I think you'll be waiting about 1.5 more years for this...XE-2, I will take one.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
X20 and X100s... nice :)
- Thread starter Jorgen Udvang
- Start date
V
Vivek
Guest
Even longer than the M? :shocked:
Show Performance
Member
To all those shooters who are holding back because of RAW support, I would suggest trying the X-Trans cameras in JPEG + RAW. The JPEGs are so good and plenty malleable in post. I've shot RAW exclusively for many years but I could care less on the X-Pro.
Sometimes we get carried away striving for clinical perfection in our images when, for most personal photos (and some commercial) it is the soul of the photo that matters most.
I just picked up another Contax G2 and the images from my test roll were as expected - textured, rich, sharp (but not overly). To get that same feel on the X-Pro I actually have to degrade the image from its baseline digital "perfection".
Long story short, jump in, the water is fine here
Sometimes we get carried away striving for clinical perfection in our images when, for most personal photos (and some commercial) it is the soul of the photo that matters most.
I just picked up another Contax G2 and the images from my test roll were as expected - textured, rich, sharp (but not overly). To get that same feel on the X-Pro I actually have to degrade the image from its baseline digital "perfection".
Long story short, jump in, the water is fine here
ptomsu
Workshop Member
While I believe what you say - I will just not change my workflow because of Fuji not supporting their RAW files with any SW (like Aperture). I have invested huge amount of time to get all my images into AP and will not undergo this burden again - for no camera!To all those shooters who are holding back because of RAW support, I would suggest trying the X-Trans cameras in JPEG + RAW. The JPEGs are so good and plenty malleable in post. I've shot RAW exclusively for many years but I could care less on the X-Pro.
Sometimes we get carried away striving for clinical perfection in our images when, for most personal photos (and some commercial) it is the soul of the photo that matters most.
I just picked up another Contax G2 and the images from my test roll were as expected - textured, rich, sharp (but not overly). To get that same feel on the X-Pro I actually have to degrade the image from its baseline digital "perfection".
Long story short, jump in, the water is fine here
But maybe we will finally see support for the X100s and X20 in AP
Show Performance
Member
I guess that's my point, you don't have to change your software. Shoot RAW + JPEG and process JPEGs just like you would a RAW file while retaining the actual RAW for a later date when support is available. I'm satisfied enough with the nice flat and deep Fuji JPEG that I'm not even capturing the RAW file, just not that critical to me - ymmv.
I use LR but I'm not going to bother changing my workflow to Capture One just to eek out a tiny extra bit of performance from the files - they are awesome as is. At some point the RAW issue will be worked out to satisfaction although as usual, Apple will be last to the party. I don't blame Fuji for the delay - if Phase and some of the smaller developers can do it, why can't Adobe and Apple?
Best,
Chad
Show Performance
Member
If you don't believe me that Fuji X-Trans JPEGs are amazing, would you trust National Geographic?
Nomad Expediciones Fotográficas blog: National Geographic, how I won and lost the contest in less than one second
Bummer for Harry. He shot his wonderful image in JPEG and was awarded winner of the Nat Geo 2012 Photo Contest in the Places category, only to have the award rescinded because he removed a plastic bag from the scene.
Nomad Expediciones Fotográficas blog: National Geographic, how I won and lost the contest in less than one second
Bummer for Harry. He shot his wonderful image in JPEG and was awarded winner of the Nat Geo 2012 Photo Contest in the Places category, only to have the award rescinded because he removed a plastic bag from the scene.
V
Vivek
Guest
That is the saddest story I read regarding photo contests. It says nothing about a Fuji camera's capabilities or lack thereof.
Maggie O
Active member
For quite a while I was using C1 LE to process RAWs and then putting the JPEGs or TIFFs into Aperture, but at some point, at least for DNGs out of my Leicas, Aperture caught up with C1 LE and that was the tipping point for my total move to Aperture with PS and SEXFP2 as plug-ins.
That's what he gets for being a perfectionist. The bag actually works in the composition.
Show Performance
Member
Sure it does. It says that an X-Pro JPEG file, with the assistance of a talented photographer, can impress Nat Geo judges enough to award a top prize.
Which circles back to my original point, the "I won't shoot X-Trans because it can't do RAW in my processor" is slightly obsessive. The camera and photographer can do wonderful things in JPEG.
Show Performance
Member
Completely agree. I'm sure he is kicking himself non-stop.
V
Vivek
Guest
It absolutely does not! He could have as well snapped that with a Panasonic GH-2, a Nikon something, a NEX-5,6,7, you name it. He did not win any price. The blog is a reminder to stick with the competition rules than anything, otherwise Fuji would have put that image up on their website or as he says, would have called a press conference.
BTW, most of the people complaining about the "lack of a RAW" processor (although Fuji do supply one) are the owners themselves and not the would be owners.
Show Performance
Member
Some people just like to pick a fight.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
You can do wonderful things in JPEG, it is just not for me! OK, right!
Thanks
Peter
Show Performance
Member
Of course Peter, to each his or her own.
I spent many years looking down my nose at JPEG. Never say never I guess
And all that said, I will happily use RAW again once I am confident the processor results are as good as Fuji's internal camera processing. RAW just makes sense from a traditional film workflow model.
Until then, no complaints here. Having too much fun shooting.
Well, I am not sure you can be quite so definitive. There are many cameras that technically could have taken this photograph, in the hands of the same photographer. But those other cameras were not used, and this photographer prefers this camera.
This forum alone has many posts about camera and lens preferences. Those cameras connect with the photographers and help them achieve their goals. At some level the design of the camera and lenses, and its ability to record images with the quality and feel preferred by that photographer is very relevant. To me it says a lot about the camera.
If it says nothing, let's stop talking about gear.
I am going to have to bet to differ. It says nothing about the camera. This is the work of a photographer.
Cameras do not take photographs by themselves. That a particular photographer picked a camera as a tool is one thing and an individual choice. That photo is his work, not Fuji's.
We can talk about gear as a craftsmanship that goes into the tool but that is not photography, that is something else. All we can say is the camera provides a canvas of light a particular photographer wants, but it says nothing about camera-> photograph by itself. The photographer creates the image, not the camera.
Otherwise all we need to do is buy a "better camera to become a better photographer" which unfortunately many believe and it's a complete lie. Of course, camera companies want you to believe exactly that.
- Raist
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Thinking over this - you actually might be right and I should give it another try WRT JPEG from Fuji. I know that I do not even like JPEG from Olympus (which is reportedly a pretty good JPEG engine) but maybe Fuji is really better. Also the only way to make use of the different film modes I guess.Of course Peter, to each his or her own.
I spent many years looking down my nose at JPEG. Never say never I guess
And all that said, I will happily use RAW again once I am confident the processor results are as good as Fuji's internal camera processing. RAW just makes sense from a traditional film workflow model.
Until then, no complaints here. Having too much fun shooting.
I really don't think we differ. I didn't propose that this was Fuji's work. It clearly is not. Neither did I try to define photography, and I certainly don't feel a better camera will always make a better photographer.
I simply feel that to dismiss the camera from the taking of the image is an overstatement. If we do so, why be on forums discussing the merits of how a particular camera works better for some people, or why a particular sensor or lens performs in a certain way? Many photographers have preferred tools. They feel those tools help them achieve their goals. That makes the tools relevant, and reflects on the makers of those tools.
The jpegs really are good. In my view though, I still get more room and better results for printing when shooting RAW - at least for some subjects. But this is very subjective. Maybe I am just too particular.