mawz wrote:
No the either/or now is in terms of size/weight of gear. Aside from those few willing to go Leica with the associated compromises in capability, your choice is to haul a large & heavy DSLR setup, or give up a small amount of IQ and go to a compact mirrorless system like the X, NEX or m43. The latter option makes getting the shot easier as well (easier to get the gear to the site, more accurate AF, if slower in some cases, much easier to carry all necessary lenses)
At my print sizes, the IQ difference between a NEX-7 or OM-D and a D800E are small, and often invisible. On screen, the differences are invisible when viewing the full image. And of course there's far less difference between an OM-D and a 5DIII, A99 or D600 in IQ terms than there is between those mirrorless cameras and a D800E.
Small format (which 35mm traditionally is) has always been about giving up some IQ to get a massive increase in portability. That's why Oskar Barnack invented the Ur-Leica. Modern Mirrorless cameras are solidly in that tradition, while modern FF DSLR's are Medium Format equivalents in terms of size, weight and portability. Yeah, use the DSLR when you have to. But you are giving up nearly nothing by going to Mirrorless outside of edge cases where the DSLR has a big advantage (generally these come down to long lens work, continuous AF, shallow DoF and high ISO, also very large prints in the case of the D800's, but not the other current FF bodies)...Show more →
I mostly agree with your view except where you think you need to go to the D800 to see a difference in prints between a mirrorless and a full frame DSLR. I see a large difference in prints between my x100 and my 5d2 in both details and tonality. If my sole goal was to post images online, I would definately stick with portable mirrorless cameos, but if I was to make prints of any sizes greater than 16x20, I'd always pick my DSLR. Why buy beautiful lens and give up their advantages with lesser cameras.
RustyBug wrote:
I still don't understand this ... I correct WB on jpgs for others (i.e. no raw available) all the time. I just use layers so that nothing destructive is involved.
Destructive as far as image information is concerned -- not that you're losing the original. Setting WB in RAW means you're just doing a different tone mapping with all original imagine information available, but if you need to correct a jpeg that has much too warm a WB for instance, most of the information in the blue channel has been thrown away at the time of the creation of the jpeg, so there's no way to get that back. When you change the WB of the jpeg to be more neutral (less warm), you're just stretching the little information that's left in the blue channel, leading to gaps in the histogram, which means posterization in blue areas.
philip_pj wrote:
And indeed that is why the dude with the knife has a beard as black as a coal mine with no detail in it and the table, the what looks like fish and the car behind are blown at the highlight end, and there is clipping in many others shown here.
RAW+jpg is always an option.
Were these taken with the Provia (standard) or Velvia (Vivid) film simulation and dynamic range @ 100%? Do you have any images using the other modes such as Astia or 200%/400% DR?
AhamB wrote:
Destructive as far as image information is concerned -- not that you're losing the original. Setting WB in RAW means you're just doing a different tone mapping with all original imagine information available, but if you need to correct a jpeg that has much too warm a WB for instance, most of the information in the blue channel has been thrown away at the time of the creation of the jpeg, so there's no way to get that back. When you change the WB of the jpeg to be more neutral (less warm), you're just stretching the little information that's left in the blue channel, leading to gaps in the histogram, which means posterization in blue areas....Show more →
Gotcha ... same "at risk" issues relative to potentially less information to work from as with any jpg edits. Not actually a "can't correct for WB" that often accompanies the RAW vs. jpg debate ... i.e. it is preferable to work from the most information available for optimal results, which is of course, RAW.
AhamB wrote:
Destructive as far as image information is concerned -- not that you're losing the original. Setting WB in RAW means you're just doing a different tone mapping with all original imagine information available, but if you need to correct a jpeg that has much too warm a WB for instance, most of the information in the blue channel has been thrown away at the time of the creation of the jpeg, so there's no way to get that back. When you change the WB of the jpeg to be more neutral (less warm), you're just stretching the little information that's left in the blue channel, leading to gaps in the histogram, which means posterization in blue areas....Show more →
Furthermore, in an extreme case of 8bit jpeg vs a 16bit raw, loss of data through extreme editing could lead to even worse posterization, such as in the illustration below showing the comb effect in the right 8bit image vs the left 16bit image. Relying solely on jpegs simply reduces ones control of quality versus shooting raw. If you need the jpeg for whatever reason (to view on your iPad while on vacaton or to show/send someone a quick proof), raw+jpeg is the obvious answer with all the cameras being discussed. http://www.gibranstudio.com/bit.jpg
Tariq Gibran wrote:
loss of data through extreme editing could lead to even worse posterization
+1 @ editing jpgs is more treacherous than editing raw.
