Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: armand on December 27, 2014, 06:20:16 pm
-
I went out today and I had a D750 and an X-T1 with me. I wasn't really planning to compare them but it happened I took a shot with both of the same subject.
Perspective is slightly different, DOF is slightly different also and so is the post processing (used the Fuji Velvia as a start vs Nikon Standard).
The X-T1 with the 10-14 @ 18mm, F8, ISO 1600, 1/60; the Nikon with the 24-120 @ 52mm, F8, ISO 1600, 1/60. Both handheld.
I don't know what the 18 is for the 10-24 but on the 24-120 the 52 should be close to peak performance.
All these being said, I'll let the images speak in regards to sharpness. I didn't think it's funny just having bought the D750 recently.
PS. in the comparison, the Fuji is the left one
-
and few more
-
I think that is what some of the photographers mean by color.
Not only is sharpness a factor, but the color rendition is superior in the Fuji.
They look deeper and richer.
-
A couple of thoughts: They both look good for ISO 1600. The Fuji looks sharper, and the color is better, but I wonder if you can make them match better in post? I find my Canon files don't look as good as my Fuji files right out of the camera, but I can get similar good results after processing the raw files.
-
I could play with the color more for Nikon (the Fuji is a little over saturated with Velvia) but I cannot fix the difference in sharpness. I suspect that with a tripod the Nikon will look better than this but then again I could use ISO 100 at that moment. You can see the shadows are less blocked on the Nikon, possibly because of higher contrast in Fuji.
-
A couple of thoughts, the DOF on the 1.5 crop will be better overall. It's a nice feature of the crop.
The color to me on the Nikon is more "natural" on my monitor, I realize everyone's eyes are different.
On the shots did you use AF or Live View on the Nikon. If AF, you might need a slight AF micro adjustment on your lens. If you used Live view, then that's a bit more troubling. I am interested in which you used.
The Fuji does very well, I am often torn on taking it or a Nikon out as back up for my Phase system. The Fuji most times wins due to weight. It's an excellent system with optics that really match up very well also.
I am assuming ACR or LR for raw conversion, curious what your sharpening was for the Fuji, as that's by far the hardest issue for me with most of the files.
Thanks for posting.
Paul
-
I don't know the actual numbers, but the Fuji and Nikon lenses you used are in different classes. The Fuji is by all accounts a stellar performer while the Nikon appears to be solidly in the kit lens category. Note that I haven't used either.
-
Mirror shake in the Nikon and possibly not comprable optics kind of invalidates the test. imho.
-
I don't know the actual numbers, but the Fuji and Nikon lenses you used are in different classes. The Fuji is by all accounts a stellar performer while the Nikon appears to be solidly in the kit lens category. Note that I haven't used either.
Mirror shake in the Nikon and possibly not comprable optics kind of invalidates the test. imho.
I wouldn't call the Nikon 24-120 a kit lens. And while I own neither, the Fuji can be had for around $1000 while the Nikon is $1300, so I don't think the lens choice is necessarily biased against the Nikon. In any case, I use actual lens/camera combinations at actual shutter speeds so comparing two setups that I might actually use is pretty interesting. Mirror shake is part of the Nikon system and does not invalidate anything for actual shooting comparisons imo.
Surely one can find conditions under which the Nikon system outperforms the Fuji, but that doesn't make this comparison useless or biased.
And, yes, you can call me a Fuji fanboy ;D
-
There are too many inconsistencies to make a judgement based on these testing methods: different lenses, different post processing, different DOF because of the sensors...
A better test of the sensors would include using the same lens via an adapter, adjusting aperture for DOF etc.
-
Mirror shake in the Nikon and possibly not comprable optics kind of invalidates the test. imho.
Not sure about that. When I test gear, I use it under my normal conditions -- hand held, with the lenses I own, etc. So in this case, the OP did just that, and got significantly different results. It's the kind of test that would be valid for me, with my own gear, not one that would be necessarily valid for anyone else.
armand, did you have the image stabilizer on for both systems? Could that make a difference?
-
You are right that there are many inconsistencies as I didn't plan any comparison, but it is real life. I suspect some mirror slap takes away some sharpness but the shoot was at 1/60 for a 52mm WITH VR enabled. I mean of that's not enough then where is the advantage? (and I recall taking several shots and selecting the sharper)
I have to try to see if there is any focus that needs fine tuning but the Nikon is not sharper anywhere in the frame.
As it was said the Nikon is not a cheap lens and the extra megapixels of the D750 should be an advantage.
Again this one has serious limitations and should be seen as such. I might try a slightly more rigorous one of I'm getting bored in the next week or so.
-
I am assuming ACR or LR for raw conversion, curious what your sharpening was for the Fuji, as that's by far the hardest issue for me with most of the files.
Paul, I use LR and C1 for raw conversion. With both I set sharpening to zero, and use Focus Magic for capture sharpening followed by Topaz Lab's Detail for creative sharpening. This works very well for what I shoot.
Martin
-
I used LR for both. From my preliminary testing the C1 is doing a better job but I'm reluctant to change my habits.
In LR I got the detail slider to 100% and for this one I think the amount was 39. Masking I don't recall, possible 10.
-
FF Nikon should best Fuji.
Here are my tests. (No D750 though.)
http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/
Fuji is stellar sensor. I wish they made Leica's sensor or a FF Leica knockoff.
Here is short summation.
http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/78657145604
Leica M6 Kodak Ektar 100 film
http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/78146710477
Fuji X-E1
http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/78143626409
Leica M240
http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/77677349888
Leica Monochrom
http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/78316730010
Fuji X100
http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/78320369123
Olympus PEN E-PM1
-
I'm a bit alarmed at how little detail you have on the Leica/Ektar combo I've shot that film extensively and details are good for a negative emulsion. I'm not sure how you're scanning the film but I'd take a look at that again I've a Plustek and even with a kit lens I'd wipe the floor with your results for resolution, something isn't right on that side of things. You should be holding up to 12/16mp reasonably well with that film and a half decent lens let alone a Leica lens should yield very good results.
-
There are too many inconsistencies to make a judgement based on these testing methods: different lenses, different post processing, different DOF because of the sensors...
A better test of the sensors would include using the same lens via an adapter, adjusting aperture for DOF etc.
What you say is correct for a sensor comparison, but I do not think that is what Armand is doing. He has two cameras, each with a similarly priced zoom of the camera brand, he goes to a place and takes photos with both. I think it is a valid comparison of the system results. I could add that I think it would be a lot closer if Armand had taken raw files and processed them well, which means not with Lightroom or ACR for the Fuji. The killer for Nikon of course, is that it would be very close.
