Jman13 wrote:
I've never seen major color artifacting on my X-E1...that seems to be an Aperture thing.
Once the Touits are in the wild, I'm sure I'll get some for review.
Yeah, other raw converters and camera jpegs create different issues in those trouble areas. Many of us are finding Aperture to be the best compromise with X-trans.
uscmatt99 wrote:
But even when looking at material in the focal plane, it's almost like in-camera sharpening was ramped up with the Fuji's and not with the Touit's, or something to that effect.
I think it would be interesting if there was a way to keep the camera from knowing what lens is attached,
like covering the lens contacts or something. Fuji might have learned a couple of tricks from Hasselblad.
douglasf13 wrote:
Yep, that's pretty much a perfect example of the trade off by using Aperture with X-trans. You occasionally get these purple/green areas with little white dots. Overall, I still find it preferable to the painterly effect from LR, which seems to happen more often.
When I was primarily using the GXR, the Aperture moire drove me crazy, and I ended up switching to Lightroom 4. I posted a bunch of Aperture examples in the GXR thread at the time, and for awhile was stopping down enough to get diffraction softening, then resharpening, to avoid the moire. En route I used RPP which is probably the best RAW developer for those files. Pretty much as long as there was no full-on luminance maze-type artifact, the files were much better behaved. Not sure if they've attempted to support X-trans RAW or not.
But in the end, I'm done with the problematic RAW conversion issues, I just want a seamless workflow; and Sony sensor, thin filter stack, Bayer array, no AA filter, and a zillion pixels seems to be the optimal scenario.
Back on topic, Jman, I'm looking forward to your careful review and comparison images. I just can't believe the Touit's are duds, but I guess we'll see.
uscmatt99 wrote:
Back on topic, Jman, I'm looking forward to your careful review and comparison images. I just can't believe the Touit's are duds, but I guess we'll see.
It'll be a while...probably a month or two after release, but I'll get to them.
uscmatt99 wrote:
When I was primarily using the GXR, the Aperture moire drove me crazy, and I ended up switching to Lightroom 4. I posted a bunch of Aperture examples in the GXR thread at the time, and for awhile was stopping down enough to get diffraction softening, then resharpening, to avoid the moire. En route I used RPP which is probably the best RAW developer for those files. Pretty much as long as there was no full-on luminance maze-type artifact, the files were much better behaved. Not sure if they've attempted to support X-trans RAW or not.
But in the end, I'm done with the problematic RAW conversion issues, I just want a seamless workflow; and Sony sensor, thin filter stack, Bayer array, no AA filter, and a zillion pixels seems to be the optimal scenario. ...Show more →
All converters seem to have an X-trans issue with certain areas of fine detail. Aperture has these color artifacts, LR gives the same areas a kind of watercolor-ish look with less saturation, and RPP creates zipper-like effects. I'm not getting as much moire with the X100s in Aperture as I do with the M9 in LR, and I think there's a little more to it than just very fine, repeating patterns. It just seems that current converters can't quite figure out what to do in these problem areas, as a result of the unusual CFA.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think it would be interesting if there was a way to keep the camera from knowing what lens is attached,
like covering the lens contacts or something. Fuji might have learned a couple of tricks from Hasselblad.
It would just mean that the fw has to be updated and optimized for the touits.
uscmatt99 wrote:
When I was primarily using the GXR, the Aperture moire drove me crazy, and I ended up switching to Lightroom 4. I posted a bunch of Aperture examples in the GXR thread at the time, and for awhile was stopping down enough to get diffraction softening, then resharpening, to avoid the moire. En route I used RPP which is probably the best RAW developer for those files. Pretty much as long as there was no full-on luminance maze-type artifact, the files were much better behaved. Not sure if they've attempted to support X-trans RAW or not.
But in the end, I'm done with the problematic RAW conversion issues, I just want a seamless workflow; and Sony sensor, thin filter stack, Bayer array, no AA filter, and a zillion pixels seems to be the optimal scenario.
