I'd settle for the X-E or X100 series. 

 

That's definitely a very interesting proposition. Something like the fantastic A7s?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I welcome the change. I'd be more than happy if the x-pro 2 was just the x-pro 1 with faster AF, better evf and a next gen traditional Bayer sensor that played nice with lightroom.

 

I get very frustrated with statements like this. Many of us are getting absolutely fantastic image quality from LR or ACR with Xtrans sensors. Have you tried the latest version of either one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about color? This is what I love about Fuji. Will the new Sony chip continue to utilize the color array?

 

I think so. Fujifilm will still manufacture their own color filters. Hopefully the SONY sensor will see an increase in DR. +15 ev? Imagine..... :wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get very frustrated with statements like this. Many of us are getting absolutely fantastic image quality from LR or ACR with Xtrans sensors. Have you tried the latest version of either one?

I get frustrated that I can't photograph much decent around where I live (which happens to be lists of green grasses, foliage, etc.) without getting the worst results of any sensor I've ever owned because they turn into mushy, painterly, plastic looking crud when I open the files in Lightroom. And yes, I own CC and it's the latest version. Yes, I own Iridient, and it's miles better, but still not as good in this respect as even my little old NEX-6.

 

I'm actually abandoning Fuji right now over this. I love my X-T1 ergonomics, the lenses and its looks too, but if it can't deliver picture quality when it's needed, it's got to go. I'll look at it very seriously again if Fuji move to a standard sensor, or Adobe ever sort out the processing.

 

Where the Fuji shines, and I believe many people who don't have a problem with it are shooting a lot of this stuff, is portraits, urban, and seascape work - i.e., where there isn't a lot of this repeating fine pattern in scenes. I have gorgeous pictures from Nice while I was there, but I can't justify a camera for use only when I'm in the right environment, sadly it has to work everywhere.

 

So, I for one fully support adoption of all the wonderful ergonomics and lenses paired to a new generation Bayer, BSI or whatever sensor. IMHO X-Trans causes more problems than it solves, especially when you compensate for Fuji cheating ISO figures and suspect that they're applying quite heavy noise reduction even in RAW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get frustrated that I can't photograph much decent around where I live (which happens to be lists of green grasses, foliage, etc.) without getting the worst results of any sensor I've ever owned because they turn into mushy, painterly, plastic looking crud when I open the files in Lightroom. And yes, I own CC and it's the latest version. Yes, I own Iridient, and it's miles better, but still not as good in this respect as even my little old NEX-6.

 

I'm actually abandoning Fuji right now over this. I love my X-T1 ergonomics, the lenses and its looks too, but if it can't deliver picture quality when it's needed, it's got to go. I'll look at it very seriously again if Fuji move to a standard sensor, or Adobe ever sort out the processing.

 

Where the Fuji shines, and I believe many people who don't have a problem with it are shooting a lot of this stuff, is portraits, urban, and seascape work - i.e., where there isn't a lot of this repeating fine pattern in scenes. I have gorgeous pictures from Nice while I was there, but I can't justify a camera for use only when I'm in the right environment, sadly it has to work everywhere.

 

So, I for one fully support adoption of all the wonderful ergonomics and lenses paired to a new generation Bayer, BSI or whatever sensor. IMHO X-Trans causes more problems than it solves, especially when you compensate for Fuji cheating ISO figures and suspect that they're applying quite heavy noise reduction even in RAW.

 

Interesting.....and quite sorry to hear that......I don't do much landscape but those which I have done, I blamed the poor result on my lack of experience and the XF18 F2 lens.

 

Any landscape photographers care to comment? I was waiting for the XF16 F1.4R before I drew any conclusions........Fujifilm UK posted this blog review. The landscape looks pretty decent here. Lightroom was quoted.

 

http://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/07/23/x-t1-or-x-t10/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.....and quite sorry to hear that......I don't do much landscape but those which I have done, I blamed the poor result on my lack of experience and the XF18 F2 lens.

 

Any landscape photographers care to comment? I was waiting for the XF16 F1.4R before I drew any conclusions........Fujifilm UK posted this blog review. The landscape looks pretty decent here. Lightroom was quoted.

