p.4 #1 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
Do the Fuji lenses have stabilization?
Is it true that the recently announced new trio of Zeiss primes for NEX and Fuji do not have electronic aperture control on Fuji? The new EX-1 looks cool but it seems significantly larger than the NEX cameras.
p.4 #2 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
flashinm wrote:
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?
Simply put, less detail in certain colors. As theSuede has mentioned, this can be an advantage in low light. It kinda has the vibe of using chroma noise reduction, a little bit.
p.4 #3 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
FlyPenFly wrote:
Do the Fuji lenses have stabilization?
Is it true that the recently announced new trio of Zeiss primes for NEX and Fuji do not have electronic aperture control on Fuji?
No on stabilization, and the Fuji has electronic aperture control. The aperture ring on all of the X cameras is still electronic, not a real manual aperture ring. It's really just a digital dial on the lens, rather than on the body like the NEX-7. What is weird about the press release is that it only mentions manual focus for the NEX version, but I can't imagine that wouldn't be on the Fuji as well, as there seems to be a ring for it.
p.4 #6 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
FlyPenFly wrote:
I don't get why on the Fuji files, I'm not seeing the same sort of WoW clarity you get from other AA less sensors.
I kind of wish Fuji bought Foveon instead of Sigma.
That would have been interesting, to say the least.
I have some XP1 files if you want to play with them, Fly, where I can see some pretty good detail. I am interested in the X-E1 and the DP2M as my digital systems.
p.4 #10 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
douglasf13 wrote:
Simply put, less detail in certain colors. As theSuede has mentioned, this can be an advantage in low light. It kinda has the vibe of using chroma noise reduction, a little bit.
Ok, I think I'm starting to understand at least a little bit. If you're interested this article talks about chroma issues related to video and talks a little about chroma smoothing.
Either way, I'm not sure how much difference it makes at base ISO in terms of real world use. I have a 5n on the way, so in the next few weeks I'll do a comparison with a G45 on both cameras. I think the bigger issue is simply getting an algorithm that's designed to get the most out of the Trans X sensor array. It sounds like thesuede is confident that there are better options out there, but they are more resource intensive than bayer interpolation.
p.4 #11 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
flashinm wrote:
Ok, I think I'm starting to understand at least a little bit. If you're interested this article talks about chroma issues related to video and talks a little about chroma smoothing.
Either way, I'm not sure how much difference it makes at base ISO in terms of real world use. I have a 5n on the way, so in the next few weeks I'll do a comparison with a G45 on both cameras. I think the bigger issue is simply getting an algorithm that's designed to get the most out of the Trans X sensor array. It sounds like thesuede is confident that there are better options out there, but they are more resource intensive than bayer interpolation....Show more →
Certainly, better raw conversion will help. However, even when raw conversion is improved, chroma resolution will still be lower than a Bayer sensor. The thing is, none of it may make a real difference in your shooting, so you need to try things out and come to your own conclusion. If you're not making reasonably sized prints, none if it will probably matter, anyways.
p.4 #12 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
Yeah, the problem is that I like large prints and tend to shoot close to base ISO. The point I was making is lower chroma resolution might not really matter. The reason some companies are going in this direction (including video codecs) is because the human eye doesn't detect subtle changes in color nearly as well as subtle changes in luminance. Chroma resolution shouldn't be confused as actual resolution in certain colors. Rather, it has more to do with subtle changes in colors (assuming I understand the article correctly).
p.4 #13 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
flashinm wrote:
Yeah, the problem is that I like large prints and tend to shoot close to base ISO. The point I was making is lower chroma resolution might not really matter. The reason some companies are going in this direction (including video codecs) is because the human eye doesn't detect subtle changes in color nearly as well as subtle changes in luminance. Chroma resolution shouldn't be confused as actual resolution in certain colors. Rather, it has more to do with subtle changes in colors (assuming I understand the article correctly).
Mushy greens/foliage seems to be where problems arise the most with Trans-X. If I shot mostly base ISO, I'd choose bayer or maybe foveon.
p.4 #14 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
You're dancing around the argument. RPP and Dcraw have already shown that the watercolor effect is not a problem that's inherent to the trans x sensor. They do however, introduce other color artifacts that you would undoubtedly point out next. The question is whether chroma smoothing actually makes any real perceptible difference, as you keep bringing it up as a disadvantage to the trans x sensor.
p.4 #16 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
flashinm wrote:
You're dancing around the argument. RPP and Dcraw have already shown that the watercolor effect is not a problem that's inherent to the trans x sensor. They do however, introduce other color artifacts that you would undoubtedly point out next. The question is whether chroma smoothing actually makes any real perceptible difference, as you keep bringing it up as a disadvantage to the trans x sensor.
I didn't realize we were arguing. This is subtleties that we're talking about, and I've said several times that it is dependent on the user. I don't know, maybe a better raw solution will come that makes the issues with the sensor negligible to me. As it stands now, I just don't prefer the low ISO output from the Trans-X sensor from any raw converter over Bayer. It's either artifacting or watercolor. Once an ideal raw converter arrives, who knows, maybe the lower chroma resolution will be unnoticeable in use, and I'll change my tune.
If you want very detailed explanations, you should PM Joachim, "theSuede," since he works in the industry.
p.4 #17 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
RPP produces incredible resolution with X-Pro 1 files, but with the some artifacts in certain cases. Lightroom displays the watercolour effect on foilage. So there isn't a perfect solution yet. However, I'm sure that one will come pretty soon now that Fuji has committed themselves to the sensor tech with both the X-Pro 1 and the XE-1. This is very fresh technology and it will take time to write good demosaicing algorithms for it.
On a more important level though, the shooting experience with these cameras is utterly enjoyable. I've had the X-Pro 1 since the launch in March, and I've really connected with it. Now with the latest firmware update (2.0), it's recieved a massive improvement in terms of MF, AF and general responsiveness and speed. It's plain fun to use. The watercolour effect will most likely be dealt with pretty soon and then the 10,000 images I've shot with the camera already will look even better on a detail level. Mind you, the files are already pretty fantastic when it comes to pushing them in post-production. Highlights and shadows that appear blown out are easily recovered in post. In this respect, it's perceivably better than the 5D II and D700. In low light, it's pure bliss to use, producing some of the cleanest looking output I've ever seen, even beating my D700.
p.4 #19 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
I was talking about your argument, not our argument. You just keeping bring it up as a disadvantage thats inherent to the trans x sensor. All I'm asking is, is it really a disadvantage and if so, how?
p.4 #20 · Fuji EX-1 on DPR. This looks very interesting!
douglas:
I have not compared it to the X100. I owned the X100 for half a year and as far as I can remember it was not nearly as fast. I also have a friend who got his X-Pro 1 yesterday who has used a X100 up until then, and he says the difference is remarkable. So consensus is that the AF of the XP1 is superior.
Another thing worth noticing is MF. Manual focusing on the XP1 went from being utterly cumbersome to being enjoyable after 2.0. Now there is a 3x magnification option (tons better than the 10x), and the focusing action when turning the ring is far more responsive - feels almost like using a mechanical lens.
