allstarimaging wrote:
Who cares about blown highlights on a travel snapshot.
Well, I think the thread was suggesting not that the XE-1 was superlative to the D800, but that it made a great alternative to toting the cadre of FF arsenal that we have for optimal imaging. I get that part, no problem.
But, if you are now saying that the XE-1 can't handle the DR from the beard to the fish (and in your opinion, it shouldn't really matter) ... then what's the point of posting a thread saying it outperforms the 800E or any other camera for that matter
I still think it can probably be "tamed" using the shadow/highlight/DR adjustments, and of course the RAW is always a viable option. But, now you've changed the dynamic of the comparison from a "better than" to a "what the heck do you expect".
I'm good with the fact that it isn't going to be a D800E, it's foolish to think that it would be. But, imo, it is reasonable to judge it on it's own merit for taking a pretty routine snapshot ... and the guy chopping fish image is telling on the steep profile a bit. That doesn't make it inferior, just that the steep profile is something to be wary of when you use it and when you don't. I think Fuji's got it covered in their shadow/highlight/Dr adjustments, at least I'd like to think so.
I've been interested in the Fuji offerings for a while as a platform alternative to my FF gear, and this thread still has me interested ... which is why I'm "digging deeper" into it. Everything in photography is a series of tradeoffs and compromises to one varying degree or another. I think it is important to understand where/what those limits are, that's all ... otherwise you get severely disappointed.
Images are nice and the Fuji is apparently a very capable camera, but it is a compact mirrorless design. Most, if not all DSLR's, including the D800 and especially the pro series bodies with integrated portrait grips, do not have compactness as their primary design goal. They have not even enrolled in this competition where they are now being "outperformed".
There is no point to be made here, or if there was, my cellphone would easily outperform both my NEX and my 60D. The best camera is the one... and so forth.
ATTENTION!!! In my opening of the post I wrote: "My D800 stayed at home. " followed by a These things are an indication of humor. Wow.. you guys take this stuff way to seriously. From now on I'll be sure to post only scientifically accurate posts full of charts and histograms and brick walls that should keep everyone happy. see all of those things more humor. get it.
As a follow up. Here is a shot I took of Tiger with a crappy D2xs and a Nikon 400 2.8 AFS II before the VR. Must be a complete garbage shot because everyone knows the D2xs wasn't full frame and the lens didn't have VR. The image has noise in the shadows, blacks are to dark, and the histogram isn't spot on. But somehow it sold like crazy...it's about pictures and moments, light, and composition. Don't take it to seriously or you'll miss it..
The "outperforms" stands out in the title, and the is buried in the text.
A picture is worth a thousand words and maybe a bunch of money ... but how much is a wrong word worth? So far, about 5 pages of debacle.
I'm pretty sure we all know that great images can be taken with very modest equipment ... that wasn't the point of the thread, or not at least as most people took it. I get that it was a nice break from toting the big guns, and it was liberating and fun ... all reasonable and realistic.
But if you are advancing it as a great travel camera (even if tongue in cheek @ D800E, which I get), why shouldn't we be looking at it with critical review if we really are interested in it. The pics you provided are actually quite valuable to give a sense of realistic expectation. Thank you for sharing that with us, but you know this is a tough crowd on a tough board, so please don't be put off by those of use who have put some scrutiny to it. We aren't scrutinizing you, or your photography ... just trying to better understand the camera that you are very pleased with and have shared with us.
this is kind of a ridiculous discussion. lots of people howling about how much better a d800 plus 14-24mm would actually perform compared to the xe-1 + 14mm if you were actually willing to carry the the dslr + giant zoom, but i'm curious to what degree this is actually true?
i'd be willing to bet that shooting side by side handheld or on a tripod with the zoom at 21mm the difference would be minimal and some might even prefer the fuji (less distortion, different color) at normal print sizes (18" long or less). what level of pixel peeping do we have to do for the iq differences to be noticeable? i'd love to see somebody do this comparison.
what's lost in this debate is that image quality differences between todays large sensor compacts and top end dslrs are staggeringly small. how much better would the travel pictures be if they were taken with the top of the line dslr? would it be noticeable without a tripod? if both cameras were used in jpg only mode i bet the fuji would look better to me just cause i like their jpg engine better than nikons.
It's also about what's right for any particular image as far as content and usage is concerned. No one want's to see detailed shadow's that reveal Tiger's crotch but we sure might want to see what that blown out fish looks like in a travel shot. Sort of hard to argue against having options, particularly at this point in camera technology. It's not an either/ or proposition - get the shot, capture the moment OR make a technically good image. Sometimes they actually do go hand in hand.
The ideal place to be, imo, is to know and practice all the technical crap so well that it becomes automatic. Then one can just forget about it and make great images.
I checked your Flickr account. Nice images. Even with a Sony. Good luck with the crowd on this thread beacuse as you have read on here you can't possibly take good photos with anything other than a full frame dslr, a big heavy lens, and a perfect histogram only after you have taken a million test shots of brick walls.
