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       end
  

Archive 2014 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots

  
 
johnahill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


Hi Folks
Well I'm in the lucky position where I currently own an X-E1 and an X-A1, one being X-Trans and one being traditional bayer.

I shot both side by side today on tripod, test shots were 5 mins apart, manually focussed, AWB, both on standard/Provia colour, both RAW, 2 second timer.

Both were sharpened to 45/1/25 in LR5.4 and set to Provia colour in LR5.4 camera calibration.

Both were 1/50s at f8, ISO400 using the fuji 14mm

Here's the overall scene and i'm surprised how muted the colours are in the x-trans shot.








X-E1







X-A1




Apr 30, 2014 at 01:06 PM
johnahill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


Top right corner





X-A1







X-E1




Apr 30, 2014 at 01:08 PM
johnahill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


Willow detail





X-E1







X-A1




Apr 30, 2014 at 01:11 PM
johnahill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


And with the sharpening ramped up to 70/1/25





X-E1







X-A1




Apr 30, 2014 at 01:13 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


That first close up really shows that telltale signs of X-trans + LR around those white flowers.

edit: know that I see your newer post with the willows, the X-trans files look quite a bit different there, too.



Apr 30, 2014 at 01:13 PM
johnahill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


does anyone remember the old buzz simplyfier plug in filter for PS.
I think the x-trans has it built in.



Apr 30, 2014 at 01:16 PM
cputeq
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


johnahill wrote:
does anyone remember the old buzz simplyfier plug in filter for PS.
I think the x-trans has it built in.


That's because LR 5.4 is about the worst converter for Fuji RAWs. Try Photo Ninja or Irident (Mac)

And I think it's now called Topaz Simplify (which can give cool results on selected shots)

I do appreciate the comparison, though - interesting to see Fuji Bayer vs Fuji-X.



Apr 30, 2014 at 01:48 PM
rsrsrs
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


is there a good workflow transfering Photo Ninja files to LR ?


Apr 30, 2014 at 01:51 PM
johnahill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


The differences start to look less of a problem when compared at 50%

Sometimes I wish the 100% view in LR was disabled.



Apr 30, 2014 at 02:02 PM
Uncle Mike
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


There's absolutely no purple fringing or CA. Micro Four Thirds lenses don't do that.


Apr 30, 2014 at 02:19 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


John,

Thanks for the comparison. Not sure if you missed this post?

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1276395/0

If so, you may find some interesting information in it. The thread also has a number of comparisons between the X-A1 and X-E2. I ended up buying a Mac and getting both PN, Iridient and Aperture as a result. IMO, the shots you have posted above really don't look too bad as far as x-trans vs bayer goes. I have to say, I don't notice the water color effect once prints are made but I still wanted to get the most out of my RAW conversion as possible and therefore switched to a Mac platform. It has been a challenging switch after so many years with C1 and PS.



Apr 30, 2014 at 02:22 PM
Sr.Cordeiro
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


Seeing this comparison makes me share my story with the X-Trans:

I switched from a Canon dSLR system to a Fuji X-Pro1 some months ago. I was having a lot of fun using the camera (the camera controls and hybrid viewfinder are my cup of tea) and kept thinking I was glad I've made the switch.

Then, some weeks later, when I was finnally seeing my photos on Lightroom I was surprised at the poor quality I was getting from the X-Trans RAW files, it really seemed like something from a point-and-shoot. Not only the lack of resolution and "watercolor effect" but also the files reacted in a strange and different way to my usual adjustments in Lightroom. At that point I was thinking "what have I done" and started planning to sell all the Fuji equipment and maybe try something else like a Sony NEX.

But then I remembered some folks here talking about the X-Trans issues and did some investigation. After some trial and error I finnaly tried Photoninja and it was night and day: this RAW developer is able to extract a great amount of detail from the X-Trans files, even better than the Fuji internal JPG conversion. I just export 16bit TIF files from Photoninja without any treatment except "color correction" and the standard sharpen (it's very good and "natural looking") and open them in Lightroom to apply my usual settings. Now can get an excelent level of detail and also the TIF files react normally to Lightroom adjustments.

I now can definitely and honestly say I couldn't be happier with the switch. I think I could hardly notice any difference between the detail I was getting from my Canon 5D MkII and the X-Trans files upscaled to 20MP. The high-ISO quality is almost as good too and the extra dynamic range from the X-Trans is really a plus to me.

All this to say: try to make this test again with Photoninja and you can verify the X-M1 results are at least as good as the ones you get with the X-A1.



