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 | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       end
  

Archive 2017 · Leaving Canon

  
 
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · Leaving Canon


technic wrote:
That Zuiko 2.8/300 is not only more expensive than a Canon 2.8/300 that covers a much bigger sensor area, but it is also bigger and heavier (with the smaller image circle...


Part of the equation is that M4/3 is tacitly targeted at moneyed (yuppies). That's not meant to be derogatory - just my opinion about the whole 'dredging' Oly up from the past and playing on the history of Zuiko schtick. Much like the Fuji + hipsters + Arias disciples = whatever.




Jul 19, 2017 at 04:10 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · Leaving Canon


charlyw wrote:
Then keep an eye out if you are impacted by the IMHO intolerable artifacts due to the stupid design decision by Fuji to go for a different - in most parts far worse - color filter array:

https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/x-trans-vs-bayer-sensors-fantastic-claims-test/

Thanks for the links
You forgot to mention "green smearing". In the course of my research I came across similar articles regarding the poor performance of the X-Trans sensor. Some brought up legitimate points and weaknesses of the technology. The question is whether the X-Trans weaknesses are significantly worse than the Bayer weaknesses.

What I couldn't determine is whether the articles you reference are speaking of the older 16mp sensor and processing engine or the newer 24mp sensor and newer engine. Even Fuji X fans state that the newer sensor is much better.

You mentioned "intolerable artifacts". In order for me to put your humble opinion in perspective, did you come to that opinion through actual use or from articles you read on the internet? If it is from actual experience, was it with a camera with the 16mp sensor or the newer 24mp sensor?

Since I mentioned "green smearing", you may find this interesting: http://www.aevansphoto.com/fujis-x-trans-sensor-sucks-part-2/

charlyw wrote:
And you don't even have to look out for sharpness in the out of the camera JPEG - they are horrendously washed out due to the high level of noise filtering Fuji employs to mitigate the aliasing fiasco... IMHO Fuji is going to give up on the x-trans mess in it's next iteration of the cameras because the entry level models and the top medium format cameras from them already abandoned the x-trans layout and reverted to a normal bayer filter...

I'm hearing lots of hyperbole. From what I understand, the default noise reduction of high ISO JPEGS degrades sharpness. The good news is that there are a plethora of adjustments available and you can dial down the in camera noise reduction and handle it in post if necessary.

There can be a number of reasons Fuji chose bayer for their entry level and MF cameras. It doesn't necessarily indicate Fuji is "abandoning" its X-Trans. Here's another analysis comparing the X-T2 24mp sensor to a full frame Sony A7: http://thephotofundamentalist.com/fujifilm/fujifilm-x-trans-iii-vs-bayer-texture-detail-comparison/

No matter what the subject, trying to get straight answers from the internet can be a maddening experience. Everyone, whether pro or con, has their ax to grind. That's why I think practical experience is invaluable. I look forward to doing my own testing and coming to my own conclusions. I'm aware my analysis won't be any more objective than the ones I've read, but I'll know what will be the best course of action for me.



Jul 19, 2017 at 08:26 AM
charlyw
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · Leaving Canon


dmacmillan wrote:
You forgot to mention "green smearing". In the course of my research I came across similar articles regarding the poor performance of the X-Trans sensor. Some brought up legitimate points and weaknesses of the technology. The question is whether the X-Trans weaknesses are significantly worse than the Bayer weaknesses.


In terms of aliasing they are worse in the blue and red color channel, the green color channel is a tad more forgiving than a bayer sensor - but where the shit hits the fan is the detaching from worldwide research over the past 25-30 years for demosaicing.

dmacmillan wrote:
What I couldn't determine is whether the articles you reference are speaking of the older 16mp sensor and processing engine or the newer 24mp sensor and newer engine. Even Fuji X fans state that the newer sensor is much better.

