Read it a couple of times and you seem to be indicating that people should not post images of things that you have no memory of.. maybe I'm missing something or you can clarify that for the rest of us.
C’mon Jack ! You posted your vacation images on Apr 08, 2013 at 06:23 PM under "Postcards from an American Paradise" topic then you posted them again a day later under "My Fuji XE-1 outperforms my D800......" in ALT forum clearly aiming the controversial topic to draw attention as few others replied. It's not about ISO, JPG vs. RAW, size, technicalities, etc. but about your intentions.
You had enough reasons to stop this thread from going bizark, but no, you gained your 'fame' instead.
PS.
And thanks to some who attempted to translate from The Obvious to English to answer my rhetorical question earlier on.
Jako.... I posted the images in landscape and if people care to comment that is welcomed but I definitely don't do it for attention. For what it's worth that post had a fair amount of comments. A day later I actually posted a completely different set of images ( with a link to my other post) here on the Alt board because after looking at the shots and thinking about it I was very pleased and surprised at how well the Fuji performed.
Once again as indicated in the very first opening of my post on this thread I had . These indicate humor. Controversial topics are religion and politics not photography ( more humor).
With regard to your fame comment
Hey Jack, at 8th page you got more than a good doze of advise, so I will skip mine.
I DO LIKE your shots, and I think vacation time should have food, drink, * overexposed fun* shots. I don't see myself sitting by a pool drinking with D800 strapped around your neck, despite the fact that I took my D800 vacationing. Anyhow, cheers and work to close this thread if you can.
No no, it's actually been fun and I think Jack also is enjoying himself.
'a good doze of advise'.
Well, some might want to doze off but let me now throw some accelerant onto the burning fire with a link to a thread where a character posted some images that much less effective and appealing than Jacks' and copped a real pasting. Yes, it is the slag fest known as DPR, lol, we are tame lot in comparison! The camera involved is another Fuji, the X100S:
As I looked around a bit more @ the XE-1, it seems that others have noted its tendency to overexpose/blow highlights a touch also, so the IR overexposure, blown fish, etc, aren't necessarily isolated instances. Again, with that EC dial so handy, and the ability to change DR/highlight/shadow rendering ... it would seem that Fuji has it covered, as long as you put a touch of forethought to it.
To Rusty Bug and other who just can't seem to move on past the blown highlights on the fish I'm reposting the shot after some excellent slider work in Lightroom. Amazing how much you can recover from these files. See no more blown highlights...
I won't comment on Fuji's metering nor the above image, but I have noticed that Lightroom tries to "recover" blown out highlights by making them grayish.
ukkisavosta wrote:
I won't comment on Fuji's metering nor the above image, but I have noticed that Lightroom tries to "recover" blown out highlights by making them grayish.
Jaakko
Recovery of highlights that have been blown out completely where no detail exists (no actual image data information below 255) can only be made darker/ grayer. The solution is proper exposure in the first place and, if that's not possible, having the raw file to go back to as the raw will record much more information than a jpeg ever could.
I am surprised at how contentious this thread is. Strange. I would have thought the idea that "the camera you have with you is the best" would be common ground form many alt users - yet it seems to have evolved past that.
galenapass wrote:
I am surprised at how contentious this thread is. Strange. I would have thought the idea that "the camera you have with you is the best" would be common ground form many alt users - yet it seems to have evolved past that.
Pretty much unanimously echoed by all on the very first page! Where else could the thread go after the obvious was stated and re-affirmed? Perhaps to specific questions about the actual performance of the XE-1, which in numerous instances was asked about but never addressed.
We certainly understand "the one you've got with you" premise and certainly appreciate the decision to leave the pack mule behind. Many of us are actually looking for such a platform to augment/change to for the very reason that Jack has presented. Thus, it is very valuable information ... but, just because "Jack says" ... does that mean we should ignore what we are seeing?
But the OP did put the XE-1 in context of being a virtually perfectly metering camera and compare it against the ... ummm, D800. But forget about the D800, Jack has made a pretty strong assertion to the merits of the camera, yet the images he presented contradict his assertion.
allstarimaging wrote:
To the point where jpegs are so good you don't need to shoot RAW.
