Actually I like the idea of having a smaller camera that's easy to lug around and has ADEQUATE performance. And I find it totally plausible that the Fuji could fill that consumer need - for some people, especially if they almost only shoot jpg-in-camera. No problem at all there.
But there's quite a lot of difference in meaning between (1) "outperform" and (2) "performs well enough for me, and is a lot easier to carry".
And I find it hard to understand that anyone could argue AGAINST that point, smiley or no smiley.
Personally I find the Fuji lenses optically excellent, but the Fuji cameras quite atrocious. Especially regarding image detail at low ISO, i.e typical holiday shots outdoors. They're very good at very high ISO however, where the very good noise rejection is more important than a resolution-lowering CFA layout.
Tariq wrote: I suspect if these images were placed in the proper image thread (where I doubt there are many brick wall photo's
Tariq, I want to be the first to congratulate you on your promotion to forum sheriff.
Also, it's clear that your perception of what photography is and where you find enjoyment in it is clearly different than mine. You seem to be so hung up on technicals and I'd rather just shoot and appreciate the moment. If you go to a gallery do you appreciate what you see before you or do you wonder what gear it was shot with and how the histogram looked? Do you only take pictures that are technically perfect? Or can you take and image and appreciate that it captures a moment. If you look in a National Geographic do you think you can find images that have blown highlights? I'm sure you can and you know what those images are taken by some of the greatest photographers on the planet. So as I said before wether I took the shot with a Fuji, Leica, Canon, or Nikon. Who cares I saw a moment. Clicked the shutter and went and had a drink.
+1 @ raw + jpg (that's how I shoot)
+1 @ adjust for DR for jpg (so I've read)
+1 @ theSuede .. he gets it, and always articulates it WAY BETTER than I
But, since the whole point of this (or so I took it) was that one could skip out on the pack mule, high $$$ gear fear (stolen/broken/etc), raw processing (@ a zillion vacation pics), etc. and still come away with some nice images in a nice package that isn't a country mile different than toting our FF counterpart is a breath of fresh air. However, these images aren't hitting the "almost as good" ... depending on your definition of good, but concessionary adequate for snapshot travel, if you aren't too picky.
I'm good with that, truly. But seeing a simple snapshot like the chopping fish image that is blowing out highlights ... puts us back to raw processing (or a different jpg setting) if we want to avoid such things. Not the end of the world, but something to be cognizant of in our realistic expectations of the "wonder camera". I'd still like to see how it handles the jpg scenario with the highlight/shadow/DR combinations @ different settings (I'll likely have to rent one first) ... and according to the snippet of example in the IR review, it shows some promise.
Here is a picture of the "Afgan Girl" taken by Steve McCurry. It's one of the most iconic photos of all time. Guess what there is noise in the shadows and some of the blacks are are gone...Also, it was taken with a film camera and no vr so it must be garbage... You guys need to spend less time getting hung up on all the technical crap and just start shooting and enjoying life. I shoot jpegs because I hate sitting in front of my computer there is to much going on outside my window to miss. Get you gear and go capture it before it's gone and don't worry if it's not technically perfect just appreciate it..
RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ raw + jpg (that's how I shoot)
+1 @ adjust for DR for jpg (so I've read)
+1 @ theSuede .. he gets it, and always articulates it WAY BETTER than I
But, since the whole point of this (or so I took it) was that one could skip out on the pack mule, high $$$ gear fear (stolen/broken/etc), raw processing (@ a zillion vacation pics), etc. and still come away with some nice images in a nice package that isn't a country mile different than toting our FF counterpart is a breath of fresh air. However, these images aren't hitting the "almost as good" ... depending on your definition of good, but concessionary adequate for snapshot travel, if you aren't too picky.
i think the jpg issue is a separate issue from the camera issue, i have no reason to think the dynamic range in the fish shot would be better preserved if it had been taken with the d800 in jpg mode.
BLOWN HIGHLIGHTS..yep they sure do ruin a picture. Look at the blown highlights on the background in this shot that pretty much every kid in America had hanging on his wall in the 70's. Based on the responses in this thread I'm pretty sure most of you guys were looking at the blown highlights while the rest of America was looking at Farrah Fawcett.
allstarimaging wrote:
Tariq wrote: I suspect if these images were placed in the proper image thread (where I doubt there are many brick wall photo's
Tariq, I want to be the first to congratulate you on your promotion to forum sheriff.
Also, it's clear that your perception of what photography is and where you find enjoyment in it is clearly different than mine. You seem to be so hung up on technicals and I'd rather just shoot and appreciate the moment. If you go to a gallery do you appreciate what you see before you or do you wonder what gear it was shot with and how the histogram looked? Do you only take pictures that are technically perfect? Or can you take and image and appreciate that it captures a moment. If you look in a National Geographic do you think you can find images that have blown highlights? I'm sure you can and you know what those images are taken by some of the greatest photographers on the planet. So as I said before wether I took the shot with a Fuji, Leica, Canon, or Nikon. Who cares I saw a moment. Clicked the shutter and went and had a drink.
