As a Sony shooter, I’m conflicted about this camera. The images are gorgeous, already processed in-camera and ready to go, with crisp detail that doesn’t get smoothed away like iPhone shots often do. But autofocus feels like a major step back compared to Sony. Even with eye AF and person detection enabled, it missed eyes more often than I’d like, leaving only about half the shots usable.
I’ll admit I’m still learning the system, so part of this is on me. Still, it was frustrating to scroll through the results on the back screen and see so many misses. Once I loaded the files onto my computer, the keepers really shined. Editing was practically effortless, I wrapped it up in under ten minutes, and those finished shots almost made me forget the AF headaches.
sfogg wrote:
If you shoot DR400 and 'ISO 500' on the x100vi you actually are shooting at base ISO. DR400 and 'ISO500' meters the scene as if it is ISO500 but when it exposed it underexposes by 2 stops.... by actually running the sensor 2 stops lower, ISO125.
DR400 the camera meters at ISO500 (or higher) but actually runs the sensor 2 stops lower.
DR200 the camera meters at ISO250 (or higher) but actually runs the sensor 1 stop lower.
In other words DR200@ISO250 and DR400@ISO500 are both actually getting the max dynamic range that the sensor is capable of because it is actually running at base ISO.
Really simple test to prove this.
Set the camera to DR100 and ISO 500. Point it at something with fixed consistent illumination (a blank wall is good) and set the shutter/aperture manually to get the proper exposure. Take a shot.
Now, turn on DR400. Take a shot. Your shutter speed/aperture hasn't changed but you will have 2 stops more highlight capture. Because the camera underexposed by 2 stops. There are 3 points in an exposure triangle and you have fixed two of them (shutter/aperture), the third is ISO.
You can't get "max dynamic range that the sensor is capable of" if you underexpose the scene. Base ISO still needs the maximum amount of light possible without clipping the highlights to get the full capability of the sensor.
As a Sony shooter, I’m conflicted about this camera. The images are gorgeous, already processed in-camera and ready to go, with crisp detail that doesn’t get smoothed away like iPhone shots often do. But autofocus feels like a major step back compared to Sony. Even with eye AF and person detection enabled, it missed eyes more often than I’d like, leaving only about half the shots usable.
I’ll admit I’m still learning the system, so part of this is on me. Still, it was frustrating to scroll through the results on the back screen and see so many misses. Once I loaded the files onto my computer, the keepers really shined. Editing was practically effortless, I wrapped it up in under ten minutes, and those finished shots almost made me forget the AF headaches.
Like I've said for years, one you suck it up and shoot single point AF-S, life with the X100 line gets a lot better. Treat it like a film point and shoot and it will reward you.
highdesertmesa wrote:
You can't get "max dynamic range that the sensor is capable of" if you underexpose the scene. Base ISO still needs the maximum amount of light possible without clipping the highlights to get the full capability of the sensor.
Which is the whole point. With DR at 100 the camera tends to clip some highlights. The DR200 and DR400 modes preserve more of the highlights and then apply a tone curve to the image.
sfogg wrote:
Which is the whole point. With DR at 100 the camera tends to clip some highlights. The DR200 and DR400 modes preserve more of the highlights and then apply a tone curve to the image.
The camera doesn’t clip highlights as base ISO, you do with improper exposure. The DR modes can help if you’re strictly a JPEG shooter, but max sensor performance is always at base ISO with the max exposure possible without clipping the highlights.
highdesertmesa wrote:
The camera doesn’t clip highlights as base ISO, you do with improper exposure. The DR modes can help if you’re strictly a JPEG shooter, but max sensor performance is always at base ISO with the max exposure possible without clipping the highlights.
I’m using the XT5 rather than the X100vi, but I suspect the situation is similar.
I do find that the camera will clip highlights in wide dynamic range scenes if using automatic exposure. (I usually use aperture priority for the subject that I tend to photograph with this camera.) My solution (again due to what and how I usually photograph) is to adjust exposure on the fly using the EC knob.
In general, if I’m concerned about clipping I just decrease the exposure a bit to protect the highlights. This sometimes leads to exposures that might appear to SOOC people to be under-exposed, but the details are there and can be recovered in post.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’m using the XT5 rather than the X100vi, but I suspect the situation is similar.
I do find that the camera will clip highlights in wide dynamic range scenes if using automatic exposure. (I usually use aperture priority for the subject that I tend to photograph with this camera.) My solution (again due to what and how I usually photograph) is to adjust exposure on the fly using the EC knob.
In general, if I’m concerned about clipping I just decrease the exposure a bit to protect the highlights. This sometimes leads to exposures that might appear to SOOC people to be under-exposed, but the details are there and can be recovered in post....Show more →
Most scenes require EC one way or the other from the meter. The way to verify maximum light without clipping, though, is by checking results in Raw Digger. After a while, one gets used to knowing where the live view exposure preview will cause the true exposure to fall in Raw Digger. Most often (for what I shoot) that’s just slightly higher than what the exposure preview is telling me. In tricky lighting, exposure bracketing a third stop on either side of my chosen exposure helps. Maybe one day we will get metering directly off the RAW data.
DR200 and DR400 is just shooting RAW EC -1.0 and EC -2.0 with in-camera lifting back to EC 0.0 with a tone curve applied to flatten the image.