Your right about the jpegs the Fuji blows the doors off of my D800 in that regard.
sebboh wrote:
this is kind of a ridiculous discussion. lots of people howling about how much better a d800 plus 14-24mm would actually perform compared to the xe-1 + 14mm if you were actually willing to carry the the dslr + giant zoom, but i'm curious to what degree this is actually true?
i'd be willing to bet that shooting side by side handheld or on a tripod with the zoom at 21mm the difference would be minimal and some might even prefer the fuji (less distortion, different color) at normal print sizes (18" long or less). what level of pixel peeping do we have to do for the iq differences to be noticeable? i'd love to see somebody do this comparison.
what's lost in this debate is that image quality differences between todays large sensor compacts and top end dslrs are staggeringly small. how much better would the travel pictures be if they were taken with the top of the line dslr? would it be noticeable without a tripod? if both cameras were used in jpg only mode i bet the fuji would look better to me just cause i like their jpg engine better than nikons....Show more →
It's already been done, and the blown highlights are pretty obvious.
Seems a bit silly to toss around the "brick wall" allegation here, particularly if one looks at any of the images in numerous threads here.
Jack, I'm just curious (because it's obviously not about "perfect" histograms but it is sometimes about not being artificially restricted by ones tools)... is the blown out fish that has been mentioned intentional?
RustyBug wrote:
It's already been done, and the blown highlights are pretty obvious.
not with those lenses. also, studio shots are very different than outdoor shots. the d800 jpgs aren't any better for blown highlights (different jpeg settings not withstanding).
Tariq wrote: Jack, I'm just curious (because it's obviously not about "perfect" histograms but it is sometimes about not being artificially restricted by ones tools)... is the blown out fish that has been mentioned intentional?
Are you for real Who cares if there are blown highlights in the fish? I was walking down the road on the way to a bar after a great day at the beach. Took one photo as I walked by. It's a snapshot!!!.
Okay, so the outdoor shots were blown out and the studio shots were blown out ... why would the lens variance matter @ how the sensor and jpg engine are handling the captured file? The combination of the two different settings (studio vs. outdoor) yielding similar results @ blown out highlights tells me that the camera has a tendency to blow out the highlights when using its native jpg engine ... and it seems Fuji has recognized this by including settings to adjust the shadows/highlights/DR
It seems to me that with proper understanding of this function/feature one could use it very successfully for those times when you don't want to tote the larger gear. But, I have to admit that seeing a histo that is maxed out on BOTH ends simultaneously does render a reason to at least raise an eyebrow and ask a question or two about the how/why. This isn't brick wall stuff, it is real world ... and that's important too.
allstarimaging wrote:
Tariq wrote: Jack, I'm just curious (because it's obviously not about "perfect" histograms but it is sometimes about not being artificially restricted by ones tools)... is the blown out fish that has been mentioned intentional?
Are you for real Who cares if there are blown highlights in the fish? I was walking down the road on the way to a bar after a great day at the beach. Took one photo as I walked by. It's a snapshot!!!.
Jack
It's not just the highlights but all the parts of the fish that are white. I'm not talking about what would normally be a specular highlight.
I guess the discrepancy in what you write is that you seem to treat these rather nice shots as if they don't matter by calling them just "snapshots" and, tongue in cheek or not, talk about the Fuji outperforming the D800. Yet, they are taken with what few would consider gear for just snapshots. It's not like these are from a cell phone or $100 P&S. It's obvious you cared enough to make these "snapshots" with good gear and thought the resulting shots decent enough to start a thread about the experience.
I suspect if these images were placed in the proper image thread (where I doubt there are many brick wall photo's)- https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1097477 -, more than half of this discussion would have been unnecessary.
RustyBug wrote:
Okay, so the outdoor shots were blown out and the studio shots were blown out ... why would the lens variance matter @ how the sensor and jpg engine are handling the captured file? The combination of the two different settings (studio vs. outdoor) yielding similar results @ blown out highlights tells me that the camera has a tendency to blow out the highlights when using its native jpg engine ... and Fuji has recognized this by including settings to adjust the shadows/highlights/DR
It seems to me that with proper understanding of this function/feature one could use it very successfully for those times when you don't want to tote the larger gear. ...Show more →
are there really blown highlights in the IR shots? i just gave them a cursory look and didn't see any. i was asking about lens + sensor performance after processing each to get the maximum possible image quality. both these cameras have fantastic dynamic range shooting RAW and both allow you to adjust dynamic range for jpg. i've been skipping all the talk about blown highlights in this thread cause it's of no importance to me (i always shoot raw or raw + jpg)
edit: just looked at the full sized IR images, there are blown highlights with xe-1 and the grey background is way brighter than the d800 shot. very different exposures. not really any conclusions to draw from that. in general i like the xe-1 shot better at 1600px and the d800 shot better at 100%. meh. i'd find the a properly exposed and processed shot much more useful.
These things