It refers to all x-trans sensors, all that Fuji has done is fine tune the amount of forced noise reduction to reduce moiree to bearable levels while retaining a little bit more in terms of sharpness - but the damage is done by the large gaps in the red and color sampling which results in rather low frequencies triggering aliasing and at the same time the green channel having a higher cutoff frequency, the disparity means that moiree and aliasing artifacts are possible at any color transition - that's simple mathematics...

dmacmillan wrote:
I'm hearing lots of hyperbole. From what I understand, the default noise reduction of high ISO JPEGS degrades sharpness.

On the Fuji x-trans there already is considerable noise reduction in place at low ISO to prevent moiree (something that their marketing department claims is solved through the x-trans filter array - but that marketing department should stand next to the "Sirius Corporation marketing department")...
dmacmillan wrote:
The good news is that there are a plethora of adjustments available and you can dial down the in camera noise reduction and handle it in post if necessary.

When you are faced with a photo that has a lot of detail then instead of having one cutoff frequency to handle (and most sensible camera manufacturers deal with the problem in hardware as the sensor resolution is still away from being the solution to the Nyquist limit by about a factor of 5-10) you have two and the interaction of the two sampling frequencies. While there are many parameters to find a balance each and every photo will require a different balance because even the slightest movements do change the balance of captured frequencies. So it's an absolute hassle to correct a single photo - with the distinct possibility that it's unrecoverable...

dmacmillan wrote:
There can be a number of reasons Fuji chose bayer for their entry level and MF cameras. It doesn't necessarily indicate Fuji is "abandoning" its X-Trans.


If they don't the mixing of technologies is even less excusable as then you are forced to master two different workflows with possibly different RAW development tools...

dmacmillan wrote:
No matter what the subject, trying to get straight answers from the internet can be a maddening experience.

If you understand a little about sampling theory then you can only come to the conclusion that Fuji botched it - badly...




Jul 19, 2017 at 08:58 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · Leaving Canon


George Orwell wrote:
I've shot with all kinds of brands too. I am not particularly loyal to Canon anymore so than my Nikon (I have both).

If a few tenths of an inch make all the difference to you, and is worth $1100, then go for it.

Yet again, you concentrate on dimensions as if that is the most important point of comparison. A few tenths of an inch is the least of my concerns.

As for the price difference, I don't have a Scots name for nothing. However there's a difference between what I can afford to spend and what I'm willing to spend. I started with the Leica M10 when looking for an alternate camera for travel. I could easily afford to by an M10, but was unwilling to spend that kind of money on an M10. Time and testing will tell whether I think I'm willing to spend an extra $1100. The Fuji will need to make a compelling argument.

We'll see what shooting with the Fuji next week brings. I may:

1)Use my Canon 5D2 and the 24-70 IS L as my travel kit, leaving the rest of my system at home. That sure is a compelling option.
2)Consider the Canon SL2 with a kit lens. I'm sure 17mp would be adequate, but the kit lens is not well regarded.
3)Just use my Panasonic LX7. I took this little guy to Europe as an adjunct and got some great photos with it. It does OK in decent light, but it's low light performance is abysmal.
3)Buy the Fuji X-T20 with a kit lens. It is $500 instead of $1100 more than the SL2 and uses the same sensor and processor as the X-T2.
4)Reconsider the Canon EOS M Series camera - This has potential, but I don't see a good 24-70 alternative nearly as attractive and well regarded as the Fuji kit lens and there's not a huge price difference.





Jul 19, 2017 at 09:12 AM
CW100
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · Leaving Canon


dmacmillan wrote:
Yet again, you concentrate on dimensions as if that is the most important point of comparison. A few tenths of an inch is the least of my concerns.