Apr 30, 2014 at 02:51 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


The issue is that the best raw converter for X-trans depends on the scene, although the same could be said for Bayer, but the differences in artifacts and whatnot are more obvious between converters with X-trans.

I've read (too) many of these X-trans threads, and you'll see people swear by Capture One, Iridient, Photo Ninja, Aperture...some are even ok with LR, but I've yet to see any X-trans examples, at least at low to mid ISO, from any converter that I'd pick over a regular old Bayer file out of LR. Things to seem to be trending in the right direction for X-trans, though.

Galenapass' example of showing the same scene with the X-A1 out of LR and the X-E2 out of PhotoNinja still shows that "different" X-trans look. link



Apr 30, 2014 at 03:39 PM
johnahill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


Cheers folks, I have seen some of the other threads about the xtrans conversions.
I thought while I have both sides of the fuji world I'd give it a try myself. It's pretty much the reason I picked up the x-a1 while there was a deal on it.

I have been shooting with the x-e1 for a while and had some really great shots, and also seems more fun to use than my heavy dslr gear.

What I am liking about LR these days is the fuji colours are really working well for me.

So my next question, if you had an x-e1 and an x-a1 and you had a yearning to convert one to infrared, which would you convert?




Apr 30, 2014 at 04:48 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


I'd pick up another X-a1 and convert that. Fuji are nearly giving that camera away, after one sells the included lens.


Apr 30, 2014 at 06:42 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


douglasf13 wrote:
The issue is that the best raw converter for X-trans depends on the scene, although the same could be said for Bayer, but the differences in artifacts and whatnot are more obvious between converters with X-trans.

I've read (too) many of these X-trans threads, and you'll see people swear by Capture One, Iridient, Photo Ninja, Aperture...some are even ok with LR, but I've yet to see any X-trans examples, at least at low to mid ISO, from any converter that I'd pick over a regular old Bayer file out of LR. Things to seem to be trending in
...Show more

That link is a good example of just how close PN gets x-trans to bayer output. Those were 100% crops and PN did a reasonable job providing bayer type output. In print I don't think anyone would would notice a difference. A few moths back my goal was to figure out how best to process my x-trans files, as Adobe continues to be deplorable. Consequently, I did a lot of pixel peeping of various scenes, comparing the X-A1 and X-E2. PN and Iridient get me > 90% there at 100% crops and I was not able to really find a scenario either converter could not handle.

Now I have zoomed out, look at my shots as a whole and forget about the less than 10% that is not really visible anyway.



Apr 30, 2014 at 06:57 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


galenapass wrote:
That link is a good example of just how close PN gets x-trans to bayer output. Those were 100% crops and PN did a reasonable job providing bayer type output. In print I don't think anyone would would notice a difference. A few moths back my goal was to figure out how best to process my x-trans files, as Adobe continues to be deplorable. Consequently, I did a lot of pixel peeping of various scenes, comparing the X-A1 and X-E2. PN and Iridient get me > 90% there at 100% crops and I was not able to really find a
...Show more

I think some of us just must be more sensitive to the different "look" of the X-trans files, even at smaller sizes. Tariq's post from that same thread pretty much nails how I feel about it:
link



Apr 30, 2014 at 08:10 PM
Sal Baker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


douglasf13 wrote:
I think some of us just must be more sensitive to the different "look" of the X-trans files, even at smaller sizes. Tariq's post from that same thread pretty much nails how I feel about it:
link

The improvement of X-Trans over my 5DII files is subtle but satisfying, particularly when camera ergonomics are taken in to account.

Sal



Apr 30, 2014 at 08:50 PM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


galenapass wrote:
That link is a good example of just how close PN gets x-trans to bayer output. Those were 100% crops and PN did a reasonable job providing bayer type output.



To me, the X-E2 image in that link is a disaster. It looks more like good old aliasing than artifacts due to demosaicing specifics alone. Statements that X-Trans does not need an AA filter are plain marketing gibberish. There is no cure for aliasing, only symptomatic treatment of color moiré. PN cannot heal the jagged blinds in the window.



May 01, 2014 at 05:02 AM
PhilDrinkwater
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Fuji X-Trans vs Bayer Test Shots


cputeq wrote:
That's because LR 5.4 is about the worst converter for Fuji RAWs. Try Photo Ninja or Irident (Mac)


It is at the moment. I've done some comparisions here of LR RAW development vs in camera JPEG:
http://www.phildweddingphotography.co.uk/2014/04/fuji-x-t1-raw-files-and-adobe-lightroom/

I've reported it to Adobe...



May 01, 2014 at 06:12 AM
1
       2       end




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

1
       2       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.