The reason I use the X-Pro1 is not because of high resolution, if I want that I reach for my 5D II. However, it would be nice if there was a Raw converter that was as good as the X-Pro1's JPGs:
Look how much better the result is than those ACR ones from Lloyd Chambers.
To me, this performance is acceptable. I like what I'm seeing on my screen when I edit my Fuji files. I don't mind if people don't agree, everybody has their own preferences.
I don't think we can expect an awful lot of aliasing at f/8, but either way this sample does not tempt me to buy that camera.
Toothwalker wrote:
I don't think we can expect an awful lot of aliasing at f/8, but either way this sample does not tempt me to buy that camera.
That's fine.
It was just to show that the examples at diglloyd are flawed because he used a faulty RAW converter. I'm not saying the sensor gives the same or better fine detail as a bayer one.
I haven't used an X-Trans cameras so far though I have followed most of the threads about the sensor and have played with some RAW files in ACR and C1 Beta. My impression so far is that in terms of detail X-Trans is not giving any real-life advantage over bayer right now. It is just about at the same level using today's raw converters. However at the same time I have no need for 100% pixel level detail at16MP resolution as I don't print or display my images that big. So while the promised resolution gain might not be there, it doesn't really matter for my uses. What matters more for me is the high iso performance, DR, colors and lenses - all areas where the Fuji seems to perform very well. I understand that if someone needs that last bit of resolution out of the sensor then there might be some limitations. For someone like me it is really just pixel peeping without any real world implications.
For a min I thought "did they really have that cool maze pattern?", then I checked the 800E file, nothing destroy aesthetic more than reality
By the way can someone try the accuraw with the imaging resource's samples? I think those are even more demanding than the ones on dpreview. The raws are here:
Thanks, That looks very good and it is probably the best raw converter out there. It actually look better than the OOC jpeg sample on Imaging resources, which for some reason look like mush for the fabrics.
For reference, here's my processed K5-IIs file from lightroom:
farm9.staticflickr.com/8075/8352565424_f48a2a6ecb_o.jpg
Here's one slightly sharpened in gimp, I don't think it really need sharpening though
farm9.staticflickr.com/8495/8351509877_e422ec702f_o.jpg
So Dave, from your experience with AccuRaw, would you say that you are getting more detail out of it than the OOC jpeg?
