flashinm wrote:
Nex image has more resolution across the entire frame. It has nothing to do with chroma resolution. They either did a poor job of setting up the test, or used Adobe to convert a Raw file.
Those are out of camera jpg shot at f8 if I am not mistaken. You can check out XPro-1's review samples to see they all have the same look.
Or the simple explanation is that the X-trans have lower apparent resolution compared to Bayer.
Douglas, I don't mean to be argumentative, but you keep bringing up the Chroma resolution thing. It's yet to be proven that the 50% chroma resolution advantage of the bayer array is even something that the human eye can detect, yet you keep making it out to be this huge deal.
It's that overly smoothed look that we're talking about, and I've yet to see comparison images where the X-trans resolution competes with bayer at low ISO. At high ISO, X-trans is pretty remarkable.
Either way, I'm certainly not the only one bringing this up across numerous forums and reviews on the web. It's a pretty well known quantity, at this point, and it should be mentioned to those who are unaware of it. As mortyb says, though, output size certainly comes into play, and it may not make a difference to some.
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Those are out of camera jpg shot at f8 if I am not mistaken. You can check out XPro-1's review samples to see they all have the same look.
Or the simple explanation is that the X-trans have lower apparent resolution compared to Bayer.
If those are out of camera jpegs, I'm very surprised. It certainly doesn't match my experience. I did a comparison using the same same lens on each camera and the fuji jpegs certainly had more detail. I'll see if I can find them.
flashinm wrote:
If those are out of camera jpegs, I'm very surprised. It certainly doesn't match my experience. I did a comparison using the same same lens on each camera and the fuji jpegs certainly had more detail. I'll see if I can find them.
Raws would be great. Sony jpeg engine is pretty bad in terms of detail.
Well here's one that I posted here. I think this was using the method of layering the fuji jpeg details over a raw file. Nex was from a raw file. I can do a more comprehensive comparison, but it's raining outside at the moment.
I know comparisons are a pain to do, but, if you do some more, that'd be great. It would also be great to make the raws available to us for comparison. Granted, this is probably stuff for a different thread.
The problem with Fuji raw's is that there is no ideal solution for processing them at the moment. I'll do a comparison in the next week or so and start a new thread so we can stop derailing this one, although I guess it's kind of relevant.
flashinm wrote:
The problem with Fuji raw's is that there is no ideal solution for processing them at the moment. I'll do a comparison in the next week or so and start a new thread so we can stop derailing this one, although I guess it's kind of relevant.
I am waiting for the new Capture One Raw update results for the Fuji X-Trans cameras which are coming shortly. If the new update results prove as good as we hope then I would expect that Adobe is going to have to go back and come up with better Camera Raw processing for these cameras.
flashinm wrote:
The problem with Fuji raw's is that there is no ideal solution for processing them at the moment. I'll do a comparison in the next week or so and start a new thread so we can stop derailing this one, although I guess it's kind of relevant.
I think that's kind of the point that Joakim was trying to make. There aren't really any great raw solutions for X-trans right now, and, even if a raw converter with a new architecture is developed to handle the files appropriately, it still won't be able to achieve the detail of a bayer sensor in good light. Of course, Foveon is better than both in terms of detail in good light, but it isn't great at at high ISO.
I'll look for that new thread, thanks. BTW, be sure to shoot both cameras at the same aperture and shutter speed, as I believe that Fuji overstates ISO a little with the camera. Imaging Resource said that ISO 6400 on the X-Pro1 is equivalent to ISO 3200 on the D600, if I remember correctly.
BTW, since the lack of an AA filter was brought up in this thread, this quote from TheSuede sums up things nicely (I shoot an AA-less camera, too, so I'm not being biased here) :
"Removing the AA filter completely adds in more pixel level contrast in the image before demosaic, and that gives aliasing to a sparsely populated matrix. In laymans terms - you might think you see more detail, but almost all of it is false detail - stuff that wasn't there in reality in front of the lens. The only place where AA-less cameras give more real detail than a camera with a good AA filter is on flat surfaces with a high green image content. In those you get more surface texture, and the texture is rendered with good reliability since the interpolation algorithm can suppose that the entire surface is uni-colored.
There are only two ways to get more REAL detail in an image. One is more base resolution (more MP), the other is stacked cells. Unfortunately the only stacked cell that is practically viable in mass production right now is Foveon, and that system has it's own pitfalls - that makes it totally unsuitable for anything requiring accurate color or high ISO performance. Which unfortunately is quite a lot of normal photography. "
Just asked this in the image thread, because I'm probably blind not seeing this one.
So I'll try posting my questions here too:
After seeing an adapter on eBay which lets me use my old Canon 50mm 0.95 I have decided that I'm going to pick up either a X-pro1 or an X-E1.
But I have some questions to help me decide, and I really appreciate if any of you could help me out.
If shooting with an adapter and my old lens, I understand that there will be no communication between the camera and the lens and therefore I would have to shoot on full manual, this is of no worry to me. But I wonder how it is to focus with the viewfinder on the X-pro1. Do I have to have it on "EVF" mode or can I shoot with the optical viewfinder?
