I spoke with a Fuji Rep (Steve who does participate on some of the Forums) today when I was registering my X-E1. According to him, Fuji feels that Adobe dropped the ball on the Raw processing that they have now offered for the camera and Fuji is not happy about this in the least. According to Steve, Fuji has worked with Phase One for Capture One and they have high hopes for the upgrade that will be coming for reading the RAW files out of the X-Trans cameras. According to Steve, Fuji expects that it will take 2 to 3 months for Capture One to be updated to read the X-Trans RAW files correctly and for its release.
naturephoto1 wrote:
I spoke with a Fuji Rep (Steve who does participate on some of the Forums) today when I was registering my X-E1. According to him, Fuji feels that Adobe dropped the ball on the Raw processing that they have now offered for the camera and Fuji is not happy about this in the least. According to Steve, Fuji has worked with Phase One for Capture One and they have high hopes for the upgrade that will be coming for reading the RAW files out of the X-Trans cameras. According to Steve, Fuji expects that it will take 2 to 3 months for Capture One to be updated to read the X-Trans RAW files correctly and for its release.
IF C1 is going to take 2 to 3 months for this, I expect great results. Because the samples people have been posting from the beta look quite good already.
Did Steve say anything about Aperture support? There was a rumor at around the same time that C1 was just a rumor too that Fuji was working with both C1 and Apple on this issue.
I'm beta testing the new C1 and the Fuji results are much better than those from Adobe. Much better detail and you can now actually use the sharpening sliders, something you better don't touch in ACR. :-)
FlyPenFly wrote:
I don't think you can simply set the 5N Sharpening at zero. Bayer filter sensors are designed to be sharpened in post or in JPEG processing. So the fuji files are benefiting from JPEG sharpening in their internal algorithm while the 5N files are not receiving that benefit.
If or when Fuji gets very good ACR support and Fuji releases really great lenses, I'll take a hard look at that system. After handling Fuji lenses, they just seem ho hum and the test results are nothing worth bragging about.
I dont know why are you saying this. So far the 35 1.4 and 18-15 has been very good lenses on the XE-1.. Re fuji sharpening in JPEG, I think its certainly not aggresive as some people here tend to believe, actually its quite mild. It looks aggresive because you are comparing to a NEX 5N, which has quite mushy results if you shoot RAW and didn't sharpen..
frezeiss wrote:
...actually its quite mild. It looks aggresive because you are comparing to a NEX 5N, which has quite mushy results if you shoot RAW and didn't sharpen..
Look at my comparisons on the previous page. The XE-1 looks more smeared in ACR, and it has a lot more artifacts and moire in RPP. At least with current raw software, I've yet to see the XE-1 look better than the 5N in good light.
justruss wrote:
IF C1 is going to take 2 to 3 months for this, I expect great results. Because the samples people have been posting from the beta look quite good already.
Did Steve say anything about Aperture support? There was a rumor at around the same time that C1 was just a rumor too that Fuji was working with both C1 and Apple on this issue.
Steve only really spoke about Capture One and Fuji's expectations from this software and their great disappointment with Adobe RAW. He indicated that it could take less than 2 to 3 months for the new release of Capture 1 for the Fuji X-Tans cameras, but the 2 to 3 months was what they expected for all of the Beta Testing and taking care of any bugs and getting things hopefully right.
What are wrong with the jpgs? They are awesome. You can even process raw files in-camera. Not optimal, but it works. I must be the only fella not longing for Fuji raw support.
I had to check Imaging Resource myself as I like what the 5N does. Primarily from a sensor point of view compared to the 5D2. I found no similarities to the initial post here, the 5N always look better than the Fuji - or sometimes "just" equal. I think IR take an effort in exposing alike regardless of whatever camera make states so I dont get why 3 correctly (possibly?) exposed Fuji images could be compared to 1 overexposed NEX image. It looks foul to me.