While WB is still correctable in jpg, having a camera that nails it is still nice to have ... even if only to serve as a baseline/reference image for editing the raw either toward or away from the jpg. No reason to dismiss the WB accuracy of the XE-1 on jpgs, just because RAW is preferable to extreme editing. I think part of the point of this kind of camera is the ability to enjoy it without a heavy dependency on editing ... yet, it offers the RAW so you are never constrained to the jpg in those instances where the jpg doesn't meet your needs ... whatever the reason.
The jpgs seem to be blowing out some detail (assumed @ Provia/standard/100%DR). Would like to see them using the Astia Film Simulation, along with DR and shadow/highlight adjustment (in camera) to see how well it handles them then.
RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ editing jpgs is more treacherous than editing raw.
While WB is still correctable in jpg, having a camera that nails it is still nice to have ... even if only to serve as a baseline/reference image for editing the raw either toward or away from the jpg. No reason to dismiss the WB accuracy of the XE-1 on jpgs, just because RAW is preferable to extreme editing. I think part of the point of this kind of camera is the ability to enjoy it without a heavy dependency on editing ... yet, it offers the RAW so you are never constrained to the jpg in those instances where the jpg doesn't meet your needs ... whatever the reason.
The jpgs seem to be blowing out some detail (assumed @ Provia/standard/100%DR). Would like to see them using the Astia Film Simulation, along with DR and shadow/highlight adjustment (in camera) to see how well it handles them then....Show more →
Agree, sometimes the jpeg can certainly come in handy. As far as the Fuji nailing the color, it does not, if we are talking accuracy. With Fuji, it's more about pleasing color and trying to mimic a certain color bias of a particular film (just look at the orange face in the third shot, which I don't really find pleasing myself). I have always found Fuji's Astia setting odd though as it's nothing like the very neutral film stock of that name. Beyond editing ability, a jpegs much restricted DR is the greater problem. As mentioned before, the data at the extremes is often gone for good with a jpeg,
With Fujis I tend to shoot JPEG+RAW. Sometimes I use the JPEG, but more often I use them as a template for my RAW editing – e.g. if I like the colors I will try to match them in the RAW.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
With Fuji, it's more about pleasing color and trying to mimic a certain color bias of a particular film (just look at the orange face in the third shot, which I don't really find pleasing myself).
+1 ... WB is a bit magenta. That I can pretty much fix in post (even @ jpg). I see tons of cameras of all kinds miss the WB in ambient, so that isn't too surprising. After opening up the image, it does look ruddy overall, but still correctable.
The thing that is most bothersome for me, is the underbelly of the fish .. it is blown, and I can't do much with that. I'd imagine this is due to the jpg profile using a steep gamma for the Fuji look. In that lighting, I see no reason why it should be blown. Recovery on the beard was about 80% satisfactory, with the deepest parts being a bit too far gone for my skills.
I noticed while looking at a review that the XE-1 has settings for dialing back the highlights and/or shadows, as well as overall DR. Probably a good thing ... to reign in and harness that steep Fuji gamma at times. Would be really interesting to see the raw, if available.
RustyBug wrote:
+1 ... WB is a bit magenta. That I can pretty much fix in post (even @ jpg). I see tons of cameras of all kinds miss the WB in ambient, so that isn't too surprising. After opening up the image, it does look ruddy overall, but still correctable.
The thing that is most bothersome for me, is the underbelly of the fish .. it is blown, and I can't do much with that. I'd imagine this is due to the jpg profile using a steep gamma for the Fuji look. In that lighting, I see no reason why it should be blown. Recovery on the beard was about 80% satisfactory, with the deepest parts being a bit too far gone for my skills.
I noticed while looking at a review that the XE-1 has settings for dialing back the highlights and/or shadows, as well as overall DR. Probably a good thing ... to reign in and harness that steep Fuji gamma at times. Would be really interesting to see the raw, if available.
Yeah, lots of blown highlights in a number of those images that are probably never coming back. I agree, the fish is probably the worse case. For printing or other reproduction purposes, I usually want to place my highlight with subtle detail around a numerical value of 244 or so since it's very often the case contrast is picked up in printing. If something is going to be published where the photographer does not have control of the process, this is even more important (subtle shadows can easily block up just as the highlight detail can blow).
I find the images in the first post nice myself but let's say a travel editor just happened upon this thread and thought, "hey those shots would be perfect for xyz article". It sure would suck if the editor wanted more shadow detail in the sunglasses, highlight detail in the fish and so on and you did not have a master raw file to go back to. Are you going to say, thank you for your interest but I just shot this stuff on vacation and, since I only have the jpegs, I'm afraid I can't provide what you need, but man, that 2K (or whatever) sure would have been nice. It's good to have options, particularly when, in this case, it's only a RAW+JPEG menu choice away.
