Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              7      
8
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Fuji X trans or NEX

  
 
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #1 · p.8 #1 · Fuji X trans or NEX


snapsy wrote:
Here's a comparison I did with the D7100. Based on the results I put the Fuji on par with the 16MP APS-C sensor from Sony and behind the 24MP APS-C Toshiba sensor on the D7100, normalized for ISO/noise/detail.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1223542/0


the d7100 definitely looks better in your test. i can never get my actual low light shots to look anything like studio high iso shots though, so i'm never sure how applicable they are.




Sep 10, 2013 at 03:16 PM
snapsy
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #2 · p.8 #2 · Fuji X trans or NEX


sebboh wrote:
the d7100 definitely looks better in your test. i can never get my actual low light shots to look anything like studio high iso shots though, so i'm never sure how applicable they are.

You can look at the shadow portions of the images to see how low-light shots might look (ie, scenes dominated by the lower end of the tonal scale). Or you can look at the midtones of one of the higher ISO images and that is what your low-light image would look at a lower nominal ISO (ie, look at ISO 6400 to see what your ISO 3200 images would look like). Also I used incandescent lighting so they're indicative of real-world lighting temperatures for low-light scenes.



Sep 10, 2013 at 03:59 PM
Emacs
Offline
• •
[X]
p.8 #3 · p.8 #3 · Fuji X trans or NEX


sebboh wrote:
my noisy images always look either super grainy or super smeared, i can't seem to find a happy middle ground.

The recipe is quite simple: сhrominance NR in RAW processor (IMO C1 does the best job in this field with minimal luminance noise, i.e. grain and best color signature preservation) and then apply NR in some standalone NR software, I prefer Topaz Denoize for this task. In most cases this long procedure helps to surpass everything Fuji can do in camera. It won't be as effective with Fuji's XTrans output due to the reasons I described somewhere above.



Sep 10, 2013 at 05:25 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #4 · p.8 #4 · Fuji X trans or NEX


douglasf13 wrote:
Jpegs have similar smearing issues as LR/ACR does. I haven't used Iridient, so I'm not sure.


I just ran my old X-Pro1 "torture test" foliage RAW file through the most recent version of Iridient Developer (2.2) and I much prefer the rendering to ACR, which is even now still sub par (smeared detail and watercolor effect). Except for some false color here and there, Iridient Developer does a pretty good job with Fuji Xtrans files.

Full image:
http://www.gibranstudio.com/XtranRD22Full.jpg

100% crops, Iridient Developer on left, ACR/ Lightroom on right. Both at default settings.
http://www.gibranstudio.com/XtranRD22.jpg
http://gibranstudio.com/XtranACRRD.jpg



Sep 10, 2013 at 05:27 PM
sflxn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #5 · p.8 #5 · Fuji X trans or NEX


Tariq, there is something very geometric about the foliage in the Iridient version. Looks like aliasing. I'm sorry, Fuji X fans, I will never, ever touch xtrans after seeing this over and over again. Raw workflow takes long enough, who wants to find out they have to go back and massage their images? I don't like beating up on xtrans in forums since I've never owned one, but every time someone post an example of the geometric aliasing that occurs from xtrans demosaicing, I am filled with disgust that Fuji would put something like this out on the marketplace.

UPDATE: Ignore what I said. I first read the Iridient was on the right. After getting over my disgust, I looked again, and the LR version is the one on the right.



Sep 10, 2013 at 05:32 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #6 · p.8 #6 · Fuji X trans or NEX


sflxn wrote:
UPDATE: Ignore what I said. I first read the Iridient was on the right. After getting over my disgust, I looked again, and the LR version is the one on the right.


Yeah, I quickly changed the mistake. It's still not perfect but so much better than what it once was.



Sep 10, 2013 at 05:40 PM
mco_970
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #7 · p.8 #7 · Fuji X trans or NEX


Tariq - that's a big improvement. Is Iridient MAC only? Any similar products for PC?


Sep 10, 2013 at 05:41 PM
Jochenb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #8 · p.8 #8 · Fuji X trans or NEX


Iridient developer oversharpens at default settings IMHO (I even turn it off completely most of the time), but like I said in my previous message: I also think it offers the best detail.



