Lotusm50 wrote:
Interesting how their measured noise is significantly lower at 1600 ISO than it is at 800 ISO. Neat trick.
Sean Reid discovered in his recent test that the X-Pro1 performs a lot of (fairly sophisticated) noise reduction, even with raw files. There is no way to output a higher ISO raw file without noise reduction in fact. My testing of the X-Pro1 also showed that there is similarly a lot of other processing going on with the raws - sharpening and clarity type effects - that are likewise unavoidable.
Yeah, I agree. I mean how often am I going to actually select ISO 12,800 or even 6,400... And I assume these are in-camera JPegs which so far I've not used much. One surf shoot, once about a year (or has it been 2 years?) ago. I dunno how true it is with these cameras but I've always thought I could do better myself with RAWs. Here's a few from the surf shoot.
GH1, in-camera (lowest quality) "Small" JPegs, Canon FD 300/2.8 L
Yes, and it's great for productivity for X--Pro1 users. Unfortunately, it does not change/ improve raw file quality - or I should say it does not get around the crazy raw processing that Fuji does. If you liked the files before, you will still love them. If you did not, nothing has changed. For landscape shooters, you still get this cheesy filter look with enlargements involving foliage - which was the deal breaker for me:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Ha, I saw that back in April. Hilarious, though I don't know what actual value I would attach to their test as far as choosing one of these cameras.
Looking at those sample, are they suggesting they either didn't match the angle of view for all the cameras, so that to make the comparison they magnified the Oly and Sony camera images a lot (~2x?) to match the subject size in the Fuji? Plus the Oly and Sony look underexposed compared to the Fuji. Yes, I'm not sure how much stock we can put into their "test". I suspect that it might just be a bit of satire, but htey don't strike me as that clever.
kwalsh wrote:
Woah, that's funky awful. Just so I understand, that's a X1 RAW & Lightroom/ACR issue - the in camera JPEGs look "normal", right?
The same processing effect is applied to jpegs. You will never see this though with native size prints, only larger prints (not too much larger though as the effect is visible at 100% with foliage). Also, there are very likely positive gains with other subject matter - people - and it would also dramatically mask the visible effects of noise at higher iso's. So, imo, this camera is great for certain uses. The thing which I find most disturbing though is that the user has no ability, even with raws, to disable the extreme processing which takes place.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
.... For landscape shooters, you still get this cheesy filter look with enlargements involving foliage - which was the deal breaker for me:....
Bifurcator wrote:
Yeah, I agree. I mean how often am I going to actually select ISO 12,800 or even 6,400... And I assume these are in-camera JPegs which so far I've not used much. ...
Completely agree. When I'm using my EPL2 I rarely shoot above ISO 800 and mostly ISO 400 and below, that's just not what I use it for.
In fact, even with my 5d2 I rarely shoot above ISO 1600.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, and it's great for productivity for X--Pro1 users. Unfortunately, it does not change/ improve raw file quality - or I should say it does not get around the crazy raw processing that Fuji does. If you liked the files before, you will still love them. If you did not, nothing has changed. For landscape shooters, you still get this cheesy filter look with enlargements involving foliage - which was the deal breaker for me:
I'm curious to see the uninterpolated 100% view of that crop by comparison.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, and it's great for productivity for X--Pro1 users. Unfortunately, it does not change/ improve raw file quality - or I should say it does not get around the crazy raw processing that Fuji does. If you liked the files before, you will still love them. If you did not, nothing has changed. For landscape shooters, you still get this cheesy filter look with enlargements involving foliage - which was the deal breaker for me:
I'm getting similar results to this with LR 4.1 (not quite as dramatic, but still smearing of detail in green foliage). The SOOC JPEGs look the same, so clearly whatever is causing this is being applied in camera.
Fuji has been very good about FW updates to its cameras; hopefully this is something that can be worked on. I want my Raw files as 'raw' as possible.
forestmage wrote:
you are seeing the above in your photographs at 100%? I need to start looking at my XP1 photos more closely. Yikes. That is horri
No, this is interpolated up in size.