As for the price difference, I don't have a Scots name for nothing. However there's a difference between what I can afford to spend and what I'm willing to spend. I started with the Leica M10 when looking for an alternate camera for travel. I could easily afford to by an M10, but was unwilling to spend that kind of money on an M10. Time and testing will tell whether I think I'm
...Show more

with the M5 I use the 22mm f/2 pancake and EF and EF-S zooms and primes - works great

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless



Jul 19, 2017 at 04:52 PM
newphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · Leaving Canon


technic wrote:
Agree with your points but IMHO the high price for m43 gear (especially lenses) is simply due to the much smaller production volume (and higher development cost per unit), not "abuse". Chosing lighter gear (with some compromise in image quality, depending on type of subject) means paying a much higher price; maybe it works for them because the people who go light out of necessity are often relatively wealthy boomers ;-)

That Zuiko 2.8/300 is not only more expensive than a Canon 2.8/300 that covers a much bigger sensor area, but it is also bigger and heavier (with the smaller image
...Show more

Great post! I have read it twice and agree with what you are saying. The "niche market" also affects camera bodies. I paid about 2 grand a piece for the E-M1 II's. I think the smaller size makes the development of IS in lenses and camera bodies a bit easier. My switch has only to do with size, especially the tripod. Carrying the 300 F4 w/o a tripod is a huge weight saving. Again, I have used Canons for many years and had great success with them. I just want to continue traveling and photographing wildlife into my eighties and it was time to switch to a lighter weight system. Not suggesting that it is for everyone. It was a pain to do it!



Jul 19, 2017 at 07:53 PM
charlyw
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · Leaving Canon


newphoto wrote:
My switch has only to do with size, especially the tripod. Carrying the 300 F4 w/o a tripod is a huge weight saving.


The small amount of keepers will also lighten your need for new storage... Sorry, any sort of telephotography requires a tripod, leaving that behind because of image stabilization is a big error (especially with the meager ability of the mirrorless cameras to focus telephoto lenses)...




Jul 20, 2017 at 01:39 AM
sungphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · Leaving Canon


Best of luck - shoulder injuries and pain haunt me as well, so I empathize with why you'd want to go lighter.


Jul 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM
Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · Leaving Canon


charlyw wrote:
The small amount of keepers will also lighten your need for new storage... Sorry, any sort of telephotography requires a tripod, leaving that behind because of image stabilization is a big error (especially with the meager ability of the mirrorless cameras to focus telephoto lenses)...



Plenty of people shoot lenses like the Canon 100-400 handheld. IS not withstanding, you can always raise the shutter speed to compensate as long as you don't need a slow speed for prop blur. The reservation I'd have on a m4/3 system is that as the light fades, the ISO will get pushed into ugly territory sooner than on a larger sensor.




Jul 20, 2017 at 02:07 PM
StarNut
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · Leaving Canon


charlyw wrote:
The small amount of keepers will also lighten your need for new storage... Sorry, any sort of telephotography requires a tripod, leaving that behind because of image stabilization is a big error (especially with the meager ability of the mirrorless cameras to focus telephoto lenses)...


Thanks for this post, which is a spectacular example of why we must all critically analyze the "advice" people give on web forum, which can be utter nonsense. Like this.






Jul 21, 2017 at 07:32 AM
Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · Leaving Canon


Paul Mo wrote:
I think we're good lot overall. This being the Internet, there will always be those who forget their manners.


Of course, we're good. I've been here over 10 years and 99.9% of the discussions are collegial. This ain't the hostile environment Mr. Mitchell portrays it to be. Occasionally things get heated - thank God for that. A little passion and emotion are the spice of life. If someone does get truly out of hand, Fred steps in and takes care of it.

By the way, folks who publicly proclaim they don't read the group usually read every word posted on it, based on my 30+ years on the web, beginning with Usenet.








Jul 21, 2017 at 10:03 PM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · Leaving Canon


dmacmillan wrote:
As for the price difference, I don't have a Scots name for nothing. However there's a difference between what I can afford to spend and what I'm willing to spend. I started with the Leica M10 when looking for an alternate camera for travel. I could easily afford to by an M10, but was unwilling to spend that kind of money on an M10. Time and testing will tell whether I think I'm willing to spend an extra $1100. The Fuji will need to make a compelling argument.


I use an M240 with a 50 Summilux, 35 Summilux, 90 Summicron, and 21 mm f/1.8 (Cosina Voightländer) for travel and walk around shooting. I love it. My DSLRs are still an important part of my photographic life, but the Leica system is so much lighter, and don't really sacrifice on FF image quality. Carrying the same optical capabilities in my Nikon kit would probably weight 3-4 times as much and require a large backpack, rather than a tiny man-bag.

