p.3 #2 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
It seems like they don't have a rigid testing period for their cameras. It seems they were better off when they just relied on Nikon to provide the bodies and electronics.
p.3 #3 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
You can, of course, shoot in jpg and not have these watercolor/artifact issues. One would think the solution is simple since the camera itself can record proper images with it's own JPG engine. I think this is why there are so many diverse opinions about the Fuji "X" line up featuring the Xtrans sensor. I had the XP1 and shot exclusively in JPG just because I didn't like the raw converters that were out there. The files I generated are almost as good as those I can generate with my 5D3, which I shoot exclusively RAW because the converters are that good.....
p.3 #4 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
frank gross wrote:
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?
Most reviewers tend to skew interest towards great low light capability, where the Fuji excels.
p.3 #5 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
gregfountain wrote:
You can, of course, shoot in jpg and not have these watercolor/artifact issues. One would think the solution is simple since the camera itself can record proper images with it's own JPG engine. I think this is why there are so many diverse opinions about the Fuji "X" line up featuring the Xtrans sensor. I had the XP1 and shot exclusively in JPG just because I didn't like the raw converters that were out there. The files I generated are almost as good as those I can generate with my 5D3, which I shoot exclusively RAW because the converters are that good........Show more →
In past threads, there have been examples of issues in jpegs, too. Even assuming a perfect jpeg/raw conversion setup, the X-Trans is going to give up chroma resolution to bayer at low ISO. It's all about trade offs, and Fuji went high ISO, where the X-Pro1 performs well.
p.3 #6 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
I love the camera, but it's not true that the artefacts don't occur with out of camera jpegs. They do. That said, it's a relatively minor issue which will only bother the anally retentive or serious landscape shooters. The problem doesn't occur elsewhere, and other abilities more than make up for it for me, when very few of my shots include foliage that matters.
p.3 #7 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
douglasf13 wrote:
In past threads, there have been examples of issues in jpegs, too. Even assuming a perfect jpeg/raw conversion setup, the X-Trans is going to give up chroma resolution to bayer at low ISO. It's all about trade offs, and Fuji went high ISO, where the X-Pro1 performs well.
Low iso resolution is on par or very nearly on par with my 5D2 files.
p.3 #9 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
Hi Doug,
Can you show some 1:1 crop? There are so much hype about Fuji on the web (words like "blow away", "on par with FF" got thrown around all the time) it's difficult to separate fact from fantasy. If the underlying sensor is the same as the one used in 5N, I found it quite unbelievable that the higher ISO performance will come at no cost to other aspect. I am guessing that if you do a noise reduction in A&B channel of a 5N's file you will probably get similar high ISO performance, but I don't have any raw developer that can play with Fuji's file.
douglasf13 wrote:
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.3 #10 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Hi Doug,
Can you show some 1:1 crop? There are so much hype about Fuji on the web (words like "blow away", "on par with FF" got thrown around all the time) it's difficult to separate fact from fantasy. If the underlying sensor is the same as the one used in 5N, I found it quite unbelievable that the higher ISO performance will come at no cost to other aspect. I am guessing that if you do a noise reduction in A&B channel of a 5N's file you will probably get similar high ISO performance, but I don't have any raw developer that can play with Fuji's file.
I've seen nothing to indicate that the X-Trans sensor is close to FF outside of low ISO noise, since chroma smoothing is inherent in the CFA design.
Here are a few samples I posted. In terms of detail, I guess it is possible one could argue that focus is off, but you still see all of the color artifacts.: link
p.3 #12 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
To be fair, the focus point on those DPR files is all over the place. No two areas of the frame are in focus in any two cameras. Not a good place to start. I can only go on my own experience, but there is no doubt to me that the files are close to 5D2 level resolution with the 35mm lens, not as close with the 18mm. There is no smearing outside of foliage. I have a photo with similarly distant buildings from last week which has no smearing, though there is haze softness. There's some smearing in the foliage in the same shot, but it's not everywhere.
p.3 #13 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
That's a fair point, Justin, although I'm not sure I can find a single point in the X-Pro1 image where the focus is better than the 5N in the entire image, and the focus isn't THAT off, if off at all.
Either way, these photos are more of a study of aliasing and color artifacts that are all over the X-Pro1 image, even with RPP.
I don't have an XP-1 but from the results I've read people seem positive about it. Autofocus seems to be better in low light and manual focus is now usable.
There's also been some photos of the Fuji lenses that are supposed to be released next year. They aren't small except for obviously the pancake lens.
p.3 #19 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
Douglas, you keep throwing around terms like chroma smoothing and color resolution in regards to the x trans sensor. Can you explain what these terms mean?
p.3 #20 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
Its taken two years for Sony to drop the 10-18/4 and the 35/1.8 and in six months Fuji is already showing off these...
10–24 mm f/4 R LM OIS
23 mm f/1.4 R
27 mm f/2.8 R
55–200 mm f/3.5–4.8 R LM OIS
56 mm f/1.4 R
In addition to the 14, 18, 35, 60 & 18-55 and most are a tad faster than the Sony equivalents AND priced competitively. With the nice price of the XE1 18-55 kit, better EVF and that lens lineup, Nex is starting to look a little less attractive.
When Fuji brings in a few fast lenses with more reach, its a complete system. Even if the 5 new lenses are just mockups, 10 lenses in less than a year is pretty impressive.
I wish Sony would focus on glass - no pun intended.
