p.2 #1 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
The Foliage issue is not restricted simply to Adobe (though it's the most obvious with Adobe). It is there with any current raw converter that's compatible, including Fuji/ Silkypix. Fuji seems to be committed to this sensor technology so hopefully they will be able to fix the problem in either firmware or future hardware (It's claimed the IQ of this new camera is identical to the X-Pro1. I wonder if that's really the case since, in typical Fuji fashion, they might not actually mention the issue has been addressed even if it has). For some, this is obviously a non issue for their type of work/uses and the benefits of the X-Trans sensor (unique color/ superior high ISO) outweigh any issues. For others, it's a complete deal breaker (particularly since other competing cameras do not suffer the same issue).
p.2 #2 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
There seem to be questions about Raw file conversion software. Adobes's ACR / LR seems to have some peculiarities. I think I would like to those questions resolved before I seriously considered this camera. That said it looks like a very interesting option.
Sep 07, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Lan11 Offline [X]
p.2 #3 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
p.2 #5 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
The kit zoom is more interesting than the body, which seems to be basically a simplified, lower cost alternative to a existing model. The kit zoom is a full stop faster than most competitions.
I hope other brands will follow and offer something between the small aperture (usually poor IQ too)3.5-5.6 and constant 2.8 zoom (often big heavy and expensive).
p.2 #6 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
I will very likely get one; it has an adjustable diopter (essential for my work) and it has a truly excellent sensor. And at this point, I will only get the 35/1.4, too.
p.2 #7 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The Foliage issue is not restricted simply to Adobe (though it's the most obvious with Adobe). It is there with any current raw converter that's compatible, including Fuji/ Silkypix. Fuji seems to be committed to this sensor technology so hopefully they will be able to fix the problem in either firmware or future hardware (It's claimed the IQ of this new camera is identical to the X-Pro1. I wonder if that's really the case since, in typical Fuji fashion, they might not actually mention the issue has been addressed even if it has). For some, this is obviously a non issue for their type of work/uses and the benefits of the X-Trans sensor (unique color/ superior high ISO) outweigh any issues. For others, it's a complete deal breaker (particularly since other competing cameras do not suffer the same issue).
As far as I know, the sensor is just the Sony 16mp sensor (which is awesome, so that's a plus) with Fuji's stuff on top of it. I could be wrong there, though.
The foliage issue is going to be party Adobe (and every other converter, Silkypix doesn't do very well either). The camera jpeg engine does much better, from what I've seen--Fuji's jpeg engines are usually super good, the X10 one sure is too.
However, it's also partly the sensor layout. It simply has less color resolution (both from the layout of having four greens in a box, and from having more green pixels percentage wise). Which is very unfortunate, and moving in the wrong direction imho . Pushing the mp count higher would help, but then high enough you could just get rid of the AA filter anyway with regular pattern.
The Fuji cameras have charm though, and lots of it.
p.2 #8 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
woos wrote:
As far as I know, the sensor is just the Sony 16mp sensor (which is awesome, so that's a plus) with Fuji's stuff on top of it. I could be wrong there, though.
The foliage issue is going to be party Adobe (and every other converter, Silkypix doesn't do very well either). The camera jpeg engine does much better, from what I've seen--Fuji's jpeg engines are usually super good, the X10 one sure is too.
However, it's also partly the sensor layout. It simply has less color resolution (both from the layout of having four greens in a box, and from having more green pixels percentage wise). Which is very unfortunate, and moving in the wrong direction imho . Pushing the mp count higher would help, but then high enough you could just get rid of the AA filter anyway with regular pattern.
The Fuji cameras have charm though, and lots of it....Show more →
Yes, everything I have read indicates it's a Sony sensor as well. The CFA arrangement and how that's dealt with is the culprit for the foliage as well as a few other issues. As I demonstrated in the FM X-Pro1 thread, unlike the X100 jpegs, which are very excellent, the X-Pro1 jpegs can suffer from some major artifacts (and they are not free from the same raw foliage artifacts either). I really wish Fuji would have stuck with a traditional Bayer CFA.
p.2 #9 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
This also seems to be a very interesting camera, if they really have fast reliable AF now. However, I was looking at the example photos on Fuji's website and I noticed something strange:
When looking at 100% the buildings look really strange. Almost like a watercolor filter (like in the RX100).
I really like Fuji's colors, but is this a known problem of their sensor or could it be the result of the provia film emulation they chose for this photo?
p.2 #10 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
Jochenb wrote:
This also seems to be a very interesting camera, if they really have fast reliable AF now. However, I was looking at the example photos on Fuji's website and I noticed something strange:
When looking at 100% the buildings look really strange. Almost like a watercolor filter (like in the RX100).
I really like Fuji's colors, but is this a known problem of their sensor or could it be the result of the provia film emulation they chose for this photo?
Well, I guess Fuji did not address the xtrans processing issues in the XE-1. If you sharpen that image, you will notice it even more. IT is the same issue as the watercolor/ foliage problem in the X-PRo1 (that I have been repeating like a broken record). It will only really show up in my experience when shooing finely detailed distant subject matter - such as landscape (or the shot you linked). It's there with jpegs and raws.
p.2 #11 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
Besides the buildings in that XE1 shot, this is where the watercolor effect looks the worst to me. Look at what the Fuji Xtrans processing does to the rocks and trees here: This is way beyond pixel peeping. This is completely altering the entire shapes of objects.
p.2 #15 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
That is just plain inacceptable. I bet 90% of the Fuji engineers are pulling their hair out because of some stubborn decision maker that doesn't want to admit that things just didn't work out as planned.
p.2 #17 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
I know that dpreview isn't exactly the best source in the world, but I downloaded the base ISO X-P1 test scene raws from their site and compared them to their Nex-5N base ISO raws using RPP, which is generally considered the best converter for the Fuji files. I was pretty shocked to see just how much aliasing, artifacts and over-smoothing was in the Fuji file. The 5N looks way better at base ISO.
It seems this sensor tech is only a good idea if you spend most of your time shooting in lowlight.
p.2 #18 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
I was comparing my X pro 1 raws to my old 5D2 raws last week and I was surprised to see that the fuji raw files held up very well in comparison at base ISO and are generally better in low light. The foliage problem is, however, real, but the shots I'm getting simply because I have the camera with me, and it takes ridiculously good shots in extremely low light, outweigh the problem for me.
p.2 #19 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
I had not heard of the 'watercolor' effect before. It doesn't seem to appear on any reviews (steve huff, ken rockwell etc). Was it there on the fixed lens fuji X100 as well?
. Pushing the mp count higher would help, but then high enough you could just get rid of the AA filter anyway with regular pattern.