 

http://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/07/23/x-t1-or-x-t10/

 

I'm at least partially a landscape shooter; I take a lot of family and travel photos, too, but my favorite things to photograph are scenics: desert, mountains, big old trees, etc. I enjoy making up to 13x19 prints on my Epson R2880, not very large by today's standards, but just right for me. I've just been looking at a lot of photos from raw files, from my days of using Canon gear with top-quality L-glass, and using the latest ACR version to re-process them. It's very instructive to compare the results with my Fuji gear, currently just the X100T and the X-T1 with the 18-135 lens (I sold my X-E2 plus 14, 27, 18-55, and 55-200 lenses to arrive at this combination that suits me perfectly). While the Canon photos are very nice, the combination of the modern X-Trans sensor and Fuji's lenses as processed in ACR + PS, just blows them away in every area I can think of. I believe that anyone who disparages the X-Trans sensor's results just hasn't made the effort to learn how to process its raw files properly. It's really not very difficult; I highly recommend taking a look at Ming Thein's video "Photoshop Workflow II". He even has a separate section on processing Fuji files. It's well worth the time to learn from this master photographer and teacher:

 

http://mingtheinstore.outthink.us/home/25-a2-photoshop-workflow-2.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get frustrated that I can't photograph much decent around where I live (which happens to be lists of green grasses, foliage, etc.) without getting the worst results of any sensor I've ever owned because they turn into mushy, painterly, plastic looking crud when I open the files in Lightroom. And yes, I own CC and it's the latest version. Yes, I own Iridient, and it's miles better, but still not as good in this respect as even my little old NEX-6.

 

I'm actually abandoning Fuji right now over this. I love my X-T1 ergonomics, the lenses and its looks too, but if it can't deliver picture quality when it's needed, it's got to go. I'll look at it very seriously again if Fuji move to a standard sensor, or Adobe ever sort out the processing.

 

Where the Fuji shines, and I believe many people who don't have a problem with it are shooting a lot of this stuff, is portraits, urban, and seascape work - i.e., where there isn't a lot of this repeating fine pattern in scenes. I have gorgeous pictures from Nice while I was there, but I can't justify a camera for use only when I'm in the right environment, sadly it has to work everywhere.

 

So, I for one fully support adoption of all the wonderful ergonomics and lenses paired to a new generation Bayer, BSI or whatever sensor. IMHO X-Trans causes more problems than it solves, especially when you compensate for Fuji cheating ISO figures and suspect that they're applying quite heavy noise reduction even in RAW.

 

Interesting.....and quite sorry to hear that......I don't do much landscape but those which I have done, I blamed the poor result on my lack of experience and the XF18 F2 lens.

 

Any landscape photographers care to comment? I was waiting for the XF16 F1.4R before I drew any conclusions........Fujifilm UK posted this blog review. The landscape looks pretty decent here. Lightroom was quoted.

 

http://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/07/23/x-t1-or-x-t10/

 

I'm at least partially a landscape shooter; I take a lot of family and travel photos, too, but my favorite things to photograph are scenics: desert, mountains, big old trees, etc. I enjoy making up to 13x19 prints on my Epson R2880, not very large by today's standards, but just right for me. I've just been looking at a lot of photos from raw files, from my days of using Canon gear with top-quality L-glass, and using the latest ACR version to re-process them. It's very instructive to compare the results with my Fuji gear, currently just the X100T and the X-T1 with the 18-135 lens (I sold my X-E2 plus 14, 27, 18-55, and 55-200 lenses to arrive at this combination that suits me perfectly). While the Canon photos are very nice, the combination of the modern X-Trans sensor and Fuji's lenses as processed in ACR + PS, just blows them away in every area I can think of. I believe that anyone who disparages the X-Trans sensor's results just hasn't made the effort to learn how to process its raw files properly. It's really not very difficult; I highly recommend taking a look at Ming Thein's video "Photoshop Workflow II". He even has a separate section on processing Fuji files. It's well worth the time to learn from this master photographer and teacher:

 

http://mingtheinstore.outthink.us/home/25-a2-photoshop-workflow-2.html

 

Ektachrome,

 

I have often felt the same way as you. I have fallen under the influence of GAS and bought and sold many digital systems ranging from point and shoot to medium format. I have finally settled on the Sony A7ii (until the A7Rii comes out of course) and a Fuji X-T1 + Fuji X-100T. I cannot bring myself to part with either one. On the ergonomics side, I find the Sony is good but the X-T1 is a sheer joy to use. For me, it is by far the most intuititve and just plain pleasant camera to use since I parted with my 30 year old Canon F1. If all else were equal, I would shoot Fuji only. But all is not equal. I am sure the X-Trans sensor has a lot to do with the superb quality of the Fuji files. The colour rendering both JPEG and RAW is exceptional and I think Fuji's heritage is the reason. The problem is with high frequency (density?) detail. For many people including respected famous professionals it is unnoticeable. For me the smearing in the greens (foliage, grass, etc.) is noticeable and the "fractal-like" rendering of concrete, pottery, walls etc. is somewhat disturbing. Sony simply does not have those problems and the colour is very good indeed. The extra 8MP of the full frame sensor also do make a difference when down ressing and cropping. So, like you, I hope Fuji does eventually go Bayer.