I have a similar experience with the X-T1, but coming from a D800. Of course, the X-T1 does not provide the resolution of a D800. But what I find out is that it takes a 20x30" print to be able spot differences by looking up close. I have arrived at the conclusion that to really take full advantage of the D800 sensor, I'd have to go with optics like the Otus series or the best Zeiss and Nikon primes, which I don't really want to buy for some and cannot afford at all for others. Add to that that the D800 has an anti-alias filter and the Fuji does not, it means that the system of a middle of the range (but still pricey) zoom on a D800 is not a giant leap in image quality compared to an X-T1 with a typical Fuji lens. I know about the D810 but that one is a big price jump over the D800 and that is too much for an amateur like me.
I do not have the D800 anymore and have traded most of my Nikon gear for a great assortment of Fuji lenses.
-
What you say is correct for a sensor comparison, but I do not think that is what Armand is doing. He has two cameras, each with a similarly priced zoom of the camera brand, he goes to a place and takes photos with both. I think it is a valid comparison of the system results. I could add that I think it would be a lot closer if Armand had taken raw files and processed them well, which means not with Lightroom or ACR for the Fuji. The killer for Nikon of course, is that it would be very close.
I have a similar experience with the X-T1, but coming from a D800. Of course, the X-T1 does not provide the resolution of a D800. But what I find out is that it takes a 20x30" print to be able spot differences by looking up close. I have arrived at the conclusion that to really take full advantage of the D800 sensor, I'd have to go with optics like the Otus series or the best Zeiss and Nikon primes, which I don't really want to buy for some and cannot afford at all for others. Add to that that the D800 has an anti-alias filter and the Fuji does not, it means that the system of a middle of the range (but still pricey) zoom on a D800 is not a giant leap in image quality compared to an X-T1 with a typical Fuji lens. I know about the D810 but that one is a big price jump over the D800 and that is too much for an amateur like me.
I do not have the D800 anymore and have traded most of my Nikon gear for a great assortment of Fuji lenses.
I would agree with you had the processing been optimized for both-ACR and Lightroom aren't the best choices for Fuji or Nikon-and had the shots been adjusted for similar DOF. The images do show additional detail in the Fuji images but I don't know what that means because of the processing and DOF differences. And you bring up a good point about the anti-alaising filter: the Fuji does not have one but the Nikon D750 does. I'm not sure why Nikon decided to put one on the D750 after leaving it off the the previous models. But maybe additional sharpening was required for these images... Anyway..what this does show me is that the Fuji is capable of some really nice images with that lens. But it doesn't work for me as a comparison vs. the Nikon in any way.
-
This sort of test is very useful to conduct for oneself. While I understand the impulse to help others by publishing the results, that generally doesn't work too well on the internet. (Sorry, armand!)
I've done some testing with several different camera systems using 35mm or 35mm-equivalent lenses, with careful post processing and careful printing at 20x30 inches, and satisifed *myself* that the Fuji system holds up quite well against Canon and Sony full frame cameras -- using MY normal techniques and MY raw processing and printing skills, limited as they may be. These tests aren't valid for anyone else, and I would urge anyone who is contemplating the differences between rival systems to make their own comparisons (both before purchasing and before attacking someone else's tests as inadequate.)
-
If you compare the preview studio shots using the xt-1,d750,Sony 7ii and the em-1 the fuji files are so soft, Sony wins followed by d750, then Oly? Question is were the images sharpened and how were the images processed but clearly shows the fuji far off the mark?
-
Getting closer to consistency here.
Not yet there as the temperature was low (~ 21F with direct effects on my judgement) and family was catching up.
Shot taken roughly at 27mm on full frame.
On the Nikon I set the exposure manually, the other did what they wanted (in aperture priority).
Nikon D750 with 24-120 at ~ 24mm** (I thought I did 27 but that's what the metadata says?!), F11, ISO 640, 1/50 with VR enabled.
Fujifilm XT-1 with 10-24 at ~ 18mm, F8, ISO 200, 1/30 with VR enabled.
Fujifilm XE-1 with 18-55 at ~ 18mm, F8, ISO 400, 1/30 with VR enabled.
Handheld, one after another. Not sure why XE-1 chose a different ISO than XT-1, maybe had a little less sky in the shot.
Framing similar. Focus was on the green spruce (or whatever it is). Subject pretty uninspiring but that's what I had.
Fuji sharpened with detail at 100, amount at 39, masking at 10. The Nikon was pushed until I saw crunchiness.
PS. as a side note the D750 had more dynamic range than the Fujis
-
XT-1 vs D750
10-24 vs 24-120
-
X-E1 vs D750
18-55 vs 24-120
-
X-T1 vs X-E1
10-24 vs 18-55
-
This sort of test is very useful to conduct for oneself. While I understand the impulse to help others by publishing the results, that generally doesn't work too well on the internet. (Sorry, armand!)
I too find this comparison meaningless. Comparing two images from different cameras and lenses with images that have been processed to jpeg doesn't work. Unless one of the combinations is massively superior then it is a waste of time? :(
-
stamper, you're misunderstanding me. I don't find armand's test meaningless at all. I fully understand what he's done and why. My statement is that this sort of test is very helpful for oneself but doesn't help others because they won't believe the results for various reasons (see most every post above for a variety of reasons, including your own.)
armand, I like your avatar, is that new? :)
-
stamper, you're misunderstanding me. I don't find armand's test meaningless at all. I fully understand what he's done and why. My statement is that this sort of test is very helpful for oneself but doesn't help others because they won't believe the results for various reasons (see most every post above for a variety of reasons, including your own.)
armand, I like your avatar, is that new? :)
That was the thrust of my post.
-
That was the thrust of my post.
Ah, okay. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
-
Hello Armand,
sorry but i do not think this test is well done -sorry. Testing has to be done carefully or it has no meaning.
When i test something i try to rule out all other parameters that matter.
so ..
1 shoot raw- use the same raw converter
2 use a tripod and focus in liveview exact- use a remote to trigger ( use electronic first curtain if possible0
3 choose the same ISO and colortemperature , optimum sharpening .. etc etc..
(I agree that at f8 both lenses should do well- the Fuji will have more DOF so choose 5.6 maybe to compare)
In your first example the colours of the leaves from the fuji look over the top on my computer - they look very nice ,but not natural.
-
Hello Armand,
sorry but i do not think this test is well done -sorry. Testing has to be done carefully or it has no meaning.
When i test something i try to rule out all other parameters that matter.
so ..
1 shoot raw- use the same raw converter
2 use a tripod and focus in liveview exact- use a remote to trigger ( use electronic first curtain if possible0
3 choose the same ISO and colortemperature , optimum sharpening .. etc etc..
(I agree that at f8 both lenses should do well- the Fuji will have more DOF so choose 5.6 maybe to compare)
In your first example the colours of the leaves from the fuji look over the top on my computer - they look very nice ,but not natural.
