Can I ask what ISO this was shot at? Have you tried the RAW converter software that came with the camera? I wonder if this is (partially) an issue with ACR?.....
Lotusm50 wrote:
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.
Having seen a number of Kai's reviews, they are so ridiculous and over the top, it would be hard to imagine they would expect people to take them seriously. They are funny though.
Can I ask what ISO this was shot at? Have you tried the RAW converter software that came with the camera? I wonder if this is (partially) an issue with ACR?.....
Base ISO of 200 and yes, the Silkypix version that Fuji supplies gives the same results. I discovered this a while back and posted it in the FM X-Pro 1 thread here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1102074
I believe it clearly shows the sort of processing that goes on within the camera before the raw file is written. I don't think Fuji will correct it as they likely don't see it as an issue (there are probably other image quality benefits they see as being more important than providing the user with a more true/ less processed raw file). It's really a shame imo though as it limits the cameras capabilities.
Wow, that's very interesting. If I was a landscape shooter, I would NOT want this camera. For people work, probably not a big issue. But what a strange, strange built-in way to process.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Having seen a number of Kai's reviews, they are so ridiculous and over the top, it would be hard to imagine they would expect people to take them seriously. They are funny though.
Well, at least Digital Rev does keep in mind that using a camera (particularly one in this category) should be a fun experience. I think they're happy to leave the measurbating to sites like DxO.
My personal fav is the one where they painted the M9 pink. Kai's comments were particularly hilarious in that one.
benee wrote:
Wow, that's very interesting. If I was a landscape shooter, I would NOT want this camera. For people work, probably not a big issue. But what a strange, strange built-in way to process.
Yep, exactly. That's why I returned it. A shame as I actually enjoyed the handling and EVF/ Window OVF combo very much. For certain subject matter such as landscape though, the IQ is a major fail (unless you only need web size or small prints).
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:
And that's ISO 200 for those who didn't look. So whatever it is they're doing it's not just applied to high ISO files. I think it would be awesome if this turned on automatically for ISO values above 6,400... But at 200 that kinda turns this camera into a device tuned for facebook uploads and stuff.
Very disappointing. From the DRTV video I just assumed it was that much better. Instead of being this much sillier.
Weird
EDIT: Oh, I see both comments were already made here on page two... Oh well... As confirmation then.
Ugh, that's really awful. This effect, combined with the apparent pain in the butt that getting a good demoisacing routine is for the cfa, kinda makes me wish Fuji just used a regular ol' Sony sensor. See here: chromasoft link
The Kodak SLR/n has a similar watercolour effect up close, and while it does look somewhat bizarre at 100%, it looks great in print. I wouldn't worry about it, unless the 100% views are why you buy a camera.
carstenw wrote:
The Kodak SLR/n has a similar watercolour effect up close, and while it does look somewhat bizarre at 100%, it looks great in print. I wouldn't worry about it, unless the 100% views are why you buy a camera.
I don't buy a camera for 100% views, but I do buy them for 13x19 or so prints. Are you saying this would definitely not be noticeable at that size? If so, I might be ok with it.
douglasf13 wrote:
I don't buy a camera for 100% views, but I do buy them for 13x19 or so prints. Are you saying this would definitely not be noticeable at that size? If so, I might be ok with it.
You will not see the issue in a print sized at 13" x 19" @ 240ppi. You will see it at 20" x 30" @240ppi with this type of subject matter. By comparison, the NEX-7 with the same subject looks great even at a print size of 30"x45" @ 240ppi.
carstenw wrote:
The Kodak SLR/n has a similar watercolour effect up close, and while it does look somewhat bizarre at 100%, it looks great in print. I wouldn't worry about it, unless the 100% views are why you buy a camera.
How good a file looks at 100% view provides a very good indication of just how well the image can be printed at larger sizes. For some, that does indeed matter. For others who never print large, nor care to have the head room to print large or crop, it may not matter.
Thanks, Tariq. It seems like I'd be ok with it now, although I do plan on buying a bigger printer someday, and I occasionally outsource prints. Either way, strange move by Fuji.
Carstenw, the NEX-7 apparently bridges that gap between size and print quality pretty nicely.
The X-Pro1 isn't geared for lower ISO's, but if you're in a high ISO situation it will provide a much larger usable image than the NEX7.
At lower ISOs, the NEX5N that shares the same base resolution gives a lot more detailed image.
theSuede wrote:
The X-Pro1 isn't geared for lower ISO's, but if you're in a high ISO situation it will provide a much larger usable image than the NEX7.
At lower ISOs, the NEX5N that shares the same base resolution gives a lot more detailed image.
Any idea what Fuji is doing exactly to achieve these results?
carstenw wrote:
Okay, but 20x30" @ 240ppi is uprezzed to about 35MP. If you want that kind of resolution, pick up a D800, not an X-Pro 1...
No, if ALL you need is 20"x30" @ 240ppi, there are many smaller and cheaper options, obviously including the NEX-7 and even the 5n with a good lens. Heck, even the new entry level 24MP Nikon 3200 (as well as some of the cheaper Canon's, Pentax's or whatever that have the Sony 16MP sensor's) would likely give very nice 20x30 prints with a good lens. So, sure Nikon D800 could easily handle that (I have actually tested files from the D800E which look great at 40"x60"'s!) but it's not necessary if that's all you need. It's just disappointing the fairly expensive (as compared to the other's mentioned except D800) X-Pro1 is not in such common company.
douglasf13 wrote:
Any idea what Fuji is doing exactly to achieve these results?
Sean Reid found that if you examine the X-Pro1 images in Lab mode, it's clear the A and B channels are being blurred. This results in the low noise but comes at the expense of color detail. It also results in so so looking B&W conversions (the loss of color detail kills B&W midtone richness). You can do something similar with any raw file in PP to reduce noise. The difference here is that Fuji does it in camera automatically (apparently).