 

Aswald

 

As I said above and as Ektachrome points out it depends on what is in the landscape. Anything with fine both repeating and random patterns will likely get the fractal treatment (as Lloyd Chambers shows - just Google "diglloyd fractal fuji") and if it is green it will get the smearing treatment. But it may not bother you. In all other respects the images are superb.

 

dickbarbour

 

Since you are so concerned about image quality do you really find that the 18-135 can replace the other lenses? Is it that good?

 

Cheers

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at least partially a landscape shooter; I take a lot of family and travel photos, too, but my favorite things to photograph are scenics: desert, mountains, big old trees, etc. I enjoy making up to 13x19 prints on my Epson R2880, not very large by today's standards, but just right for me. I've just been looking at a lot of photos from raw files, from my days of using Canon gear with top-quality L-glass, and using the latest ACR version to re-process them. It's very instructive to compare the results with my Fuji gear, currently just the X100T and the X-T1 with the 18-135 lens (I sold my X-E2 plus 14, 27, 18-55, and 55-200 lenses to arrive at this combination that suits me perfectly). While the Canon photos are very nice, the combination of the modern X-Trans sensor and Fuji's lenses as processed in ACR + PS, just blows them away in every area I can think of. I believe that anyone who disparages the X-Trans sensor's results just hasn't made the effort to learn how to process its raw files properly. It's really not very difficult; I highly recommend taking a look at Ming Thein's video "Photoshop Workflow II". He even has a separate section on processing Fuji files. It's well worth the time to learn from this master photographer and teacher:

 

http://mingtheinstore.outthink.us/home/25-a2-photoshop-workflow-2.html

 

I'm learning! And thanks for the link..... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ektachrome,

 

I have often felt the same way as you. I have fallen under the influence of GAS and bought and sold many digital systems ranging from point and shoot to medium format. I have finally settled on the Sony A7ii (until the A7Rii comes out of course) and a Fuji X-T1 + Fuji X-100T. I cannot bring myself to part with either one. On the ergonomics side, I find the Sony is good but the X-T1 is a sheer joy to use. For me, it is by far the most intuititve and just plain pleasant camera to use since I parted with my 30 year old Canon F1. If all else were equal, I would shoot Fuji only. But all is not equal. I am sure the X-Trans sensor has a lot to do with the superb quality of the Fuji files. The colour rendering both JPEG and RAW is exceptional and I think Fuji's heritage is the reason. The problem is with high frequency (density?) detail. For many people including respected famous professionals it is unnoticeable. For me the smearing in the greens (foliage, grass, etc.) is noticeable and the "fractal-like" rendering of concrete, pottery, walls etc. is somewhat disturbing. Sony simply does not have those problems and the colour is very good indeed. The extra 8MP of the full frame sensor also do make a difference when down ressing and cropping. So, like you, I hope Fuji does eventually go Bayer.

 

Aswald

 

As I said above and as Ektachrome points out it depends on what is in the landscape. Anything with fine both repeating and random patterns will likely get the fractal treatment (as Lloyd Chambers shows - just Google "diglloyd fractal fuji") and if it is green it will get the smearing treatment. But it may not bother you. In all other respects the images are superb.

 

dickbarbour

 

Since you are so concerned about image quality do you really find that the 18-135 can replace the other lenses? Is it that good?

 

Cheers

Jon

 

Sony + Fuji.....looks like you've got the best of both worlds!

 

For me I'm hoping that the X-Pro2 will be the "bridge" camera between Sony and Fujifilm. It is looking rather promising.

 

I guess I'm lucky as I haven't come onto any fractal problems in any of my photos so far. I use Adobe PS CS6 without issues.

 

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, I take travel landscape with the EOS M. It's light and produces decent enough images for me. I'll be the first to concede that I'm NO landscape photographer.

 

Here's an example. I loved the gloomy day.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...