There is nothing more happening. You're simply letting the camera take the underexposed shot and bring it back to 0.0 for you vs taking a dark RAW into LR/C1 and doing it yourself.
The reason that highlights are "retained" better in DR200 and DR400 is because they simply aren't in danger of being blown out thanks to the EC happening in the background. For the record, if you have any interest in shooting JPEG only, Fuji's implementation of this is so much better than other brands that it bears putting a thumb on the scale for that point when weighing options.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Most scenes require EC one way or the other from the meter. The way to verify maximum light without clipping, though, is by checking results in Raw Digger. After a while, one gets used to knowing where the live view exposure preview will cause the true exposure to fall in Raw Digger. Most often (for what I shoot) that’s just slightly higher than what the exposure preview is telling me. In tricky lighting, exposure bracketing a third stop on either side of my chosen exposure helps. Maybe one day we will get metering directly off the RAW data.
I agree with you about “ After a while, one gets used to knowing where the live view exposure preview will cause the true exposure to fall,” but for me I’ve developed a pretty good ability to predict that based on scene characteristics and experience. I often end up reducing exposure by 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop in situations with very bright highlights when the camera’s metering system doesn’t account for them.
And I’m not above resorting to bracketing either. Or as I think of it, “using the camera as a light meter.” ;-)
DR200 and DR400 is just shooting RAW EC -1.0 and EC -2.0 with in-camera lifting back to EC 0.0 with a tone curve applied to flatten the image.
There is nothing more happening. You're simply letting the camera take the underexposed shot and bring it back to 0.0 for you vs taking a dark RAW into LR/C1 and doing it yourself.
The reason that highlights are "retained" better in DR200 and DR400 is because they simply aren't in danger of being blown out thanks to the EC happening in the background. For the record, if you have any interest in shooting JPEG only, Fuji's implementation of this is so much better than other brands that it bears putting a thumb on the scale for that point when weighing options....Show more →
Correct. It is analogous to using sims and recipes instead of making custom adjustments in post…
One of the complexities of discussing these things in a Fujifilm forum is that we don’t know if we are interacting with a person who prefers to shoot jpgs and let the camera make the decisions or someone shooting raw who prefers to have full control over the process in post.
gdanmitchell wrote:
One of the complexities of discussing these things in a Fujifilm forum is that we don’t know if we are interacting with a person who prefers to shoot jpgs and let the camera make the decisions or someone shooting raw who prefers to have full control over the process in post.
Or those that make decisions on settings at shooting time and create jpegs
RoamingScott wrote:
Like I've said for years, one you suck it up and shoot single point AF-S, life with the X100 line gets a lot better. Treat it like a film point and shoot and it will reward you.
Thanks. Will give it a try. I want this camera to be as simple as possible. Just point and shoot.
highdesertmesa wrote:
The camera doesn’t clip highlights as base ISO, you do with improper exposure. The DR modes can help if you’re strictly a JPEG shooter, but max sensor performance is always at base ISO with the max exposure possible without clipping the highlights.
When the camera selects the exposure, the camera is clipping the highlights. Other cameras have highlight priority metering modes to prevent that, the Fuji doesn't. It is all about how each manufacturer maps middle gray to their sensor. Some prioritize greater shadows, some prioritize more highlights. The DR modes essentially change how the Fuji is mapping the sensor to middle gray to save more highlights and then applying a tone curve so that the resulting image doesn't seem to dark.
RoamingScott wrote:
DR200 and DR400 is just shooting RAW EC -1.0 and EC -2.0 with in-camera lifting back to EC 0.0 with a tone curve applied to flatten the image.
There is nothing more happening..
There is a slight difference in that when you dial in EC -1 or -2 the shutter speed and/or aperture will change (in auto modes). DR200 or DRR400 doesn't change shutter speed/aperture, it does the underexposure by cutting ISO behind the scenes which is why they require ISO's set above base.
sfogg wrote:
There is a slight difference in that when you dial in EC -1 or -2 the shutter speed and/or aperture will change (in auto modes). DR200 or DRR400 doesn't change shutter speed/aperture, it does the underexposure by cutting ISO behind the scenes which is why they require ISO's set above base.
There is zero functional difference between shooting -2.0 EC at base ISO or exposing at 0.0 with DR400 on and the sensor dropping silently to base ISO in the background.
James and I are the last 2 people on this forum that need this mansplained to them
A change in shutter speed or a change in aperture vs a behind the scenes ISO change is not zero functioning difference. You literally are capturing a different image.
You potentially change motion blur (or camera shake) characteristics with a shutter change and certainly change DOF with an aperture change vs those characteristics not changing at all going from DR100 to DR400 with the resulting behind the scenes ISO change.
RoamingScott wrote:
There is zero functional difference between shooting -2.0 EC at base ISO or exposing at 0.0 with DR400 on and the sensor dropping silently to base ISO in the background.
James and I are the last 2 people on this forum that need this mansplained to them
The first sentence of your post is essentially accurate, useful information that would benefit some readers of the thread. Why not just offer that and move on?
You have useful things to offer here, and I occasionally catch myself virtually nodding my head in agreement. And then I get to the superfluous vitriol and end up shaking my head instead.
Have you considered offering the useful information without attaching the personal insults? They detract from the value of the information you have to share.
