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!
Fuji X-T1 - Greens and jpg files - help please?
- Thread starter jonoslack
- Start date
jonoslack
Active member
HI Todd
Well, it's a completely different sensor - one which is not loved by LR (which might of course be a reason not to try it).
I had an A7r, and couldn't stand the 'stamping on a tin can' shutter - but that's just me. I like the A7, which seems more controlled. The colour on the Fuji is lovely - the small lenses for µ43 are great - the limited dof with FF is splendid, the increased dof with µ43 is really useful - you pays your money and you makes your choice. But if you're used to Sony files, then maybe a quick look at the X-trans files isn't enough - certainly they've caught me snapping!
All the best
nostatic
New member
Well, I'm going to go ahead and get one as I don't think 10 min in the camera shop is enough. I've made my peace with the A7r as for certain things I love the files. But it isn't really a "walkabout" cam in my hands. The RX1r actually is probably the best performer (quiet, great glass, great files) although that may be the one that gets replaced by the Fuji due to flexibility and lack of an EVF. I think the 55-200 could end up getting a fair amount of use.
That said, I think the A7 still is my favorite to shoot even though I don't have one any more. With the EFC the shutter *snick* was actually a nice companion. If I had cubic dollars to spend I'd pick up another one. But I'm trying to limit myself to 3 cameras max, and preferably 2. The A7r is the "gotta have stupid high rez) solution and I love the 55/1.8. The RX1r is the "shhhh, gotta be quiet" solution, and I have an RX100ii which is the "small as possible". Truth be told I don't use the RX100ii much as the RX1r, while not pocketable, isn't that much bigger. And the file difference is night and day.
So maybe I should keep the RX1r and get rid of the RX100ii, with the XT1 being the "long and quiet" solution.
Bah - too many good choices. Paralysis by analysis...great to read your travails though as a reference point.
jonoslack
Active member
Well, it's good to give them all a try - A7 sounds very noisy next to the XT1 - darling camera - just getting to grips with how to deal with the files.
. . . . come on Apple!
nostatic
New member
Yeah, I've actually been using LR5 mostly these days since it seems to deal better with the Sony raw files out of the box. I still prefer Aperture's cataloging. One attraction to the Fuji is being able to just shoot jpg and call it a day since one of their claims to fame are the film modes and jpg engine. But the detail needs to remain and I typically turn NR off on anything I shoot.
I was pleasantly surprised at how quiet the XT1 was - that was frankly what sold me. I figured it could replace the RX1r on that front, but I think I'll lose IQ. The more I think about it, the more I think I can just ditch the RX100ii and put that towards the Fuji purchase. I lose pocket ability, but that is about it. The 1" sensor, while punching above its weight, isn't going to compete with either the Fuji and especially the Sony FF. Since the zoom only goes to 100mm, with cropping I'm going to get a better result with shooting the A7r @ 70mm. So the Fuji with the 55-200 is a big win.
That said, dropping the RX1r would certainly pay for more of the XT1
I was pleasantly surprised at how quiet the XT1 was - that was frankly what sold me. I figured it could replace the RX1r on that front, but I think I'll lose IQ. The more I think about it, the more I think I can just ditch the RX100ii and put that towards the Fuji purchase. I lose pocket ability, but that is about it. The 1" sensor, while punching above its weight, isn't going to compete with either the Fuji and especially the Sony FF. Since the zoom only goes to 100mm, with cropping I'm going to get a better result with shooting the A7r @ 70mm. So the Fuji with the 55-200 is a big win.
That said, dropping the RX1r would certainly pay for more of the XT1
nostatic
New member
oh, that's easy:
A7r with a silent leaf shutter, 5-axis IBIS, Fuji colors, 21/24/35/50/85 f1.2 primes that are the size of the Oly 45/1.8 and f2.8 zooms that are the size/weight of the Panasonics.
I'll get busy with the Dremel tool...
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
I always figured that it was just the NEXT one ... :ROTFL:
I like your definition but I also need it to work on my Alpas
greypilgrim
New member
I did one more trial with the X-E2 samples I posted before. I turned off LR's sharpening and used NIK's sharpening instead. Quite a difference. Seems like LR's sharpening plays into this issue as well?