If I have to use the EVF, should I just get the X-E1?
I think I prefer the size of the X-E1, since I'm after something smaller than my D800E.
agentbird wrote:
Just asked this in the image thread, because I'm probably blind not seeing this one.
So I'll try posting my questions here too:
After seeing an adapter on eBay which lets me use my old Canon 50mm 0.95 I have decided that I'm going to pick up either a X-pro1 or an X-E1.
But I have some questions to help me decide, and I really appreciate if any of you could help me out.
If shooting with an adapter and my old lens, I understand that there will be no communication between the camera and the lens and therefore I would have to shoot on full manual, this is of no worry to me. But I wonder how it is to focus with the viewfinder on the X-pro1. Do I have to have it on "EVF" mode or can I shoot with the optical viewfinder?
If I have to use the EVF, should I just get the X-E1?
I think I prefer the size of the X-E1, since I'm after something smaller than my D800E.
you have to use EVF mode. Unless you plan on zone focusing and stopping down the aperture so you simply can't miss. The OVF has frame lines that allow you to compose with fuji branded lenses, without the electronic AF and communication the OVF becomes just a little window with no data or focus information... remember this camera isn't a range finder... its a view camera.
That said, I use adapted lenses on my Xpro 1 with the EVF and it works fine. gets a little laggy in low light but its usable. If you plan on owning any fuji lenses the OVF is great to have. If you only plan on shooting adapted lenses and like the small size of the XE1 I'd go that route... I prefer the Xpro 1 as far as build quality, size, and usability. But I understand the Xe1 has a nicer EVF.
dills84 wrote:
you have to use EVF mode. Unless you plan on zone focusing and stopping down the aperture so you simply can't miss. The OVF has frame lines that allow you to compose with fuji branded lenses, without the electronic AF and communication the OVF becomes just a little window with no data or focus information... remember this camera isn't a range finder... its a view camera.
That said, I use adapted lenses on my Xpro 1 with the EVF and it works fine. gets a little laggy in low light but its usable. If you plan on owning any fuji lenses the OVF is great to have. If you only plan on shooting adapted lenses and like the small size of the XE1 I'd go that route... I prefer the Xpro 1 as far as build quality, size, and usability. But I understand the Xe1 has a nicer EVF....Show more →
Thanks for taking the time to ansver my questions.
I'm getting the camera first and foremost to use with my 50mm 0.95 wide open, I might pick up the Fuji 35mm, but not anytime soon. I've got a D800E with plenty of glass for work. I just want something smaller that I can carry around, shoot some street photography and the like.
After reading what you said, I'm pretty certain I'm picking up a X-E1.
It's the best crop sensor anywhere and it's good enough for me to question the need to buy a full frame DSLR, which has been on my agenda since the release of the D600 and the 6D.
My thoughts and experiences exactly.
I have the X-E1 and a DP2 Merrill; and I like both very much. The X-E1's low light performance is amazing, to me at least, and I have owned a D3s and pretty much all the mirrorless cameras, including the NEX-7 and 5n (and all the Panasonics AND the OM-D).
Ergonomically and UI-wise, the X-E1 has it over them all (tho', in its limited operating environment, the DP2 is fantastic, too).
After looking through hundreds of images of people shot with the 35/1.4, and speaking as a long-term FF enthusiast and advocate, I feel for the first time that FF is not necessary to me anymore. Now, if a reasonably prices MF sensor in a compact body comes along, I'll be all over it, but the X-Trans sensor (for its capabilities) and the DP2's (for its) has all my needs covered for now.
Yes, handling.. That's one of the main reason I choose xe1 over nex6 after trying both of them out in the camera shop.
Nex6 I have to play with the camera for a while before I get familiar with it, its more like a electronic device than a camera. And I can pick up a xe1 and start shooting right away.
Even though I know nex6 has faster refresh rate and better AF with pdaf, I picked the ergonomic and high iso performance over nex6.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Doug,
I didn't like the handling of the NEX cameras nearly as well as the Fuji X-E1. The camera, controls and everything felt much more right to me. It felt much more like a camera especially coming from my Leica R system cameras. When we tested the camera Tuesday of this week with the Leica R Novoflex adapter for the camera, all of the R lenses worked well both in hand and on the tripod. This included working with my f2.8 24mm Elmarit, f2.8 100mm Apo Macro Elmarit, f4 70-210mm Vario Elmar, and my f4 280mm Apo Telyt lenes. As to the low ISO performance, that may or may not be the case. If the NEX performance is better at low ISO this assessment still has to be determined. As soon as we have a good and reliable RAW software program to work with the camera files that may well demonstrate to the contrary. Also, hopefully Fuji will lower the option of ISO of 100 for the camera when working in raw. The lack of the AA aliasing filter really offers tremendous possibility for the camera.
Also, even though I do and have shot wildlife for years my Leicas were the smallest cameras that I used. I would frequently work slowly and carefully working with Large Format 4" X 5" cameras as well as medium Format Mamiya 7 II rangefinder for landscape and nature work.
