ftllens wrote:
I think it'd be worth upgrading from the f once it hits about $1,000. almost 1.5k with tax...ehh you can get Leica Q for like a few hundred more.
And the Q is huge in the hand (as in thick). I much prefer the size/feel of the X100s I have owned over the Q.
And (just a personal thing) 28mm EFOV is too wide for people (MCU, or what we call here 'waist shot') and not wide enough for some other things. My favourite FOV is 40-45°, but definitely can make do with 35.
I will get an x100V mid-year. It really looks like a step up, and the body is gorgeous.
No Leica Q is 2k on ebay check sold prices. 28 FL geometry is better for people than 23mm. More (maybe excessive) FOV for framing but the compression is still better and closer to natural 42mm. Option to crop as well. Size is better for x100 yes, but I like to consider all single FL HQ cams to be within same grouping.
Anyway, my point was to say value wise, I would feel happy if V was purchased by me for 1k mark, big enough price difference per image quality vs Q or others.
I'll probably buy it just cause of the video upgrade alone though. Trying to convince myself I don't need it right now.
gdanmitchell wrote:
If "everything gets smeared out" on your x-trans photographs in which subject have fine detail, I can only think of two explanations.
1. You last gave x-trans a serious test perhaps 7-8 years ago, when early versions of the raw conversion software sometimes had a problem described as "smearing," where irregular hard boundaries between areas of very different color/luminosity. sometimes "smeared" into adjacent areas. It didn't happen often, you typically had to inspect at 100% magnification and go looking for it in the right places, and it wasn't visible in prints... but it did exist.
OR
2. You aren't using optimal sharpening settings for x-trans files. In general, you'll want to do something along the following lines assuming you have a conversation app with full sharpening and related settings:
1. Amount should be somewhat high. My starting point is 150 in ACR.
2. Radius should be somewhat small. A decent starting point in ACR is perhaps around .5.
3. Details setting should be kept very low or even set to zero. (A high details setting can create problems, especially in a noisy image or one whit a lot of small, uh, details.)
4. Use masking in noisy images to somewhat limit the intensity of the sharpening in areas of solid color/luminosity and smooth gradients.
Use a separate print sharpening workflow at the time you print.
I get very sharp images from my x-trans sensor camera, and I have no issues making excellent 20" x 30" prints.
The X70 is not a new camera, but please explain the smeared look in the photos shot with the new X100V that we are discussing here. Hint; I didn't take the photos and/or process them. The camera is not 7-8 years old, while the X70 might be (no idea actually).
I don't print, so your PP advice isn't relevant to me. And yes, I look at 100% now and then and all my other cameras look great then. But not the X70 and I will of course not buy a new camera that has the same problems.
Edit: My sharpening has been 1.0 pixel radius, 50% and detail 30. It looks almost exactly the same as your suggested settings; 0.5 radius, 150% and detail 0. Same smearing with "worms". Just horrible.
Unfortunately non-paying members can't upload images, but this problem is widely known already.
Edit 2: And yes, the artefacts are visible when I view the full image on a 5k screen. Which is how I view images.
Makten wrote:
The X70 is not a new camera, but please explain the smeared look in the photos shot with the new X100V that we are discussing here. Hint; I didn't take the photos and/or process them. The camera is not 7-8 years old, while the X70 might be (no idea actually).
I don't print, so your PP advice isn't relevant to me. And yes, I look at 100% now and then and all my other cameras look great then. But not the X70 and I will of course not buy a new camera that has the same problems.
Edit: My sharpening has been 1.0 pixel radius, 50% and detail 30. It looks almost exactly the same as your suggested settings; 0.5 radius, 150% and detail 0. Same smearing with "worms". Just horrible.
Unfortunately non-paying members can't upload images, but this problem is widely known already.
Edit 2: And yes, the artefacts are visible when I view the full image on a 5k screen. Which is how I view images. ...Show more →
Clearly you are doing something odd, given that I'm not getting "horrible" results and given that I can make 20" x 30"prints that look excellent.
