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       4       end
  

Archive 2012 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo

  
 
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


Well, I guess Fuji must not do much advertising in Pop Photo these days!

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/05/camera-test-fujifilm-x-pro1



May 29, 2012 at 06:35 PM
Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


Interesting how their measured noise is significantly lower at 1600 ISO than it is at 800 ISO. Neat trick.




May 29, 2012 at 06:43 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


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.



May 29, 2012 at 06:54 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


Pop Photo is not out of business yet?


May 29, 2012 at 06:55 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


Tariq, Yeah, this showed a shocking amount of difference.




http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/Temporary/Nex_OMD_X1_Snapz_001.jpg

http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/Temporary/Nex_OMD_X1_Snapz_002.jpg

Edited on May 29, 2012 at 08:20 PM · View previous versions



May 29, 2012 at 08:01 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


Bifurcator wrote:
Tariq, Yeah, this showed a shocking amount of difference.





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.



May 29, 2012 at 08:13 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


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


http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Canon_FD_300mm_F2.8L/Canon_FD_300mm_f2.8L_1150097.jpg

http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Canon_FD_300mm_F2.8L/Canon_FD_300mm_f2.8L_1150100.jpg

http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Canon_FD_300mm_F2.8L/Canon_FD_300mm_f2.8L_1150110.jpg


http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Canon_FD_300mm_F2.8L/SOOC_1150110.JPG <--SOOC



These almost convinced me to start using JPeg but without the fine lens and with more complex colors and lighting I soon dropped that idea.





May 29, 2012 at 08:33 PM
corposant
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


The newest ACR has just been released and the XP1 is now supported. Let the pixel peeping and debate begin (again).



May 30, 2012 at 12:58 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


corposant wrote:
The newest ACR has just been released and the XP1 is now supported. Let the pixel peeping and debate begin (again).


Excellent...



May 30, 2012 at 05:07 AM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


jcolwell wrote:
Excellent...


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:

http://www.gibranstudio.com/fujiwater.jpg



May 30, 2012 at 07:27 AM
Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


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.




May 30, 2012 at 08:10 AM
kwalsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


Woah, that's funky awful. Just so I understand, that's a X1 RAW & Lightroom/ACR issue - the in camera JPEGs look "normal", right?


May 30, 2012 at 08:16 AM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


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.



May 30, 2012 at 08:23 AM
michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


Tariq Gibran wrote:
.... For landscape shooters, you still get this cheesy filter look with enlargements involving foliage - which was the deal breaker for me:....


Wow, that looks like a watercolor.



May 30, 2012 at 09:25 AM
michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


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.



May 30, 2012 at 09:28 AM
Ben Horne
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


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.



May 30, 2012 at 09:30 AM
edge100
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


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:

http://www.gibranstudio.com/fujiwater.jpg


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.



May 30, 2012 at 09:35 AM
deadwolfbones
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


Review seems pretty accurate to me..


May 30, 2012 at 10:29 AM
forestmage
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


you are seeing the above in your photographs at 100%? I need to start looking at my XP1 photos more closely. Yikes. That is horrible.


May 30, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · X-Pro 1 tested by Pop Photo


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.



May 30, 2012 at 11:03 AM
1
       2       3       4       end




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

1
       2       3       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username      Reset password