Yes it's not perfect but I don't think people will be happy no matter how I do it.
I'm not interested in best quality in the best possible conditions, I'm not shooting in lab conditions, therefore handheld it is.
I chose different aperture (8 vs 11 btw) so to equalize DOF and exposure times will be different. If anything Nikon is a faster exposure time so it should have an advantage. ISO 640 shouldn't impair quality that much.
They both are processed in LR to the best of my ability, again real life and the Fuji should have a disadvantage sharpness wise.
In the first comparison I was not aiming for accuracy with the Fuji version but more for appealing.
I posted these results as I was surprised about the performance of Fuji lens vs Nikon and to also prove a point I made earlier in another post, that for suboptimal conditions where you have to shoot handheld above base ISO the Fuji is comparable as long as you don't need to freeze action.
That stupid mirror slap/ shutter shock in the Nikon is too much.
-
For the record I will try also on a tripod and see how things are working.
-
armand, there are members on the forum who don't accept the DXO tests which means you are facing an uphill struggle. But if you get enjoyment from pursuing this then good luck. :)
-
I don't see anything wrong with Armand's testing methodology. Who cares what outperforms what in the lab at the end of the day except for the purposes of benchmarking? The important thing is what works best for you with your shooting technique, with your normal presentation. If your technique is suboptimal you may or may not want to improve it (or, for that matter may not be able to improve it, i.e., shooting street on a tripod with mirror lock up could be a touch challenging) but that's a different can of worms.
-
I was following a bit the crowd (many won't admit it) and jumped in the XT-1 story. Sold some gear, got the XT-1 and some lenses, good lenses. I'm happy that I sold the whole system today.
Don't get me wrong, it is a very good camera, very capable but at the end, I was utterly sad shooting with it. That's the word, sad. Nothing to compare against pro Nikon body like D700 or 8xx.
I sold my D700 some times ago to a friend and this friend knew my sadness with my brand new fragile hype system. This very friend offered me my D700 for Christmas and it was just emotional :D Yes, I do better photos with my Nikon gear than with any other gear because I feel comfortable. My Nikon is my tool, I can put it on rocks while climbing a cliff, I can put it on the floor while pissing in the forest, even under the rain, and yet, I feel comfortable. I was enable to do that with the XT-1.
So for me, the XT-1 and fuji lens system, even if LuLa praise it, isn't a comfortable system to shoot at all compared to Nikon High DSLR. It is just a condensate of technology in a very tiny and unergonomic body (compared again to the D700 or the D810 that I rent some times).
Fuji lenses are flawless but was a dust magnet, the worst I ever seen. You know what I'm speaking about, those tiny white spot on the lens barrel, those long minutes of cleaning with the brush of the lens pen :p
With Nikon : come back from outdoor >> quick inspection >> stored till next expedition.
Speaking about IQ ... herr ... what the hell is IQ ?? I do quality pictures with whatever gear I feel comfortable shooting with. This is as subjective as the bokeh.
-
I have both systems now and I use them together.
The key word in what you said above is "tiny". With this will come some of the advantages and some of the disadvantages (most of your disadvantages at least).
I can get get a significantly smaller system which doesn't lose much in terms of image quality but will make you work harder at times. And the Nikon still has things that the Fuji can't touch. When I don't need those things and maximum image quality is not needed I tend to carry the Fuji.
-
I'm happy that I sold the whole system today.
;D Hulyss... You go through more camera systems with more "joy of the moment" than most of us! I'm beginning to not know what to make of your wildly varying comments! LOL
Rand
-
Another thought of going small: the D750 is also missing some buttons compared to the bigger bodies.
2 things missing even compared to my D90:
- the autofocus button (which my D90 has on the top right hand plate) has been moved to the focus switch
- you need the rear screen to change the flash mode (because the top LCD is too small to show it)
-
;D Hulyss... You go through more camera systems with more "joy of the moment" than most of us! I'm beginning to not know what to make of your wildly varying comments! LOL
Rand
Yes you are right, but it stay reasonable. I have the opportunity to test a lot of different materials and I'm seeking good gear, good bang for the bucks. Spoiled by Sigma (not any more with there new hybrid bayer sensors...), spoiled by Nikon with the D700 line (not any more because I only need 16 MP in a good old D700 body), spoiled by fuji (but not willing to put that much money in a consumer APS-C system)... Fuji prices are gonna increase and already increased. The more they feel comfortable, the more they charge.
I will never buy this stupid Df or this sub par D750 because I often use 1/8000. Same goes for Sony gear... how ppl can love those wonder boxes after having used a D810 ? (I'm using an A7r once in a while).I'm a photographer who just hate gear because it is often more close to the scam than utility. So I'm testing and waiting. There is no system at the moment who really excite me.
I want a reliable tool, a brand who just not surf on marketing jedi mind-tricks but provide a Pro/semi Pro camera system you can keep for at least 5 or 6 years, very rugged and rigid, with reasonable amount of pixels.
The world need more brands. Hope some ppl will have the guts to do it. A camera made by professionals for professionals, without any refinement to please the metrosexual crowd or whatever fashion of the moment (and not at one billion dollars per unit ...).
-
Fuji prices are gonna increase and already increased. The more they feel comfortable, the more they charge.
I would be surprised. I believe 2015 will be the year of Sony and Fuji and Olympus will face increased price pressure from Sony.
Given that the full frame Sony a7II "only" costs $1,700 and the APS-C sensor based Fuji X-T1 $1,300 the margin for price increase for Fuji is relatively small.
-
I would be surprised. I believe 2015 will be the year of Sony and Fuji and Olympus will face increased price pressure from Sony.
Given that the full frame Sony a7II "only" costs $1,700 and the APS-C sensor based Fuji X-T1 $1,300 the margin for price increase for Fuji is relatively small.
I would tend to agree here I think Fuji need to look again at some of their prices, saying that they are well known for some big discount bargains (current blowout XE-1 price is superb) as models get older they drop significantly and Fuji have always done this. I'm not complaining I've picked up some stonking bargains (X10 cost me a fraction of it's release price)
A more notable problem is lens prices they need looking at, Sony's E mount prices are also quite awful it's a disincentive for anyone considering moving to the system unless they bring many of their DSLR lenses with adapters. But then makers are losing out on lens sales big time. It's a very strange situation to be in ILC's tempt with adapters but not so much native lenses and system.
-
I would be surprised. I believe 2015 will be the year of Sony and Fuji and Olympus will face increased price pressure from Sony.
Given that the full frame Sony a7II "only" costs $1,700 and the APS-C sensor based Fuji X-T1 $1,300 the margin for price increase for Fuji is relatively small.