The only part of my PP advice that isn't relevant to someone who does not print would be the final output sharpening stage that I apply to the flattened file at the time of printing. Everything else is what I do regardless of whether the output will be to screen or print.
Your sharpening settings are quite different than mine.
- You don't list an "amount" setting, but mine is 150
- Your "radius" of 1.0 is twice as large as mine. (might to that high occasionally, but doing so can produce 1-pixel wide "halos" around hard edges, and could be increasing your other problems.
- Note that I suggest setting detail to "0" your setting of 30 is one I would never use with an image that seems more susceptible to the "worms" issue. You can apply a bit more output sharpening to compensate if necessary. You setting here is precisely the one I suggested to not use.
- You include some unidentified "50%" setting, but I don't know what that is. The masking slider is a percentage - is that what your refer to?
I'm often alternately amused and frustrated when someone insists to a person who gets excellent results with a camera that excellent results are not possible because _their_ results are problematic. The only explanation for that would be that a) I'm lying, b) I don't know what I'm talking about and my results are awful, or c) that there is something you try doing differently to get the results that I get.
If your preference is to enjoy the satisfaction of thinking you have an awful camera, stick with a) or b). If you want to see how the camera can produce excellent results, back up a few steps and try c).
Since "smeared look" could describe many different things and be the result of a range of variables, perhaps you could share an example or two?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm often alternately amused and frustrated when someone insists to a person who gets excellent results with a camera that excellent results are not possible because _their_ results are problematic.
I see that a lot. I have, let's just say, many film cameras. People state that camera X has a crap lens and of course others chime in agreeing. I then post a pic taken with said camera that is the opposite of their claim. Then the response is either silence, or must be something wrong with their camera.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Clearly you are doing something odd, given that I'm not getting "horrible" results and given that I can make 20" x 30"prints that look excellent.
Or we simply have different standards.
The only part of my PP advice that isn't relevant to someone who does not print would be the final output sharpening stage that I apply to the flattened file at the time of printing. Everything else is what I do regardless of whether the output will be to screen or print.
Your sharpening settings are quite different than mine.
- You don't list an "amount" setting, but mine is 150
- Your "radius" of 1.0 is twice as large as mine. (might to that high occasionally, but doing so can produce 1-pixel wide "halos" around hard edges, and could be increasing your other problems.
- Note that I suggest setting detail to "0" your setting of 30 is one I would never use with an image that seems more susceptible to the "worms" issue. You can apply a bit more output sharpening to compensate if necessary. You setting here is precisely the one I suggested to not use.
- You include some unidentified "50%" setting, but I don't know what that is. The masking slider is a percentage - is that what your refer to?...Show more →
You might have to read my post again. I tried "your" settings and it looked the same. Just as I wrote.
I'm often alternately amused and frustrated when someone insists to a person who gets excellent results with a camera that excellent results are not possible because _their_ results are problematic. The only explanation for that would be that a) I'm lying, b) I don't know what I'm talking about and my results are awful, or c) that there is something you try doing differently to get the results that I get.
If your preference is to enjoy the satisfaction of thinking you have an awful camera, stick with a) or b). If you want to see how the camera can produce excellent results, back up a few steps and try c)....Show more →
A much more reasonable explanation is that my results look good to you but not to me. I'm very picky with image quality (unfortunately, since it's pretty damn expensive).
Since "smeared look" could describe many different things and be the result of a range of variables, perhaps you could share an example or two?
Dan
Desmolicious wrote:
You can upload full Rez via Flickr. Flickr is free if you don't have an account.
I have a flickr account but I don't want to clutter it with test images. However, the problem is widely known. Just google "fujifilm x-trans watercolor" and you'll find a lot of comparisons that show the ugly results.
And no, it's not my processing. Even the JPG's from the camera look the same.