Back on topic, Jman, I'm looking forward to your careful review and comparison images. I just can't believe the Touit's are duds, but I guess we'll see....Show more →
The RAW processing is the primary reasons I haven't touched x-trans or foveon. Bayer just had so much baked time. I remember when LR made a huge jump in raw processing a few years ago, with respect to noise. One day, x-trans may get the same treatment, but I really do not care for suboptimal images while the raw processor engineers struggle with it. I wish Fuji had done a no-AA bayer sensor. The appeal of the Fuji is the great system and Fuji colors. Why they had to take on this new CFA is befuddling. All the benefits they claim did not get realized - less moire, more details, high ISO. What they ended up with is poor raw processing, strange patterns, and very, very poor shadow details. I really think Fuji would have done much better if they had just left out the x-trans sensor. X-trans just negated all the appeal of the Fuji system. A very sad decision.
sflxn wrote:
The RAW processing is the primary reasons I haven't touched x-trans or foveon. Bayer just had so much baked time. I remember when LR made a huge jump in raw processing a few years ago, with respect to noise. One day, x-trans may get the same treatment, but I really do not care for suboptimal images while the raw processor engineers struggle with it. I wish Fuji had done a no-AA bayer sensor. The appeal of the Fuji is the great system and Fuji colors. Why they had to take on this new CFA is befuddling. All the benefits they claim did not get realized - less moire, more details, high ISO. What they ended up with is poor raw processing, strange patterns, and very, very poor shadow details. I really think Fuji would have done much better if they had just left out the x-trans sensor. X-trans just negated all the appeal of the Fuji system. A very sad decision....Show more →
sflxn wrote:
The RAW processing is the primary reasons I haven't touched x-trans or foveon. Bayer just had so much baked time. I remember when LR made a huge jump in raw processing a few years ago, with respect to noise. One day, x-trans may get the same treatment, but I really do not care for suboptimal images while the raw processor engineers struggle with it. I wish Fuji had done a no-AA bayer sensor. The appeal of the Fuji is the great system and Fuji colors. Why they had to take on this new CFA is befuddling. All the benefits they claim did not get realized - less moire, more details, high ISO. What they ended up with is poor raw processing, strange patterns, and very, very poor shadow details. I really think Fuji would have done much better if they had just left out the x-trans sensor. X-trans just negated all the appeal of the Fuji system. A very sad decision....Show more →
I agree in that I wished that Fuji stuck with Bayer, but much of the X-trans raw issues you're talking about are related to Lightroom, so it isn't nearly that much of an issue if you use another converter, FWIW.
And I disagree.
I hope X-Trans is developed further.
This was one of the reasons I bought my FujiFilm X-E1.
douglasf13 wrote:
I agree in that I wished that Fuji stuck with Bayer, but much of the X-trans raw issues you're talking about are related to Lightroom, so it isn't nearly that much of an issue if you use another converter, FWIW.
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, sorry about that. It'll be interesting to see the Touits on a NEX.
I think same. Theres few ppl using NEX in this part of forum, which I hope will get this lens. Just so I could admire them.
And about non-standart CFAs. I have Fuji S5 Pro. I can tell you just this much - Im cured from non-standart CFAs/pixel aligments, stacked sensors etc. Bayer might be old, but apparently its still best we can get. I like new stuff, wierd stuff, but I prefer when its fully supported "new and wierd" stuff. Which in case of Fuji isnt and wasnt. Foveon aint better..
No conclusions can be drawn until someone with the requisite abilities shoots off a few meaningful images on a NEX7 and provides crops. NEX7 is the sternest test currently available in APS-C format and almost certainly the target sensor for the Touit range.
There is remarkably little on the development background of the series thus far, and the CZ blogs are full of noise about the name, which may be a good thing or a bad thing PR wise, depending on your outlook.
What I did find (apologies if already mentioned) is the lenses have (seemingly now standard issue) nine blade apertures, the 12mm has two asph surface elements and three 'anomalous partial dispersion' elements.
The lenses have a 'robust metal design' for 'many years of use'. Zeiss also claims 'especially harmonious rendition of highlights outside of the focal plane'.
The 15mm f2.8 ZE/F is similarly specced to this 12mm, and features low distortion and a high level of CA control.
-- rather than the Fuji X system's CFA.