Sep 10, 2013 at 05:48 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #9 · p.8 #9 · Fuji X trans or NEX


mco_970 wrote:
Tariq - that's a big improvement. Is Iridient MAC only? Any similar products for PC?


Iridient Developer is MAC only. Seems like there is something folks like to use on the PC but I'm not sure what it is.



Sep 10, 2013 at 05:49 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #10 · p.8 #10 · Fuji X trans or NEX


Emacs wrote:
The recipe is quite simple: сhrominance NR in RAW processor (IMO C1 does the best job in this field with minimal luminance noise, i.e. grain and best color signature preservation) and then apply NR in some standalone NR software, I prefer Topaz Denoize for this task. In most cases this long procedure helps to surpass everything Fuji can do in camera. It won't be as effective with Fuji's XTrans output due to the reasons I described somewhere above.


ah, i'm generally apposed to firing up another whole program. maybe i'll try that if there is some image i absolutely have to save.




Sep 10, 2013 at 06:00 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #11 · p.8 #11 · Fuji X trans or NEX


Iridient certainly looks better than LR. It has some of that weird, purple/green CA looking stuff that Aperture has, and it still kind of looks weird to me, but a step in the right direction, it seems.


Sep 10, 2013 at 06:04 PM
glacierpete
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #12 · p.8 #12 · Fuji X trans or NEX


carstenw wrote:
I think there is another thing to consider here, and that is the concept of "system". If you like everything else better in the Fuji system, but the sensor better on the NEX, then buy the Fuji, because the next camera will have Bayer again, IMO. The M1 already has it, and I think the whole stink about it will force Fuji to reconsider.


Carsten, Fuji will not go back to Bayer. The M1 is a starter camera. This crowd will not invest time and money in complicated raw developers. Fuji already published the specs of their new organic sensor they are developing together with Panasonic. 60 degr. range of incident light sounds good for range finder lenses.
http://petapixel.com/2013/06/11/fuji-and-panasonics-new-organic-sensor-boasts-insane-14-6-stops-dynamic-range/

As I posted before I do not have any sharpness problems with the xe-1 sensor. i get better results from the xe-1 compared to my Nex5n (same lens) with c1v7. Not quite as good as the DP2M in terms of detail.
Tariqs old X-Pro1 "torture test" foliage RAW file clearly shows it is a raw processor and not x-trans sensor problem.
I hope we will see the x-trans support for PhotoNinja soon. PhotoNinja is my benchmark raw developer for ultimate detail. I do know they are working on it.

It might help if posters really unsatisfied with the Fuji also mention when they converted a file the last time and what raw developer they used. A lot happend with these developers over the last month.



Sep 10, 2013 at 11:42 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #13 · p.8 #13 · Fuji X trans or NEX


I've been unsatisfied using X-trans in the last month or two (finally sold X100s last week,) and I compared results from jpegs, RPP, Accuraw, C1, LR and Aperture. I haven't used the most recent Iridient Developer that stopped using the Apple demoisacing process, but, from what I've seen so far, it still not sure it's enough.

Ultimately, X-trans is still a trade off between the watercolor/smearing that we see from the likes of LR (and C1 to a lesser extent) versus the DCRAW based converters that exhibit other artifacts like zippering. TheSuede has explained several times about the inherent trade offs of the X-Trans design, as well as what it would take in a raw converter to improve the results, which we really haven't seen, yet, because the solution seems to require a lot of development and would be computationally heavy. He has mentioned that, even if the X-trans raw conversion is perfect, it still can only reach 50% of the chroma resolution of Bayer at low ISO.

For me, changing my raw converter is as much as a disruption to my workflow as changing cameras, paper, etc., so I prefer not to be on the raw converter merry go round any more, when regular Bayer sensors do a fine job for me, but YMMV. No big deal. A lot of shooters seem to really seem to love the output of X-trans.