I do not really care about the body. Body's, by today standards, should be swapped every 6 months if you follow blindly the brands. Fuji used to use the D200 nikon's body back in the days. Solid camera, awesome sensor and... the lenses.
So my prediction is that Fuji will not jump into 24x36 world. Churning out more than one grand for an APS-C lens is not my cup of tea. I would prefer, of course, buying Full Frame lenses and using it on an APS-C body.
The day that Fuji will start to sell FF lenses, then, I will reconsider my choice.
Fuji lenses are starting to be VERY expensive for an APS-C system (not in the shape of a D300 or D7100).
-
So my prediction is that Fuji will not jump into 24x36 world.
My guess would be that they will hold off as long as possible, i.e., as long as their APS-C niche market remains profitable.
Eventually because of competition by Sony I believe they will need to make the jump if they want to keep on charging the prices that they are charging right now.
Churning out more than one grand for an APS-C lens is not my cup of tea.
...
Fuji lenses are starting to be VERY expensive for an APS-C system (not in the shape of a D300 or D7100).
I don't disagree. It is too much. That being said, as far as I know there are only two lenses that are more than $1K: the 56mm APD and the 50-140mm zoom.
Certainly the 56mm APD is more of a specialty lens and you can get by perfectly without either of them. All the primes are below $1K or at the $1K price point.
I have no issues whatsoever with highly priced specialty lenses as long as there are alternatives and I believe there are.
If Fuji however were to price the upcoming 16mm and 90mm primes at let's say $1,300 then I would start agreeing more and more with you.
-
A more notable problem is lens prices they need looking at, Sony's E mount prices are also quite awful it's a disincentive for anyone considering moving to the system unless they bring many of their DSLR lenses with adapters.
Agreed. See also reply above.
Regarding Sony, I have been wanting to pull the trigger on the Sony FE 16-35mm, but a price tag of $1,350 is too high IMO.
Also, from what I can see and read it is a good but not really an exceptional lens.
-
My guess would be that they will hold off as long as possible, i.e., as long as their APS-C niche market remains profitable.
Eventually because of competition by Sony I believe they will need to make the jump if they want to keep on charging the prices that they are charging right now.
I don't disagree. It is too much. That being said, as far as I know there are only two lenses that are more than $1K: the 56mm APD and the 50-140mm zoom.
Certainly the 56mm APD is more of a specialty lens and you can get by perfectly without either of them. All the primes are below $1K or at the $1K price point.
I have no issues whatsoever with highly priced specialty lenses as long as there are alternatives and I believe there are.
If Fuji however were to price the upcoming 16mm and 90mm primes at let's say $1,300 then I would start agreeing more and more with you.
Expensive prime lens can be seen every where. The zooms,in the other hand, are too expensive. I tested the new 50-140 and it is the same dust magnet as other fuji lens. Meanwhile, Sigma did a wonderful innovative lens who open at f1.8 and cost less (and is better build).
The Japan cartel have only one motto : "Never ever totally satisfy a client, never!".
-
Expensive prime lens can be seen every where. The zooms,in the other hand, are too expensive. I tested the new 50-140 and it is the same dust magnet as other fuji lens. Meanwhile, Sigma did a wonderful innovative lens who open at f1.8 and cost less (and is better build).
The Japan cartel have only one motto : "Never ever totally satisfy a client, never!".
I haven't tested the 50-140 yet so I can't comment on it.
I quite frankly have no idea though what you mean with Fuji lenses being a dust magnet. I have shot them for over a week in the desert and I have not had any problems...
-
I haven't tested the 50-140 yet so I can't comment on it.
I quite frankly have no idea though what you mean with Fuji lenses being a dust magnet. I have shot them for over a week in the desert and I have not had any problems...
Probably the fact that on that brought shiny black the specs of dust are more visible and they tend to stick easier than on the matte black of some Nikons. If you have OCD and need to have your gear clean it is a problem. I could care less even as I do notice it from time to time I got used to it. So far no problems although most don't have the weather sealing designation of some Nikons.
I also used to think they are expensive but after I got the full frame Nikon I changed my mind; if you don't think about the equivalence thing for comparable field of view, aperture and quality the Fuji are less expensive.
You mention the 50-140 2.8 is expensive; how much is the Nikon 70-200 2.8?
-
I also used to think they are expensive but after I got the full frame Nikon I changed my mind; if you don't think about the equivalence thing for comparable field of view, aperture and quality the Fuji are less expensive.
You mention the 50-140 2.8 is expensive; how much is the Nikon 70-200 2.8?
I find it expensive at $1,600 and I especially find it way to heavy, even a lot of medium format lenses weight less than 1KG...
That being said, I am not into zooms, so I don't care too much, I would probably never buy it.
If this lens is as good or better than the Nikon lens then it probably serves its purpose at a lower price (the Nikon is $2,400), the Sony FE 70-200 is only $1,500 though, so the Fuji better be really good.
-
Probably the fact that on that brought shiny black the specs of dust are more visible and they tend to stick easier than on the matte black of some Nikons. If you have OCD and need to have your gear clean it is a problem. I could care less even as I do notice it from time to time I got used to it. So far no problems although most don't have the weather sealing designation of some Nikons.
Yea that's it, its the glossy metal finish who pop dust out. The thing is that I own Zeiss lenses for Nikon and they do not act the same with dusts and particles.
-
As I found out at the telephoto range the mirrorless lose most of their advantage size/weight wise.
If this lens is as good or better than the Nikon lens then it probably serves its purpose at a lower price (the Nikon is $2,400), the Sony FE 70-200 is only $1,500 though, so the Fuji better be really good.
F4 on the Sony, F2.8 on the Fuji. Yes, I know it provides the same DOF but they are not really the same.
-
As I found out at the telephoto range the mirrorless lose most of their advantage size/weight wise.
F4 on the Sony, F2.8 on the Fuji. Yes, I know it provides the same DOF but they are not really the same.
In the meanwhile Kevin/Michael have made their observations available:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lenses/working_with_the_fuji_50_140mm_zoom_lens.shtml
It does indeed sound like it is an exceptional lens.
-
In the meanwhile Kevin/Michael have made their observations available:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lenses/working_with_the_fuji_50_140mm_zoom_lens.shtml
It does indeed sound like it is an exceptional lens.
It looks sharp but I'm not overly impressed with the rendering even at the max telephoto
Not that it's bad but a bit edgy and not really as good as I'd like subjective I know but there is more to any lens than pure sharpness rendering is very important too
-
Yes I tested it and it is a sharp lens. But it is a freaking heavy lens. For out of focus rendering I was not sold at all. This lens, even for the price, should be compared to the Nikon 70-200 f4, not the 2.8 (at all).