Nothing contentious, just observant and analytical ... and still appreciative of what our fellow FM'er has shared with us. Too bad others are perceiving the objectivity and analysis as being contentious ... it really isn't meant that way.
Tariq wrote: Perhaps to specific questions about the actual performance of the XE-1, which in numerous instances was asked about but never addressed.
DId you miss this? I thought this was addressing the questions.
Definition of PERFORMANCE
a : the execution of an action
b : something accomplished : deed, feat
c: the fulfillment of a claim, promise, or request : implementation
Where my XE-1 outperforms the D800 for me is in the following ways:
1) JPEGS- That's all I shoot and the jpegs from the XE-1 are as good as any I have seen and require little to no processing. This has been well documented in a number of reviews. To the point where jpegs are so good you don't need to shoot RAW. You can be confident in the output from the camera.
2) Exposure- The XE-1 meters very well and to me meters better than my D800 in many situations.
3) White Balance- The XE-1 delivers consistently good white balance in all types of lighting situations. More consistent than my D800.
4) Ergonomics- The small form factor for the type of shooting I was doing is way better than lugging around a huge camera and backapck. In additon the simple setup of an apeture ring, exposure comp dial, and quick menu on the back of the camera are all easier and faster to work with than the Nikon D800.
5) Color- The color straight frm the camera of the Fuji is better and more consistent to me than my D800.
6) The viewfinder- The Fuji XE-1 is better than the Nikon viewfinder. I can make adjustments to exposure comp and see the immediate result in the viewfinder without taking my eye away from the camera or my subject.
7) Enjoyment- I find shooting the Fuji XE-1 to be more enjoyable than my D800. It so easy to just grab it on the way out the door that I find myself shooting more than I was with my big DSLR gear.
Does the Nikon focus faster, have more resolution, less lag time yes. But if performance is going to be measured by more than speed and resolution than the Fuji does outperform my D800 in many ways.
Like I said I don't shoot RAW so that whole argument is pointless here.
Nope, I did not miss your list at all Jack. I do believe RustyBug had some specific jpeg questions for you though which maybe you have not noticed (relevant to point #1 and #2 on your list).
Rusty Bug wrote: Jack has made a pretty strong assertion to the merits of the camera, yet the images he presented contradict his assertion.
RustyBug you just can't get past the blown highlights on the fish The point that seems to be missed here is that these images were shot as jpegs, and processed via IPHOTO and a one click "Auto Enhance". I can gaurentee that if I took the same shots with my D800 and hit the one click "Auto Enhance" they would not come out looking like this and that is the primary strength of the XE-1. The jpegs are amazing.
In additon, that image contains a wide dynamic range from the very dark skin and beard of the subject to the white bottom of the fish. Also, the last light of the day was coming from behind me and relflecting off the wet, shiny, white bottom of the fish. So no matter what camera shot the image it would have probably blown out. Sure if it was shot in RAW I could have played around and pulled some detail out of there perhaps but as I said I can't stand processing files and the XE-1 blows the doors off of my D800 in terms of the files that come straight out of the camera. As a side note I just finished flipping through the latest edition of NatGeo Taveller magazine and you know what there is page after page of images with blown highlights. Sometimes they just can't be avoided.
Jack
allstarimaging wrote:
Like I said I don't shoot RAW so that whole argument is pointless here.
Jack
So that is why you are able to make the assertion that the jpgs are so good that you don't need to shoot RAW?
allstarimaging wrote:
the XE-1 blows the doors off of my D800 in terms of the files that come straight out of the camera.
Someone should let Nikon know about this ... so they can fix their terrible camera.
Better than the D800 ... AND ... no need to shoot raw. Well, then I guess there is no need for anyone to ever use any camera other than the XE-1. It is indeed the perfect camera of all time. Clearly you are impassioned about the XE-1 ... and for good reason, but I think your subjective preferences are clouding your willingness for objectivity in favor of defending your impassioned preference.
Jack has said it, thus it must be so ... I defer. Again, thank you for sharing the images and your insight into the XE-1, and enduring my questions. It has been an educational thread for me to better understand the capabilities of the XE-1 for when I get a chance to demo one for myself.
