vovkinson wrote:
Stuart,
was it worth switching from 5DII image quality wise?
So far I'm rather impressed with the performance and quality of the x-trans sensor in the X-E1. Without having a low-pass/anti-aliasing filter, the sensor produces sharp, clear and detailed images that rival those taken with the 21MP full-frame sensor of the 5D Mk II. Frankly, the x-trans sensor output feels more like film to me.
Stuart wrote:
So far I'm rather impressed with the performance and quality of the x-trans sensor in the X-E1. Without having a low-pass/anti-aliasing filter, the sensor produces sharp, clear and detailed images that rival those taken with the 21MP full-frame sensor of the 5D Mk II. Frankly, the x-trans sensor output feels more like film to me.
+1. I owned the 5DmkII before the X-Pro1 and I'm much happier with the X-Trans output.
Honestly, the focus is just as good and the ISO performance is so much better than the 5DmkIl. It's hard to believe considering a 1.5x sensor beats out a full frame sensor in almost every way, but X-Trans marks a huge leap forward in sensor design though it's not perfect, it's incredibly innovative.
Welcome Stuart.
I'm also an X-E1 user. My 5DII won't be sold though.
I don't agree with Brody about the focus. The AF of the 5DII isn't fantastic, but it still destroys Fuji IMHO. Shooting an event with the Canon is so much easier and I never had problems with it.
That being said I really like Fuji. The colors are so nice, better dynamic range, better ISO performance,... and it's small/light!
I hardly ever regret leaving my 5DII at home now.
Jochenb wrote:
Welcome Stuart.
I'm also an X-E1 user. My 5DII won't be sold though.
I don't agree with Brody about the focus. The AF of the 5DII isn't fantastic, but it still destroys Fuji IMHO. Shooting an event with the Canon is so much easier and I never had problems with it.
That being said I really like Fuji. The colors are so nice, better dynamic range, better ISO performance,... and it's small/light!
I hardly ever regret leaving my 5DII at home now.
+1
The AF on my 5Dm2 destroys the AF on my X-E1. It's not even close.
Look, I use my 5Dmk2 for professional photojournalism-- which purely AF alone on the X-E1 basically rules out using the Fuji for that capacity in any kind of stand-alone way.
Also, I still think image quality goes to the 5D2. The canon produces wildly good results, day in and day out.
Yeah, high ISO might go to the Fuji, but I'm not entirely sure yet. Fuji totally overstates ISO sensitivity. Its 3200 is less sensitive than 3200 from other cameras.
Auto WB goes to Fuji. But natural color reproduction goes to my 5D2. Fuji has nice colors, but they're definitely not neutral.
I'm not so sure about DR, though my gut tells me the 5D2 wins. That might be because I'm still shooting jpg on the Fuji...
The resolution difference does make a difference.
In other words: No way am I getting rid of my 5D2. I love the Fuji too, but it's a different, more quirky, smaller, fun tool. Easy to carry all day. Great low light. Sharp files.
The day I can ditch my DSLR and get the same performance/IQ from something Fuji X-E1 sized-- without losing the versatility-- will be the day my DSLR goes bye-bye. Until then... nope.
Welcome to the forum and congrats to your new camera!
It would be interesting to here more impressions of the X-E1 alone, or in comparison to 5dII.
And post some more photos please.
justruss wrote:
But natural color reproduction goes to my 5D2.
I don't know the Fuji, so technically you might be right, but "natural colour" and "5DII" are not words I normally expect to find in the same sentence. The 5DII does nice skin most of the time, but the colours are not very natural. Especially the red is not natural at all, and often not red at all either.
carstenw wrote:
I don't know the Fuji, so technically you might be right, but "natural colour" and "5DII" are not words I normally expect to find in the same sentence. The 5DII does nice skin most of the time, but the colours are not very natural. Especially the red is not natural at all, and often not red at all either.
I have been coming to the conclusion that looking at a 2 dimensional photo on a small surface (Print or display/ screen) is totally different from seeing a scene in 3d in real life. It is mostly looking at a memory of reality. Memories however are nothing scientific, but much more emotional.
The ideal of mathematically correct colours does not seem very interesting, what is - at least to me - more important is that colors are credible, photogenic and transport emotion.
To me, some brands do that very well, in order: 1. Fuji, then Sony or Canon.
Just by the way, concerning the reds, if you remember our little red billboard test of last summer, both cameras (5dII and d800) struggled with fire red, in a slightly different way, but yet....
Stuart wrote:
So far I'm rather impressed with the performance and quality of the x-trans sensor in the X-E1. Without having a low-pass/anti-aliasing filter, the sensor produces sharp, clear and detailed images that rival those taken with the 21MP full-frame sensor of the 5D Mk II. Frankly, the x-trans sensor output feels more like film to me.
It's very popular to say that some camera produces film like look, but in my experience, *none* of it is true. Film has a very analogue look that cannot be replicated by digital. It's not about resolution and so these higher resolution cameras are NOT getting close to a film like look, no matter how much people want to believe it is true. I wonder if those who make this claim ever even shot film, or have evaluated film images next to digital. The difference is clear as day.
I've shot thousands of rolls of film and can spot the difference with almost unerring accuracy.
alba63 wrote:
Just by the way, concerning the reds, if you remember our little red billboard test of last summer, both cameras (5dII and d800) struggled with fire red, in a slightly different way, but yet...
That's right, but the comment was about Canon colours being natural. Personally I think that Canon makes their colours look a certain way, on purpose, but natural is not what they aim for. I think Canon biases very heavily in the direction of pleasing skin tones, even if their colours aren't my taste.
Stuart wrote:
So far I'm rather impressed with the performance and quality of the x-trans sensor in the X-E1. Without having a low-pass/anti-aliasing filter, the sensor produces sharp, clear and detailed images that rival those taken with the 21MP full-frame sensor of the 5D Mk II.
I have no experience with the X-Pro1, and intend to keep it that way just because it has no anti-alias filter.
mortyb wrote:
But how do you notice artifacts from an AA-less camera in your output?
Vegetation that looks like a crunchy mess is an example. The knowledge that aliasing is irreducible and occurs in any image with high-frequency contents (sharp edges in the scene combined with high-quality optics at their best apertures) is more important to me than the question whether it is easily recognized.