If an APS-C lens should be big in fuji line, they should have made it f1.2 all the way like the 56.
-
Well I've never had a problem with a 70-200mm because it's useful enough on APS-C and full frame I suppose they wanted to keep the size down at least a bit
What hurts Fuji is the lack of third party support IMO
Prices are relative to the lenses and what they are and speed that said the 56mm F1.2 isn't unreasonable for such a fast lens (the first version not the newer one)
35mm F1.4 also a decent price for the lens speed
27mm F2.8 is overpriced for a "kit type pancake prime" the 16-50mm worth getting in a kit deal it's not a great buy outside that (for a kit lens)
Not really sure where the 18mm prime fits in it's just not a focal length I would be interested in, likewise the 18-55mm whilst a bit faster can't really justify it's price either
Bit of a mixed bag really
-
This lens, even for the price, should be compared to the Nikon 70-200 f4, not the 2.8 (at all).
Why is that?
Again F2.8 is still F2.8 regardless of the system. It took me a while to find the truth in this ;)
I have the Nikon 70-200 F4 and I don't plan to get the Fuji because it is too heavy, similar as the Nikon 70-200 F2.8. If I change my shooting maybe but for now the 55-200 F3.5-4.8 is good enough.
-
Well I've never had a problem with a 70-200mm because it's useful enough on APS-C and full frame I suppose they wanted to keep the size down at least a bit
What hurts Fuji is the lack of third party support IMO
Prices are relative to the lenses and what they are and speed that said the 56mm F1.2 isn't unreasonable for such a fast lens (the first version not the newer one)
35mm F1.4 also a decent price for the lens speed
27mm F2.8 is overpriced for a "kit type pancake prime" the 16-50mm worth getting in a kit deal it's not a great buy outside that (for a kit lens)
Not really sure where the 18mm prime fits in it's just not a focal length I would be interested in, likewise the 18-55mm whilst a bit faster can't really justify it's price either
Bit of a mixed bag really
Fuji has frequent sales. I got the 27 for 200.
The 18-55 is much cheaper if you buy in a kit and I suspect most people will.
-
Why is that?
Again F2.8 is still F2.8 regardless of the system. It took me a while to find the truth in this ;)
I have the Nikon 70-200 F4 and I don't plan to get the Fuji because it is too heavy, similar as the Nikon 70-200 F2.8. If I change my shooting maybe but for now the 55-200 F3.5-4.8 is good enough.
Of course an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens. This is the last marketing fashion trick launched by this super pro forum called DP sumthing or some another internet valorous bible :-*. The 50-140 on a fuji is far from a 70-200 f2.8 on a Nikon just because those lens are strictly different.
We buy telezooms or long lenses generally for two things : Reach and bokeh.
On a 24x36 sensor you have both, especially at 2.8. On an APS-C you will only have the reach. The rest will be close to what you can get with a 70-200 f4 and even, because of the aps-c sensor, modelling is out by a large margin.
So, having an APS-C for landscape, aviation, bif, sport: it is superb. If you want to go serious : increase the size of the sensor.
If you want to be close to the lens drawing and bokeh of a full frame 70-200 f2.8, I repeat, you'll need a 50-140 constant f1.2. >> this is just mater of facts, not forum bickering mixed with dance-floor sorcery.
-
So do you think a F2.8 APSC-C is as expensive to make as a F4 or F2.8 on full frame? Never mind it's the only alternative for Fuji.
What I said doesn't come from dpreview (sorry to burst your bubble) but from direct experience after I got the D750 and multiple other sources prior to that.
-
When decent 70–200/2.8 zooms first came on the market, I and the folks I hung out & photographed with looked down our collective nose—and through our 85/1.4, 100/2, 105/1.8 & 135/2 lenses—at them. f/2.8 a fast aperture? A bokeh (a term not then in common use) aperture? Hah! Then of course those zooms sold by the shipping container load, and many peoples' notions of what both a fast lens and a desirable amount of OOF was changed acccordingly. Other people realized you could step back, use a longer focal length and still get your desired OOF at f/2.8. In other words, to a large extent technological advancement drove both taste and technique.
Same thing applies now IMO. The field-of-view range of a 70–200mm lens is fine & dandy for the 35mm format. But with smaller formats I see no compelling reason to duplicate that range. If the new Fuji were an ~f/3.4 lens with ~180mm available at the long end it'd be more to my liking. With m43 I skipped Panasonic's 35–100/2.8 in favor of the new Olympus 40–150/2.8. With or without the matching 1.4x teleconverter I've got a lens that can easily blur out unwanted fore/back-ground info when that's what I want or need. Of course I can't use it for that purpose in the same way as a 70–200 on a 35mm camera…but there's nothing sacred about the latter combo anyway.
-Dave-
-
That 40-150 F2.8 is really nice, almost a good enough reason to buy into the m43 (along with the 12-40 F2.8) as they do have a size advantage and they are weathersealed, a very appealing travel/backpacking package.
Going back to the equivalence part, it matters at some extent only between F2.8 to F4 (35 mm equivalent) IF you really need that DOF and cannot compensate with changing the distances. The exposure time remains the same. This is an advantage of the format by itself.
I believed into this stuff, that for the same DOF the full frame lenses are cheaper on the Nikon vs Fuji until I actually bought the D750. For the same DOF you don't have the same shutter speed (unless you go up on the iso by 1 stop or so) and with shutter shock/mirror slap on the Nikon you are actually behind. To really be ahead you need the nicer lenses for the full frame Nikon at which point the cost advantage goes away.
So far from the full frame lenses that I have I do like a lot the 70-200 F4, it is a very good match for the higher resolution.
I also think the 85 F1.8G is nice (although no great, only above average), but I like the Fuji 56 F1.2 more (despite being DOF equivalent).
The 50 mm version are not that great, the Fuji 35 F1.4 is definitely nicer (I do like the 50 F1.8D on the DX D90). You need the Sigma Art here to be ahead with a significant weight penalty.
The 24-120 is meh, workable but nothing to write home about.
All in all each system has its advantages so I will use them in parallel. If I didn't taste the Fuji poison a more rational approach would be the have 2 systems, m43 and full frame. If CX will improve it might be the light choice. We can go back and forth about claimed superiority but most already made up our minds and will shoot with whatever we feel comfortable with. I'm only an amateur so my needs are totally different (although I like the idea of having 5-6 systems if I can).
-
Of course an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens. This is the last marketing fashion trick launched by this super pro forum called DP sumthing or some another internet valorous bible :-*. The 50-140 on a fuji is far from a 70-200 f2.8 on a Nikon just because those lens are strictly different.
We buy telezooms or long lenses generally for two things : Reach and bokeh.