M10 is expensive, but you can get M240s for a lot less now. Might be worth considering along with some good Zeiss, Leica, or CV optics.



Jul 22, 2017 at 04:03 AM
drewmey
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #13 · p.5 #13 · Leaving Canon


StarNut wrote:
Thanks for this post, which is a spectacular example of why we must all critically analyze the "advice" people give on web forum, which can be utter nonsense. Like this.



Glad to see this comment as the post it's quoting actually made me laugh out loud. It feels like the typical comment of someone who has read something long ago and feels it's true without having any personal experience.

On the "meager ability of the mirrorless cameras to focus"...there is not one irrevocably better at focusing at the moment when comparing DSLR and mirrorless. For example my new X-T2 focuses faster then my Canon 6D (likely as good or better than the new one), more precisely, and works better at non-center points. I would expect the opposite results when comparing other scenarios. It just really depends on what cameras you are comparing. The fact that one is mirrorless and one is a DSLR doesn't mean much at the moment in terms of focusing abilities.

Not even gonna comment on the tripod thing.

The truth (to me, of course) to this discussion about choosing a format size, brand etc. seems to be that the "best" option is always going to be different for different folks. It's really quite meaningless if the OP's old setup produces superior image quality, as there would be no image to take since the weight was restricting his ability to even bring it! Different brands and formats are all getting so good, it's finally plausible to make "sacrifices" that previously resulted in significant quality reduction. Pick something that meets your needs well and go shooting!



Jul 22, 2017 at 07:38 AM
Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #14 · p.5 #14 · Leaving Canon


drewmey wrote:
For example my new X-T2 focuses faster then my Canon 6D (likely as good or better than the new one), more precisely, and works better at non-center points.


To be fair, the 6D only had one good AF point so the bar's pretty low there.



Jul 22, 2017 at 12:54 PM
drewmey
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #15 · p.5 #15 · Leaving Canon


Mike_5D wrote:
To be fair, the 6D only had one good AF point so the bar's pretty low there.


Agree (although I would call it one great AF point) but that doesn't change the overall meaning of my post. Please focus on the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph as that was my overall point of that topic.

PS: For me, the X-T2 has been faster and more accurate (no such thing as front or back focusing when using actual image sensor read out to focus) than even the center point of the Canon 6D (which was a great cross type point) but it really doesn't matter because that wasn't the point.



Jul 22, 2017 at 01:23 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #16 · p.5 #16 · Leaving Canon


drewmey wrote:
Agree (although I would call it one great AF point) but that doesn't change the overall meaning of my post. Please focus on the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph as that was my overall point of that topic.

PS: For me, the X-T2 has been faster and more accurate (no such thing as front or back focusing when using actual image sensor read out to focus) than even the center point of the Canon 6D (which was a great cross type point) but it really doesn't matter because that wasn't the point.

I rented an X-T2 and an X-Pro2 to try while on vacation. The focus has been very fast and accurate with the 16mm (gorgeous lens), the 18-55 and the 23mm. The keeper rate has been very high and I love the joystick. I'm shooting raw + jpeg and the SOOC jpegs are incredible.




Jul 24, 2017 at 07:34 PM
Scott T
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #17 · p.5 #17 · Leaving Canon


dmacmillan wrote:
I rented an X-T2 and an X-Pro2 to try while on vacation. The focus has been very fast and accurate with the 16mm (gorgeous lens), the 18-55 and the 23mm. The keeper rate has been very high and I love the joystick. I'm shooting raw + jpeg and the SOOC jpegs are incredible.



I'd be interested in your thoughts and feedback coming from Canon, and the X-T2 vs X-pro2 (as I would assume many others are also), whether you post that here or in the Fuji forum.

I'll be ramping up travel next year, and looking for something smaller than a 5d3 and FF lenses. I like Fuji and the 10-24 is a nice lens, which fits my needs.



Jul 29, 2017 at 10:21 PM
1       2       3       4      
5
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       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.