frank gross wrote:
All Fuji = Trans-X (incl. the x100?)
All Sony = Bayer
?
Just about everything, outside of Sigma, is Bayer. The X-Pro1 and XE-1 are Trans-X, the X100 is Bayer. Again, though, all of this may not be worth worrying about. It depends how picky you are, and we're about as picky as it gets in this forum.
Let me go back to the original question of the OP. In addition to the items that the OP raised this sensor issue could be simplified to say that the EX-1 should have a slight high ISO advantage and the NEX 6 should have a low ISO advantage. To that point I would add that the Fuji lens line up has and as far as we can see is likely to have slightly faster lenses (Fuji has a 25 f/1.4, and the road map calls for a 23 f/1.4, and a 53 f/1.4), but the NEX lens lineup with the newly announced lenses is becoming more complete, but so far the lenses tend to be f/1.8.
I like the fuji lens lineup a lot, but the NEX lineup may end up having more small lenses. Both systems look good, but with slightly different strengths.
Agreed, Steve. The Fuji lenses tend to be a little faster, and the Sony lenses often have OSS. I don't shoot a lot of video, but when I do want to shoot the occasional family video, I usually switch from my X100 to my NEX cameras, because, although the X100's video is mostly good enough, it has a lot of quirks (I'm sure the XE-1 will be better,) and the NEX has OSS and great video.
My biggest curiosity with the XE-1 will be AF speed. I'm curious how fast it is, both with the new lenses and original primes.
I'm not seeing those issues when I checked. There looks to be a slight problem with the RAW file, but it's not found in the jpg, which leads me to believe that it's a problem with the converter.
Andrew W wrote:
I'm not seeing those issues when I checked. There looks to be a slight problem with the RAW file, but it's not found in the jpg, which leads me to believe that it's a problem with the converter.
It's a trade off. The jpeg conversion does look better in regards to aliasing (although you can still see it in places like the woman on the dollar's face,) but it does smear foliage. People have been using RPP because it smears foliage less, but then you get other issues. Trans-X needs better raw conversion, for sure, and that will help a lot.
I have an X-pro1 and am happy with the image quality. I have converted the raw files with LR4 and made prints that are 10 x 12 inches and really haven't encountered the issues that get raised about the X-trans sensor.
The thing that I've been most pleasantly surprised about the X-trans files is how great the OOC jpegs are.
I was a dyed in the wool RAW file only fanatic. the X-pro1 jpegs have me using jpeg files 80% of the time.
-rasterdogs
douglasf13 wrote:
It's a trade off. The jpeg conversion does look better in regards to aliasing (although you can still see it in places like the woman on the dollar's face,) but it does smear foliage. People have been using RPP because it smears foliage less, but then you get other issues. Trans-X needs better raw conversion, for sure, and that will help a lot.
rasterdogs wrote:
I have an X-pro1 and am happy with the image quality. I have converted the raw files with LR4 and made prints that are 10 x 12 inches and really haven't encountered the issues that get raised about the X-trans sensor.
The thing that I've been most pleasantly surprised about the X-trans files is how great the OOC jpegs are.
I was a dyed in the wool RAW file only fanatic. the X-pro1 jpegs have me using jpeg files 80% of the time.
-rasterdogs
Yes, my experience too. I couldn't remember the last time I shot jpg before the X-Pro 1. The auto white balance is the best of any camera I've used.
douglasf13 wrote:
My biggest curiosity with the XE-1 will be AF speed. I'm curious how fast it is, both with the new lenses and original primes.
As I understand it, the X-E1 is supposed to have the same or similar firmware as the 2.0 firmware update coming for the X-Pro 1 on September 18. I've been able to find this link for a general idea of how it might perform with the original lenses.
&feature=player_embedded
Autofocus seems to be slightly improved though manual focus seems to have been greatly improved. Autofocus might be faster on the new lenses due to the new motor.
using my x100 since it came out i just leave it on jpg, and i've been shooting nef since the nikon cp5000. fujis jpgs, wb and on board flash are the best ive seen, i'd tweak the seting to produce the files you like 1 for landscape and another for portraits, maby a neutral one too...
lou f wrote:
using my x100 since it came out i just leave it on jpg, and i've been shooting nef since the nikon cp5000. fujis jpgs, wb and on board flash are the best ive seen, i'd tweak the seting to produce the files you like 1 for landscape and another for portraits, maby a neutral one too...
Unfortuantely, having used - and tested - both the X100 and X-Pro1, the jpegs of the X-Pro1 are not at the same artifact free level as the X100 (which I agree, produces exceptional jpegs).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Unfortuantely, having used - and tested - both the X100 and X-Pro1, the jpegs of the X-Pro1 are not at the same artifact free level as the X100 (which I agree, produces exceptional jpegs).
Well we all have different criteria for 'artifacts'. I've not encountered anything I'd call an artifact in 10x12 inch prints from the X-pro1 files.
That having been said I'm not much of a peeper. I don't see the point.
-rasterdogs
I do use 'oxygen free' gold cables on my stereo, though