On a 24x36 sensor you have both, especially at 2.8. On an APS-C you will only have the reach. The rest will be close to what you can get with a 70-200 f4 and even, because of the aps-c sensor, modelling is out by a large margin.
So, having an APS-C for landscape, aviation, bif, sport: it is superb. If you want to go serious : increase the size of the sensor.
If you want to be close to the lens drawing and bokeh of a full frame 70-200 f2.8, I repeat, you'll need a 50-140 constant f1.2. >> this is just mater of facts, not forum bickering mixed with dance-floor sorcery.
[rant]
Well, f2.8 is f2.8, whether you like it or not. Of course, a FF lens has a narrower DOF than an APS-C lens at equivalent focal lengths and the same aperture, but the light transmission of the lens is still roughly the same. Now, if you are into narrow DOF, the 70-200 f2.8 will give you that over the 50-140 2.8. But at the same time, the 50-140 gives you one extra stop of light for the same DOF (give or take) than the 70-200. You prefer the narrow DOF. Fine. Others prefer the extra stop at given DOF. Neither is objectively better. Now whether the Fuji is too expensive, is a completely different matter, and mainly determined by production cost and demand (says the economist in me).
Also, to be honest, I don't understand this obsession with FF, other than a "my sensor is bigger than yours" attitude ;). Different sensor sizes have different advantages. Neither is more serious. We should be looking at the images we produce with given system, rather than some arbitrary sensor size. After all, if larger was automatically better we would all be shooting 8x10 film.
[/rant]
Disclaimer: I love my Fuji (for anything but sports), use Nikons mostly for work, and would be shooting MF film all the time if I could :)
-
I don't object to the focal range (ie the APS-C equivalent) it makes some sense but as I've said there isn't a lot gained here a bit of size and weight about it (maybe more important for smaller ILC cameras)
Personally I think Fuji are boxing themselves in longer term by making all their lenses APS-C if they ever go to FF they will have a lot of work to do (just thinking ahead 3-4 years or so) I'm quite happy with APS-C myself though I dabble with FF mostly 35mm film
Regarding bokeh and lens speed etc I can assure you I get stellar bokeh from my Minolta 70-210mm F4 on APS-C even, let alone full frame no problems at all getting a very nice defocused background. The quality of blur isn't defined purely on lens speed it's possible to get good effects even with ho hum bokeh lenses if you have enough separation from the subject/background it's mostly about smoothness and longer focal lengths ensure that this is why I would prefer the normal 200mm (or in my case 210mm) rather than a shorter focal length. The Fuji looks mixed for bokeh outlining seems to be a problem on some shots (it's ok for others where the background is smashed to bits) just about any lens can smash the background apart and look fine though.
It's not bad but it's not amazing either probably partly down to the shorter focal range, most faster tele zooms do better at the top end than the shorter end for blur just about every lens I've used has shown this. There is more to any lens than pure sharpness rendering is important and some (not all) of Fuji's offerings disappoint me on this part they don't have the magic touch the Minolta optical designers had sharp is great but smooth is very important too.
-
Personally I think Fuji are boxing themselves in longer term by making all their lenses APS-C if they ever go to FF they will have a lot of work to do (just thinking ahead 3-4 years or so) I'm quite happy with APS-C myself though I dabble with FF mostly 35mm film
Barry, I am not sure it makes sense commercially to offer both APS-C and FF systems as I don't see many people purchase both. (Wishful) thinking ahead 3-4 years it might be a better idea for a company like Fuji that doesn't have a legacy of FF lenses to supplement their APS-C with something larger than FF. All IMO of course.
Martin
-
[rant]
Well, f2.8 is f2.8, whether you like it or not. Of course, a FF lens has a narrower DOF than an APS-C lens at equivalent focal lengths and the same aperture, but the light transmission of the lens is still roughly the same. Now, if you are into narrow DOF, the 70-200 f2.8 will give you that over the 50-140 2.8. But at the same time, the 50-140 gives you one extra stop of light for the same DOF (give or take) than the 70-200. You prefer the narrow DOF. Fine. Others prefer the extra stop at given DOF. Neither is objectively better. Now whether the Fuji is too expensive, is a completely different matter, and mainly determined by production cost and demand (says the economist in me).
Also, to be honest, I don't understand this obsession with FF, other than a "my sensor is bigger than yours" attitude ;). Different sensor sizes have different advantages. Neither is more serious. We should be looking at the images we produce with given system, rather than some arbitrary sensor size. After all, if larger was automatically better we would all be shooting 8x10 film.
[/rant]
Disclaimer: I love my Fuji (for anything but sports), use Nikons mostly for work, and would be shooting MF film all the time if I could :)
Arbitrary sensor size ... I started photo with a Minox and... I'm below 40 Yo. APS-C is an error, a forced format. Back in the days I remember when those strange films was introduced and it was just a nightmare. By today costs of production (see Sony), every body should profit of 24x36, it is a minimum. I do not really care about maths, I only trust my eyes, experience and what I learnt in many traineeships (Louis lumière). I do not say that the fuji system is bad (it is a dumb proof camera) but I say it is kinda a waste of money. Some ppl see only fun in camera and some see only tools (and some both). I see the tools... as the real photo schools see it. If you want progression in overall IQ you have no choice than jumping into larger formats (this is a fact, not my own delirium).
When you go out of a long photo traineeship in well known photo schools (not local clubs), they almost lead you into MF, directly. Those schools and your status of student give you large advantages on refurbished MF gear (hassy, in France). A lot of those students establish themselves pro asap and already have : skills, adequate material, address book >> more than many of us can build in 10 years. They can almost teach photo.
APS-C and below are just niche markets. Fuji, Sigma, Pentax are just niche markets. APS-C from the big brands like Canon or Nikon are for ppl who enter photography and sometime they do not even know what is APS-C and FF (true story). So at the end APS-C was for ppl with no big money to invest seriously at first. Pro APS-C body's was for wildlife photo, more light lenses and reach (this time is now over).
The larger the sensor the better the transitions. Smooth yet sharp.
A D700 churn out more pleasing pictures than the fuji, overall. A D800 >> you take a blast. A 645D or equivalent in Hassy or Phase >> you take a big blast. Larger sensor >> you take even more a huge blast. Linoff technica >> you scream and cry just looking at the reversibles. Above ?? >> it start to be epic.
My wish is that most of you can own and use sensors even more large than 24x36 and this will maybe be true. What I see is that APS-C is slowly dying and 24x36 slowly resurrecting. In big brands you have almost the same choice of gear between APS-C and 24x36 [(and it is just a start)+(it is a good thing)].
The second hand market of used 24x36 dslr or Milc is starting to explode. For a newcomer in photography what is the best deal, IQ wise ? investing in a niche APS-C system or in a slightly used D610 or A7 ?? you know the answer.