------
Again, this discussion is on the new X100V. There are smeared images from that camera, that I didn't process (I don't have the camera). Now, how would that be possible if these problems were long gone, even with older x-trans sensors?
So, I found an image good enough to upload to flickr, at least for a while. This is a JPG SOOC from the Fujifilm X70, shot at f/5.6, ISO 200 and 1/600 second. Should be as good as it gets without a tripod. Still the IQ is worse than any modern cellphone camera. Go ahead and examine it in full size. Look at the bike and the bark of the tree. Zero detail. Just smeared, ugly x-trans goo. And it's still visible when viewing the full image on my 5k screen, without zooming in.
Makten wrote:
So, I found an image good enough to upload to flickr, at least for a while. This is a JPG SOOC from the Fujifilm X70, shot at f/5.6, ISO 200 and 1/600 second. Should be as good as it gets without a tripod. Still the IQ is worse than any modern cellphone camera. Go ahead and examine it in full size. Look at the bike and the bark of the tree. Zero detail. Just smeared, ugly x-trans goo. And it's still visible when viewing the full image on my 5k screen, without zooming in.
Here is a link to an image from 2013. The X100s was pixel limited, but I was able to print to 13"x19" and it looks sharp from a viewing distance of a few feet.
Modern Sonys do provide more to work with in post. The X100v is a BSI sensor, 26 MPix and has superior optics, so it should be a substantial upgrade from my X100s.
Makten wrote:
Or we simply have different standards.
Possible. Mine and those of my clients are quite high. Don't know what yours are or how you assess whether they are met.
Makten wrote:
You might have to read my post again. I tried "your" settings and it looked the same. Just as I wrote.
I read your settings. I even quoted them back in my reply. They are not the same as the settings I described. I notice that you don't respond to my point about that in my post or my questions about what you were doing.
On that very subject, here is what I wrote in the message tha your are selectively quoting here.
- - -
Your sharpening settings are quite different than mine.
- You don't list an "amount" setting, but mine is 150
- Your "radius" of 1.0 is twice as large as mine. (might to that high occasionally, but doing so can produce 1-pixel wide "halos" around hard edges, and could be increasing your other problems.
- Note that I suggest setting detail to "0" your setting of 30 is one I would never use with an image that seems more susceptible to the "worms" issue. You can apply a bit more output sharpening to compensate if necessary. You setting here is precisely the one I suggested to not use.
- You include some unidentified "50%" setting, but I don't know what that is. The masking slider is a percentage - is that what your refer to?
- - -
Makten wrote:
A much more reasonable explanation is that my results look good to you but not to me. I'm very picky with image quality (unfortunately, since it's pretty damn expensive).
Again, I'm also "picky" about image quality, particularly as it is manifest in large prints. (For example, I tell clients considering a particular image if it will or will not work for their intended use. I "lost" a deal with a major British retailer some years back because I was honest with them about their plans to use a crop from a 16MP file from an APS-C camera in posters that would be 3 meters tall in their stores. I've also sold/licensed work for similar reproductions at sizes up to 30' wide when the image was appropriate.)
Can we stop it with this veiled implication that my standards must be so low that I'll accept anything?
Makten wrote:
I have a flickr account but I don't want to clutter it with test images. However, the problem is widely known. Just google "fujifilm x-trans watercolor" and you'll find a lot of comparisons that show the ugly results.
So the problem will remain one that only you see... because you "don't want to clutter" your Flickr account (!) "with test images."
A. You can put your images on ANY web-accessible host and share the link to the image with the ".jpg" suffix.
B. If you don't have a host, send ME the images and I'll consider hosting them on one of my servers for you temporarily for this thread. No charge.
By the way, finding some bad photograph from some camera somewhere on the Internet (see your bicycle picture) proves nothing at all. I can find bad photographs from any camera on the Internet. That is the Internet equivalent of telling me that some food item is terrible because you found a photo of such an item that was poorly prepared.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Possible. Mine and those of my clients are quite high. Don't know what yours are or how you assess whether they are met.