In my view FWIW, the Fuji may have some attractive features but even the Fuji image thread here contains much more discussion than imagery which is telling. No offense, but if I compare to the Sigma Merril threads where imagery is flooding - or the Sony RX1 thread for that matter, even from a gear nut point of view I think they're far more interesting.
Well there is only talk here because there is a comparison and there are choices for converting the raw files. The DP merril files you have no choice, Sigma software or the nothing......
douglasf13 wrote:
Look at my comparisons on the previous page. The XE-1 looks more smeared in ACR, and it has a lot more artifacts and moire in RPP. At least with current raw software, I've yet to see the XE-1 look better than the 5N in good light.
I was comparing JPEGS between the two, as I have extensive experience with the 5N, evaluating the XE-1 to the 5N was second nature. In short I prefer the JPEGs from the Fuji as it was considerably sharper. Wether it was false detail or whatever it doesnt matter..as long as like what I'm seeing. As a matter of fact, I prefer the Nex 3 output to the 5N, the 16 MP AA Sony sensor is just too mushy for me..
frezeiss wrote:
I was comparing JPEGS between the two, as I have extensive experience with the 5N, evaluating the XE-1 to the 5N was second nature. In short I prefer the JPEGs from the Fuji as it was considerably sharper. Wether it was false detail or whatever it doesnt matter..as long as like what I'm seeing. As a matter of fact, I prefer the Nex 3 output to the 5N, the 16 MP AA Sony sensor is just too mushy for me..
Sony has never been known for particularly good jpegs. If you're not talking raws, then that makes.
wfrank wrote:
I had to check Imaging Resource myself as I like what the 5N does. Primarily from a sensor point of view compared to the 5D2. I found no similarities to the initial post here, the 5N always look better than the Fuji - or sometimes "just" equal. I think IR take an effort in exposing alike regardless of whatever camera make states so I dont get why 3 correctly (possibly?) exposed Fuji images could be compared to 1 overexposed NEX image. It looks foul to me.
I took a reading from a Pentax digital spotmeter and set both cameras to that exposure. There's nothing foul here. The 5n shot is slightly brighter, but only by a half a stop. I posted these in part because the imaging resource samples don't match my experience as an owner of both cameras. They are very similar in terms of output (probably because they use the same sensor with a different topping). I don't know imaging resource's testing methodology, but keep in mind I used the same lens on each camera and set all the settings up identical.
douglasf13 wrote:
Sony has never been known for particularly good jpegs. If you're not talking raws, then that makes.
Well actually I find their jpegs are quite good, and love them vibrant colors the 5N produces. I cant stand it seeing the poor sharpness with the 5N when shooting raw. Actually this is good enoough for me unless I'm doing serious landscapes with very wide DR.
frezeiss wrote:
Well actually I find their jpegs are quite good, and love them vibrant colors the 5N produces. I cant stand it seeing the poor sharpness with the 5N when shooting raw. Actually this is good enoough for me unless I'm doing serious landscapes with very wide DR.
Sony jpeg color is usually considered good, but both Sony jpegs and the packaged Sony raw converter have both been know to be lacking in the detail department. RPP kills both in terms of detail, but it generally kills just about any converter in terms of detail.
I don't understand your point about the raws, when the previous examples in this thread show the 5N raws to be competitive with the XE-1, in terms of detail, when using RPP. Are you mistaking artifacts in the X-E1 with actual detail? What sharpening settings are you using for the 5N in Lightroom? Are you using deconvolution?
flashinm wrote:
I took a reading from a Pentax digital spotmeter and set both cameras to that exposure. There's nothing foul here. The 5n shot is slightly brighter, but only by a half a stop. I posted these in part because the imaging resource samples don't match my experience as an owner of both cameras. They are very similar in terms of output (probably because they use the same sensor with a different topping). I don't know imaging resource's testing methodology, but keep in mind I used the same lens on each camera and set all the settings up identical.
I forgot to ask, you used the same shutter speed and aperture for both cameras in the test, right?
They are awesome. You can even process raw files in-camera. Not optimal, but it works. I must be the only fella not longing for Fuji raw support. 