If you read what I have said, you will have your answer. Content and whatever technique is required to adequately communicate that content is what's important to me. When I ran and owned a gallery, this was the case regardless of the medium - and professional standards with regard to execution and presentation were obviously expected of all artist. Same was true in the grad school where I received my MFA. Same is true at the university where I teach photography. In fact, this same professionalism was definitely a requirement when I started out in Photography over twenty five years ago.
Here is a picture of the "Afgan Girl" taken by Steve McCurry. It's one of the most iconic photos of all time. Guess what there is noise in the shadows and some of the blacks are are gone...Also, it was taken with a film camera and no vr so it must be garbage... You guys need to spend less time getting hung up on all the technical crap and just start shooting and enjoying life. I shoot jpegs because I hate sitting in front of my computer there is to much going on outside my window to miss. Get you gear and go capture it before it's gone and don't worry if it's not technically perfect just appreciate it..
I can assure you, Steve is quite technically savvy and achieved exactly his vision in this image.
It's sad, as it really seems like this thread has turned into some sort of cry for advocating mediocrity with regard to technique. Again, you seem to have a desire to set up a dichotomy between technique and capturing the moment. I repeat, they are not mutually exclusive. Proper technique/ technical ability is not the new great evil of creativity.
Tariq wrote: It's sad, as it really seems like this thread has turned into some sort of cry for advocating mediocrity with regard to technique. Again, you seem to have a desire to set up a dichotomy between technique and capturing the moment. I repeat, they are not mutually exclusive. Proper technique/ technical ability is not the new great evil of creativity.
For some unknown reason I'm almost enjoying this back and forth banter. So I guess your suggesting that when I'm half in the bag after happy hour walking down the street in a tropical paradise and see a guy cutting fish on the side of the road I should pull out my light meter, set up my tripod, shoot in RAW, ask him to slow down cutting the fish so I can get a technically perfect shot, ask my wife to stand by while I get the shot, maybe add some fill light with an off camera stobe and ask some one else to hold a reflector so I can bounce a little light in.
Do you ever just take an image for the sake of taking a photo? Steve McCurry could fill a vault with the number of shots he has just taken because he liked the moment.
RustyBug wrote:
So, if I'm reading you correctly, you're suggesting that (tongue in cheek warning ), the D800E jpg mode sucks as bad as the XE-1 jpg mode.
actually, i'd say the d800 jpg mode sucks noticeably worse. IR seems to know how to meter the d800 better than they do the xe-1 though.
allstarimaging wrote:
Tariq wrote: It's sad, as it really seems like this thread has turned into some sort of cry for advocating mediocrity with regard to technique. Again, you seem to have a desire to set up a dichotomy between technique and capturing the moment. I repeat, they are not mutually exclusive. Proper technique/ technical ability is not the new great evil of creativity.
For some unknown reason I'm almost enjoying this back and forth banter. So I guess your suggesting that when I'm half in the bag after happy hour walking down the street in a tropical paradise and see a guy cutting fish on the side of the road I should pull out my light meter, set up my tripod, shoot in RAW, ask him to slow down cutting the fish so I can get a technically perfect shot, ask my wife to stand by while I get the shot, maybe add some fill light with an off camera stobe and ask some one else to hold a reflector so I can bounce a little light in.
Do you ever just take an image for the sake of taking a photo? Steve McCurry could fill a vault with the number of shots he has just taken because he liked the moment.
Anyone with a digital camera and a histogram display does not need a light meter for ambient exposures anymore. I'm simply advocating shooting raw+jpeg since it's a pretty painless menu setting and...if in the event you actually did not really desire that fish to be blown out...you would have options to possibly recover the whites. It would not have taken 1 millisecond longer to have the raw!
The "Afghan Girl" photo by Steve McCurry is in the permanent collection of the Southeast Museum of Photography on the campus where I teach. Steve McCurry has been there often.
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 →
So agree.
I brought my Canon 6D and OM-D to Guatemala and I did many side by side comparisons and I was amazed by how many times the OM-D image was better. I don't think I'll ever give up shooting FF and I love my 6D but smaller sensor cameras are getting better and better all the time and when I travel my OM-D will likely get the nod over the 6D.....
When it comes to the mantra of ... just go shoot and get in the moment, part of that is having confidence in your equipment. Understanding the limitations of your equipment is part of establishing that confidence.
Nobody is suggesting that you should have stopped and metered an impromptu moment. It's just an objective observation of how the camera handled that particular situation. That's it ... nothing more, nothing less. I'm actually looking for something a bit more liberating than my FF technical approach has allowed for, but I realize that I'll have to make some compromises to accommodate that. What/where/how much accommodation will fit into my style and comfort zone ... well, that's highly variable and personalized to each of us.