I only shoot for my own and I have no clients.
I read your settings. I even quoted them back in my reply. They are not the same as the settings I described. I notice that you don't respond to my point about that in my post or my questions about what you were doing.
On that very subject, here is what I wrote in the message tha your are selectively quoting here.
- - -
Your sharpening settings are quite different than mine.
- You don't list an "amount" setting, but mine is 150
- Your "radius" of 1.0 is twice as large as mine. (might to that high occasionally, but doing so can produce 1-pixel wide "halos" around hard edges, and could be increasing your other problems.
- Note that I suggest setting detail to "0" your setting of 30 is one I would never use with an image that seems more susceptible to the "worms" issue. You can apply a bit more output sharpening to compensate if necessary. You setting here is precisely the one I suggested to not use.
- You include some unidentified "50%" setting, but I don't know what that is. The masking slider is a percentage - is that what your refer to?
This is what I wrote: "It looks almost exactly the same as your suggested settings; 0.5 radius, 150% and detail 0." Which means that I tried your settings and it looked almost exactly the same as with my settings. Maybe I was unclear?
Can we stop it with this veiled implication that my standards must be so low that I'll accept anything?
Yes, as soon as you look at the image I posted (that you ignored) and tell me what you see.
RayinNY wrote:
I think this is better than a cellphone when you zoom in.
Maybe in JPG, but I get better detail than that from my Samsung S9 when shooting RAW. No kidding. It's even better than the X70 when shooting RAW. However, the noise and colors from the X70 is of course extremely much better. Better than my full frame Sony a7 II. Too bad about the X-trans crap though. And the shitty lens.
Makten wrote:
So, I found an image good enough to upload to flickr, at least for a while. This is a JPG SOOC from the Fujifilm X70, shot at f/5.6, ISO 200 and 1/600 second. Should be as good as it gets without a tripod. Still the IQ is worse than any modern cellphone camera. Go ahead and examine it in full size. Look at the bike and the bark of the tree. Zero detail. Just smeared, ugly x-trans goo. And it's still visible when viewing the full image on my 5k screen, without zooming in.
I see the bike in focus, then focus drops off so by the second bush/tree behind it on the right it is clearly OOF.
Everything behind that is way out of focus.
Where do you see the smearing?
Makten wrote:
Yes, as soon as you look at the image I posted (that you ignored) and tell me what you see.
Asked and answered.
Also, I clicked on it. I cannot see the smearing you are describing in this little .jpg image. Portions seem in focus and portions that aren't the plane of optimal focus naturally seem softer... but how that is related to your point is... obscure.
I've seen the "smearing" and "worms" effects in Fujifilm files. You cannot see either of those issues in images downsized to the degree in that sample. The downsizing process interpolates large numbers of pixels in order to average them into individual pixels in the downsized image, effectively averaging out those effects when they occur.
Still waiting for you to show us a photograph you made that shows the smearing issue. A 100% magnification crop of your image will be useful or access via a link to the full image.
My offer to host a valid example for free on one of my sites still stands.
Makten wrote:
Maybe in JPG, but I get better detail than that from my Samsung S9 when shooting RAW...
Now the Fujifilm system is so awful that it is worse than smartphones?
A. You do know that RAW files are unsharpened, right, and that they require sharpening? (The .jpg files in your Fujifilm camera are captured as RAW files "RAW" refers to the actual sensor data and then post-processed in-camera to become .jpgs, with post processing that typically includes automatic adjustments to color, dynamic range, NR, curves, and sharpening.
B. It is just plain nonsense on objective and subjective bases that your smartphone has better image quality potential than the Fujifilm cameras, along other stuff you included in the portion of your post I didn't quote. Such statements don't exactly improve your credibility.
Cost double. Used for $2600