Sep 11, 2013 at 12:10 AM
Emacs
Offline
• •
[X]
p.8 #14 · p.8 #14 · Fuji X trans or NEX


glacierpete wrote:
Carsten, Fuji will not go back to Bayer. The M1 is a starter camera. This crowd will not invest time and money in complicated raw developers. Fuji already published the specs of their new organic sensor they are developing together with Panasonic. 60 degr. range of incident light sounds good for range finder lenses.
http://petapixel.com/2013/06/11/fuji-and-panasonics-new-organic-sensor-boasts-insane-14-6-stops-dynamic-range/

As I posted before I do not have any sharpness problems with the xe-1 sensor. i get better results from the xe-1 compared to my Nex5n (same lens) with c1v7. Not quite as good as the DP2M in terms of detail.
Tariqs old X-Pro1 "torture test" foliage RAW
...Show more
He meant XA-1 for sure. It's based on bayer. Return back to bayer would be rhe smartest move from Fuji after all this BS



Sep 11, 2013 at 01:05 AM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #15 · p.8 #15 · Fuji X trans or NEX


glacierpete wrote:
Carsten, Fuji will not go back to Bayer.


I think they will. Either that, or they will fix the issue some other way. I don't see them leaving the status quo.



Sep 11, 2013 at 03:47 AM
Jochenb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #16 · p.8 #16 · Fuji X trans or NEX


I think the x-trans sensor has strong points, like the tonality/colors. It doesn't come from the lenses, because I never really liked the results from the X100. Same lens on the X100s with x-trans sensor and everything changes. That smoothness of the tones. This also translates to exceptionally nice B&W conversions. It's not all about detail you know. (edit: at least for me, I know it is for many people.)


Sep 11, 2013 at 04:01 AM
Emacs
Offline
• •
[X]
p.8 #17 · p.8 #17 · Fuji X trans or NEX


Jochenb wrote:
I think the x-trans sensor has strong points, like the tonality/colors

Color depends on the how much light each of three color filter passes.
Tonality depends mostly on PP (withing capabilities of chip itself).
Both these parameters doesn't depend on XTrans layout (with the exception of worst color resolution, but it is another matter other than unique color signature). From what I have seen, XTrans filters have higher spectral efficiency (and thus lower noise) than ones of NEX and this leads to lower metamerism index and thus to "worse" colors. BTW, the sensor chip of XTrans is exactly that famous old good Sony 16Mp unit.



Sep 11, 2013 at 07:13 AM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #18 · p.8 #18 · Fuji X trans or NEX


I too wouldn't really change using Lightroom for X-trans BUT if I keep the M1, I would use a Irridient TIFF export to LR for portfolio quality shots but for every day shots, I think LR is good enough since I'm not really pixel peeping those.


Sep 11, 2013 at 07:44 AM
lenticular11
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #19 · p.8 #19 · Fuji X trans or NEX


philber wrote:
I bought into the NEX system as a backup for my 5D II, and upgraded the bodies as better ones were released. Eventually, I went on a long trip with a brand new 5D III, and an also brand new NEX 7. I was shocked that the NEX sensor was better in terms of colours, contrast and DR than the spanking new Canon. Since then I went all-NEX with great rangefinder primes (Leica, Zeiss), and I love it. If you want examples of NEX prowess, you can visit Lenticular travel
That way, you see I am neither knocking the Fuji, nor
...Show more

Resurrecting a days-old post. I have nothing to do with the website 'Lenticular travel' however I have admired snowboarder's landscapes on 'this Alt side' of the FM forum, since I joined. Perhaps I should be flattered that the blog has that name, as I think my FM username predates it

Finally, as a 5D III user I like the performance and versatility of the camera with the usual DSLR regular and alt lenses available, however I agree that Philber's findings are disturbing re the Nex7. I also have a Nex5N and an M9 (currently in for a known-at-purchase problem repair) so I spend way too much on this hobby. (A friend also has an X-Pro1 and the jpegs from that are also highly appealing. He has yet to shoot in RAW). ...also awaiting the rumoured Nex FF with interest.



Sep 11, 2013 at 08:36 PM
1       2       3              7      
8
       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              7      
8
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.