I appreciate the aspect that not every great image is technically perfect ... go figure, I'd have never thunk it. But if I'm gonna commit to $$$ for a platform change/addition ... I think it is prudent to be cognizant and understanding of what you are and/or aren't getting yourself into, so that you have realistic expectations.
Again, thanks for sharing the real world images ... it looks like you had a good time on vacation.
Hair lady never lit many jets out my way, she was more of a blown highlight herself, such is the fickleness of celebrity. Couldn't act either.
Spontaneous moments make for great photography at times, but fortune favours the prepared mind, you might agree. Best not to equate freewheeling shotmaking with an insouciance towards turning the dial to RAW+jpg, if it counts to you that is. All those Nat Geo guys burned a lot of rolls getting the few gems, Steve is actually a case in point with the bright eyed girl, he is happy to have it 'on his epitaph'.
Tariq, when last in Lhasa we saw a good doco on his work for an exhibition, he came across a real gentleman. He must have a good printer also. He has made 90 trips to India, so he is quite a few ahead of me. He is really documenting a dying world, the traditional world, before it all descends into 'modernity'.
He also had some truly great work of 9/11, I hope you have seen this, he lives there apparently and like a pro went out shooting despite the impact of the event.
Well, this thread has gone in quite an amusing way hasn't it? I have to agree in regards to at least shooting RAW and making use of the live histogram. I doubt it's the camera's fault, I'm sure a bit more care would've resulted in a fine exposure for that image.
philip_pj wrote:
Tariq, when last in Lhasa we saw a good doco on his work for an exhibition, he came across a real gentleman. He must have a good printer also. He has made 90 trips to India, so he is quite a few ahead of me. He is really documenting a dying world, the traditional world, before it all descends into 'modernity'.
He also had some truly great work of 9/11, I hope you have seen this, he lives there apparently and like a pro went out shooting despite the impact of the event.
His 9/11 work is actually my favorite of his stuff. IMO, it transcends genre which makes it quite unique.
Ital195 wrote: Well, this thread has gone in quite an amusing way hasn't it? I have to agree in regards to at least shooting RAW and making use of the live histogram. I doubt it's the camera's fault, I'm sure a bit more care would've resulted in a fine exposure for that image.
Good point. I'll be sure to take more care after I've had a couple of nice cold cocktails on vacation with my wife of 23 years having left the kids at home for the first time in seven years. Like I said before some on this board take these things way to seriously. RAW files for everyday images are not necessary. Nor are full frame cameras and DSLR's. I'm not sure I can spend anymore time on this thread. I've been fully exposed by the RAW police and all that they stand for. It's been a pretty disturbing experience to discover that people spend so much of their time over analyizing images and looking for technical flaws on snapshots. Good luck to you all and I can only hope that you get out from behind your compters, spend less time processing images and technical crap that doesn't matter and enjoy your photography.
allstarimaging wrote:
Ital195 wrote: Well, this thread has gone in quite an amusing way hasn't it? I have to agree in regards to at least shooting RAW and making use of the live histogram. I doubt it's the camera's fault, I'm sure a bit more care would've resulted in a fine exposure for that image.
Good point. I'll be sure to take more care after I've had a couple of nice cold cocktails on vacation with my wife of 23 years having left the kids at home for the first time in seven years. Like I said before some on this board take these things way to seriously. RAW files for everyday images are not necessary. Nor are full frame cameras and DSLR's. I'm not sure I can spend anymore time on this thread. I've been fully exposed by the RAW police and all that they stand for. It's been a pretty disturbing experience to discover that people spend so much of their time over analyizing images and looking for technical flaws on snapshots. Good luck to you all and I can only hope that you get out from behind your compters, spend less time processing images and technical crap that doesn't matter and enjoy your photography.
But Jack, who says people are not enjoying their photography in their quest for technical perfection in their photos . Who are you to judge this? So you like taking snapshots of your drinks and food on your vacation...I could not even be bothered to take my camera out in those situations. Should I tell you to go out and take some real photos rather than wasting time on snapshots? No...because I really don't care how someone else enjoys their photography. Some just like snapping away, others like to calculate everything to perfection...whatever turns everyone's cranks should be just fine. Judging someone looking for perfection in their photography and thinking shooting snapshots of their dinner plate is where it is at is a little silly IMHO.
allstarimaging wrote:
I've been fully exposed by the RAW police and all that they stand for. It's been a pretty disturbing experience to discover that people spend so much of their time over analyizing images and looking for technical flaws on snapshots. Good luck to you all and I can only hope that you get out from behind your compters, spend less time processing images and technical crap that doesn't matter and enjoy your photography.
Jack
Sort of a funny/ defensive post from someone who took the time to post a thread entitled "My Fuji XE-1 outperforms my D800......" in the "Alternative Gear and Lenses" internet forum. Guess you should have been out shooting jpegs instead. Me...I posted most of my responses while editing raws and making prints for a quality conscience client today.