The OP didn't have to lug his D800 + 14-24/2.8 around - he could have brought a 20/2.8D and 50/1.8G instead . . . and gotten very similar images.
Nikon makes/has made some pretty decent light/compact primes that do quite well on the D800 - especially if you are going to shoot them stopped down a bit as he did in most of his posted photos.
Hopefully the "outperforms" in the title was in jest.
jhinkey wrote:
The OP didn't have to lug his D800 + 14-24/2.8 around - he could have brought a 20/2.8D and 50/1.8G instead . . . and gotten very similar images.
+1 @ Raw + jpeg pretty much saves the day, each and every time. That, and I'm thinking that you could dial back the jpg in camera (shadows/highlights) to safeguard them a bit, while still enjoying the Fuji colors ... but that's just a guess based on the review.
See just past 1/2 way down the page @ shadow/highlight tone adjustment, followed by the DR adjustment. I think they know that a steep gamma isn't a one size fits all good thing, even if it does have that strong consumer / Velvia vibe that is so popular. I shot Velvia 90% of the time ... except for weddings @ VPS 160 ... so I understand it's attraction ... almost like Zeiss rendering/colors are easy to love, but they aren't for everything. (Oooops, did I actually say that out loud. )
Yes, but the lenses weigh the same, so the more lenses like this, the less important the difference. And the bag itself and possibly a tripod are going to make the difference negligible. FF is bulkier though.
jhinkey wrote: The OP didn't have to lug his D800 + 14-24/2.8 around - he could have brought a 20/2.8D and 50/1.8G instead . . . and gotten very similar images.
Excellent suggestion..however I lack the ability to have lenses appear out of thin air. If I could maybe I would have brought along a M9 and a summilux 35 1.4. .
carstenw wrote: Yes, but the lenses weigh the same, so the more lenses like this, the less important the difference. And the bag itself and possibly a tripod are going to make the difference negligible. FF is bulkier though.
At this point we are now comparing gear I don't own and assuming I want to carry a tripod and bag, etc. Just curious if I'm the only one that has actually held a Fuji XE-1 + Fuji 14 2.8 side by side with a Nikon D800 + 14-24? Becuase this thread would have ended two pages ago.
Also, all of the remarks on highlights and RAW, etc.. if you guys want to spend all day looking at histograms, and MTF charts, etc go nuts. I have shots from my D2xs that I like more than some from my D800. Why, because they captured a moment, light, and a memory. Who cares about blown highlights on a travel snapshot. Holy crap....
Come on, what you are writing now is simply disingenuous. If you can buy a Fuji X-E1 and a 14mm lens, you can also buy a 20/2.8 and 50/1.8. And comparing a 14-24/2.8 to the 14mm is silly, they are wildly different types of lenses. The 14mm barely leaves the narrow end of the 14-24.
I am not saying you shouldn't have bought the Fuji, and I am not saying that it doesn't deliver good quality, but this whole thread should IMO never have existed. It is obvious that the Fuji is a nicer travel camera for non-professional uses, and doesn't need stating.
carstenw wrote: Come on, what you are writing now is simply disingenuous. If you can buy a Fuji X-E1 and a 14mm lens, you can also buy a 20/2.8 and 50/1.8. And comparing a 14-24/2.8 to the 14mm is silly, they are wildly different types of lenses. The 14mm barely leaves the narrow end of the 14-24.
Why is it so difficult to understand that I am making a size comparison between the two setups. There not even close. One is a anchor and the other you don't even know you are carrying it. Also, regarding buying lenses I'll stick to buying what works for me. Thanks and it's not being disingenuous.
Using the word "outperforms" in this manner was bound to upset a lot of people (me included).
Nothing even remotely related to the word-base "perform" was presented in the thread opening. It was quite simply a personal preference of simplicity and size over image quality and more weight. Most people can accept this argument, as long as you don't stress the image quality demands to much.
To "perform" means something entirely different, especially when coupled with equipment for specific uses. Performance is tangible, comparable and measurable. Personal preference without quality comparisons are a totally different matter.
allstarimaging wrote:
Why is it so difficult to understand that I am making a size comparison between the two setups. There not even close. One is a anchor and the other you don't even know you are carrying it. Also, regarding buying lenses I'll stick to buying what works for me. Thanks and it's not being disingenuous.
The do by all means start a new thread.
My suggestion for a thread headline would be: "The Fuji X-1 is smaller than the Nikon D800"
My guess is that it wouldn't attract that much attention though. And no-one could say that you're wrong. Since you wouldn't be... The Fuji is smaller. 100% correct.
), raw+jpeg is the obvious answer with all the cameras being discussed. 
)
.