It is why I think that before 5 to 7 years, brands such as mamyia/leaf, fuji (yes fuji), sony and maybe some other big boys will produce compact fixed lens MF cameras for under 4k. So the equilibrium will be restored : MF and FF. All the rest will be done with smartphones.
If tomorrow Leica say : "Ok, after long studies, we decided to resurrect the R system, using the M9 sensor". HA !! So many ppl will fancy this new (if correctly priced).
So I do not rant, I just wish that most of us can enjoy real IQ (modeling, transitions) for less money and my little finger tell me this is what's going on actually.
-
Couple of points regarding Fuji's choice of APS-C only so far it depends a lot on what they plan. Smaller formats like micro 4/3 will also be under pressure longer term
Not that there isn't a market for crop sensors there is but "at a certain price" it's going to get harder to justify the cost longer term both bodies and lenses.
I am not unhappy with APS-C myself it does however mean my wide angle FF lenses are not very useful (my primes and tele zooms are still of some use)
Fuji will have a hard job trying to get the asking price for the X-T1 and some top end lenses when FF bodies are coming down in price. However uninteresting I find Sony's E mount the A7 is now £799 that is cheaper than the APS-C Fuji X-T1 a simple adaptor allows me to use my FF lenses. I cannot see why (despite being a Fuji and Sony user) I have any real incentive to dump my gear and move to Fuji X entirely.
I don't agree that FF is a minimum requirement for everyone but many of us have FF lenses on various mounts Fuji are going to have to offer some better value in order to nab a certain segment of the market, FF is only going one place and that is cheaper over time. Situation is probably even more pressing for Micro 4/3 eventually it will become the budget offering of crop sensors. I'm just saying that as I find the investment cost of Fuji X to be off putting and this includes the newer lens releases like the fast tele zoom why pay over the odds when I can buy a very capable Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 SP Di USD for quite a bit less
Fuji might not have to deal with a legacy 35mm lens mount, but they do have to deal with a lot of users who have legacy lenses and that's the stumbling block
In layman's terms it's simple crop bodies/lenses = cheaper if that isn't the case I lose interest rapidly
-
Barry, I am not sure it makes sense commercially to offer both APS-C and FF systems as I don't see many people purchase both. (Wishful) thinking ahead 3-4 years it might be a better idea for a company like Fuji that doesn't have a legacy of FF lenses to supplement their APS-C with something larger than FF. All IMO of course.
Martin
I'm in this camp too. Fuji has arguably created the best aps-c system on the market. If Fuji eventually finds pressure to develop a larger format system, would they target what will probably be an already crowded 24x36 market, or introduce the best 33x44 system (or whatever)? Then they could fit legacy MF lenses.
Dave
-
Fuji might not have to deal with a legacy 35mm lens mount, but they do have to deal with a lot of users who have legacy lenses and that's the stumbling block
In layman's terms it's simple crop bodies/lenses = cheaper if that isn't the case I lose interest rapidly
Yea but speaking of a bargain, just a quick google investigation : http://www.ebay.com/itm/USA-Nikon-D610-Never-used-with-Nikkor-28-80G-lens-and-original-receipt-8-2014-/191472783252?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item2c94aacf94
It is light, ergonomic a far ahead in every IQ sectors.
I followed forums and went in the bandwagon because I've seen a lot of pros trashing their FF stuff to go full XT-1. I've been tricked big times by forum and propaganda.
An XT-1 + the 10-24 or a couple of primes will cost you more and give you less serious files (without speaking about the XT-1 workflow ...). It can give you more pleasure,yea, if your a city shooter or have tiny hands (then you need to invest 250$ more into the grip). I can understand ppl seeking compactness, really, but the prices are too high, really.
And yea, it is Nikon VS Fuji so don't mind if I defend Nikon ;)
I see the point too when ppl want to plug legacy lenses on it. BUT, most of those legacy lenses are made to shine on FF, not APS-C. So yea I really compassionate with those folks who have leica lenses but not the body to go with because it is tad expensive.
I'm in this camp too. Fuji has arguably created the best aps-c system on the market. If Fuji eventually finds pressure to develop a larger format system, would they target what will probably be an already crowded 24x36 market, or introduce the best 33x44 system (or whatever)? Then they could fit legacy MF lenses.
Dave
If they restart MF, then, they will have my respect; big times.
-
The D610 or D750 sensor it's not years ahead, it's ahead by what one would expect taking the sensor size difference - in ISO and DR. In resolution even less than you would expect from a 24 vs 16 MP.
If you really want to get to the cost, although that was less for debate here, how about you look at the X-E1 with the 18-55, new for about 700$. Not lightning fast autofocus but usable for most situations with quality practically as good as the X-T1.
From what you say we should just cut the chase and move to MF otherwise the quality we get is not enough.
Meanwhile for us mortals in real life the difference between a great full frame Nikon and a great APS-C Fujifilm is a mix of advantages and disadvantages. Fast autofocus and particularly tracking is where Fuji is losing but I hope in a couple of generation the gap will be small enough not to matter.
I'm following the Sony and see where they go with their full frame. They can be an interesting option if they get high quality lenses but smaller than their DSLRs equivalents.
-
Yes I'm very curious about the A9. Some say it will be A mount, some say a new mount ... will see.
-
Btw I don't consider myself a Fuji fanboy as they have plenty of flaws that I would like to see improved besides the autofocus.
I'm not a fan of XTrans (it's more of a headache than it's worth it), the back buttons are too small, the lenses should have the apertures marked (for the constant ones) and be stiffer, I would like the grip to be bigger, maybe a touchscreen for quick autofocus (one that you activate only when you want to), more weather resistant lenses, maybe more megapixels although I would prefer more DR and better high ISO (I hate their cheating above 1600) and so on.
It is however a nice system if you stay within its limits and paradoxically I came to appreciate it more after I bought the D750. I'm still getting the Nikon out now when I have time to dedicate for photography only and I carry a tripod with me.
I'll be going for a trip in a month or so and I'm not sure which system I'll take with me.
-
Yes I'm very curious about the A9. Some say it will be A mount, some say a new mount ... will see.
I'm looking at it as a backup (or main body) for the Nikon system. With an adapter I can use it for landscape or slow moving objects and I can have it with native lenses for going lighter.
So far though only 2 lenses are nice there: the 16-35 F4 and the 55 F1.8
-
. . . regarding Fuji's choice of APS-C only so far it depends a lot on what they plan. Smaller formats like micro 4/3 will also be under pressure longer term . . .
In one way, certainly. But I distinctly remember Michael stating that the 4/3 sensor was "A dead end" in his initial evaluation of the format, some years ago. Fast forward to the end of this past year and the EM-1 he lauds as one of the best for the year. I think as technology continues to improve the boundary of "good enough" and "really good" will keep shifting. Surely a larger sensor can always be "better" but there is a practical limit in human vision that may well be exceeded in the not too distant future. The result will be that "an increment better" technologically won't result in a gain, visually. Smaller sensors may bump up against this limit and be considered "really good" for any purpose.
Rand
-
Fast forward to the end of this past year and the EM-1 he [Michael] lauds as one of the best for the year.
... as well as nominating it Cam-of-the-year 2013 and less than six months later he's dumped it in favour of the Pentax 645z and a Sony A7r. He's now, apparently, added an X-T1 to the stable ...
-
... as well as nominating it Cam-of-the-year 2013 and less than six months later he's dumped it in favour of the Pentax 645z and a Sony A7r. He's now, apparently, added an X-T1 to the stable ...
Some are having fun
-
Some are having fun
... and producing good output at the same time, on a variety of sensor sizes !
-
There's no substitute for film or sensor real estate, but... and it's big, but sensor technology seems to be moving faster than just about anything else in photography. I fully expect smaller sensor as in APSC, technology to improve significantly over the short and long term.
All formats are arbitrary. There is nothing "holy" about "full frame" or any other format, be it 4x5, 8x10. Full frame was just a convenient way to use movie stock in the 1930's. I see APSC as a "sweet spot" between lens size, body size, and image quality. No one will argue that a D810, Pentax 645Z will make technically "better" files. Today printing is almost becoming a niche. What will the future bring with bigger and better viewing capability?
I have spent a fair amount on a Fuji system but still have a huge investment in Nikon high end cameras and lenses. I use the Fuji much more often. As an amateur, who spends way more than he makes on photography, the enjoyment quotient is what really matters to me.
I started with 35mm film, eventually spent a lot of time and energy with a 4x5 and film medium format, but now have more plain fun with my Fuji and Mac Pro, than I ever did with any of the others.
-
Regarding the Olympus rave reviews or not the price isn't logical and I suspect it's not selling as well as is needed
If APS-C can't command silly prices there is no reason to expect Micro 4/3 the Canon 7d Mk II being the exception grossly overpriced but Canon are exploiting a pre-established user base it's quite unlikely we'll see another product like that again.
I do not see MF as mainstream either now or in the future. Both Olympus and Fuji will have to learn the hard way there is a price point for crop sensors if you try to go high end too far it simply won't work. APS-C and Micro 4/3 is great I don't mock the quality very capable but you start pricing crop bodies at FF levels you're asking for a thumping that's just common sense
-
I followed forums and went in the bandwagon because I've seen a lot of pros trashing their FF stuff to go full XT-1. I've been tricked big times by forum and propaganda.
Quite honestly if you sell your old equipment before properly trying out the new equipment you probably only have yourself to blame...
That being said, it is unfortunate that the X-T1 did not work out for you, that doesn't change though that for a lot of people it does work out.
-
Both Olympus and Fuji will have to learn the hard way there is a price point for crop sensors if you try to go high end too far it simply won't work.
I agree. And if Sony can get the hype wagon rolling for their upcoming camera and the 4 new lenses (plus converters) then Fuji and Olympus but also Leica could be in for a rough awakening...
-
Quite honestly if you sell your old equipment before properly trying out the new equipment you probably only have yourself to blame...
That being said, it is unfortunate that the X-T1 did not work out for you, that doesn't change though that for a lot of people it does work out.
Well... you are right. To be honest, I was seduced by the fuji lenses and thought I will work my way with their cameras. The thing is, between the ergonomic and the awkward workflow, that I just hate those fuji cameras. They should provide a dslr like alternative or something less hipe, more functional,pure... whatever, with a proper bayer sensor.
-
Well... you are right. To be honest, I was seduced by the fuji lenses and thought I will work my way with their cameras. The thing is, between the ergonomic and the awkward workflow, that I just hate those fuji cameras. They should provide a dslr like alternative or something less hipe, more functional,pure... whatever, with a proper bayer sensor.
The quality of the lenses is IMO the main selling point for Fuji. They truly are excellent.
I liked the ergonomics of the X-Pro1. I don't like the ergonomics of the X-T1 and I really hate the control pad buttons. Unforgivable that this was not caught by Fuji.
I also slightly preferred the files from the X-Trans I sensor (of the X-Pro1). Not by much though.
I am OK with the X-Trans sensor as such but I do understand that a lot of people only want to use LR (I use Iridient) and the fact that LR after 3 years is still not supporting Fuji X optimally is and remains an issue for Fuji, whatever way you look at it.
-
I am OK with the X-Trans sensor as such but I do understand that a lot of people only want to use LR (I use Iridient) and the fact that LR after 3 years is still not supporting Fuji X optimally is and remains an issue for Fuji, whatever way you look at it.
This feeds back into the idiocy of "proprietary" RAW data formats. If I were Fuji I'd simply offer my X-trans demosiacing code to anyone who wanted to use it. No strings attached.
-Dave-
-
This feeds back into the idiocy of "proprietary" RAW data formats. If I were Fuji I'd simply offer my X-trans demosiacing code to anyone who wanted to use it. No strings attached.
-Dave-
They did exactly that to Adobe, I think. I find that LightRoom gets results that are very close to the camera jpeg files. Problem is, there is more to get from the files. And no, Capture One does not do an optimal job. It is readily apparent when you see what Photo Ninja and Rawtherapee can do.
-
I keep hearing what a great job the Photo Ninja does but this was not my experience when I tested them on the same file.
Can you Ninja advocates post some examples? Ideally they should include areas of sky (where the false detail that the PN creates is more evident) and darker shadows (where the extra noise it introduces is more obvious). A triad comparison of LR vs CO vs PN would be great.
PS. The only place where I found PN to be truly superior was in highlight recovery
PPS. In LR the Provia simulation would be preferred
-
Can you Ninja advocates post some examples? Ideally they should include areas of sky (where the false detail that the PN creates is more evident) and darker shadows (where the extra noise it introduces is more obvious). A triad comparison of LR vs CO vs PN would be great.
PS. The only place where I found PN to be truly superior was in highlight recovery
PPS. In LR the Provia simulation would be preferred
Right. Before ordering a custom-made job, have you tried to download the trial versions of the aforementioned software?
-
Right. Before ordering a custom-made job, have you tried to download the trial versions of the aforementioned software?
Right.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94681.0
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=86367.60
And some extra that I didn't feel posting.
I would love to see some photos that give a meaning to the words that PN is so much better.
-
Oh btw, reading one's post is a nice thing to do before replying.
I keep hearing what a great job the Photo Ninja does but this was not my experience when I tested them on the same file.