Doug
Doug
The real fact here is that this is all very old news and has been fixed already. This discussion has already been had many times over when the XPro-1 came out, and it's a done deal by now. What remains is- does the RAW converter that you use for your daily workflow supports the Xtrans well or not- that's a deal breaker for some.
But this is not a new issue, by now is not really an issue and the whole movie and theater play on Xtrans has already played to the end. You can't expect to simply come in get a new camera and all of a sudden find a "major issue" that when it comes down to it doesn't exist, though I do understand raising the question about it for someone new to the use of this sensor.
- Ricardo
I will paste the Iridient settings I used. I actually screen-shotted them but forgot to upload. I am not at home now but when I get home I will paste it.
A few more words on the whole Bayer/Xtrans thing-
-----------------------------------------------
Fuji created Xtrans to feel confident to remove the AA filter to increase detail in capture while avoiding the risk of color Moire.
As it always happens, with any engineering solution, there are tradeoffs and pros and cons. I personally believe the tradeoffs that FujiFilm chose in pursuing this design work better than Bayer for most photography.
And always remember, Bayer *also* has artifacts. It's a de-mosaic algorithm after all. The only sensor design that would not be having these artifacts would be a Foveon X3 with no noise, but you can guess by that wording what tradeoff the Foveon sensor is making
Xtrans has *more* green photo sites than red and blue vs Bayer. This means for red and blue, a Bayer sensor would have more resolution. This is countered to some degree by the AA filter Bayer sensors need unless you are using an AAless Bayer.
But if you use an AAless Bayer, you risk color Moire and there's no free lunch here. For example Olympus mentions in their specs of EM1 there's no AA filter, but the shots and JPEGS I am seeing do not seem to have the sharpness or bite that I would expect from a good/pure AAless Bayer (a good comparison may be those Ricoh GR files). Why is that? Because they are doing post processing on the image to get rid of color Moire- and I am sure if you use iridient on it or other raw converters you can get more detail than the Jpegs- but now you have to deal with color Moire.
Xtrans *can still* get color Moire but is much more rarer than an AAless Bayer. And because as I mentioned Xtrans is richer in green, black and white conversions actually work better for Xtrans vs Bayer designs, due to that being the color our eyes are most sensitive for luminance.
With the right raw converter Xtrans detail is somewhere between typical Bayer (with AA filter) and Foveon- more so in B&W.
A pure AAless Bayer should capture in color more detail overall but then you will have to often nuke detail because color moire shows up. And if you hare shooting say a wedding with 250 shots (assuming you are that good to nail almost every shot), imagine having to look for color moire on every single shot.... all those dresses, clothes and veils.
It's what Thom Hogan said once- Fuji changed some artifacts for others when doing the Xtrans sensor and to me the tradeoff works for the bigger gain on most cases.
But this required a whole re-thinking of RAW converter algorithm (it took Fuji themselves 2 years to do the math for their JPEG engine after all) and RAW converters have had years and years of experience with the Bayer color filter array pattern. It's only natural that out of the gate most raw converters would have issues.
If you want the cheapest solution, grab the SilkyPix included- Fuji worked with them to do a new rev of their algorithm and if you know how to use the right settings it works reasonably well.
Capture one 7 for me is overall the best one. Iridient is pretty good, particularly when pursuing pure detail though it has more color artifacts. But again- will this really matter to your overall image printed or shown on a web page? The image still has that extra bite of micro contrast for not having the AA filter.
And that's pretty much it. The world doesn't end and a lot of you quite frankly seem to me buying this camera when you already had a -so you have said- a fantastic camera, so I don't get it.
Why the "need" to buy greatest and latest when the domains of shooting for the tool overlap with the one you have which you said you love so much?
Anyway
- Ricardo
Last edited:
Ario, here are the settings I used. It's a bit sharpened up, lowering the sharpness perhaps to 5-6 may be better overall and still provide a lot of "bite."
The slides for Chroma need to be adjusted to taste and image. Do keep in mind even having some mild random pixels that stray from a pure green may be desirable and even valid depending what the sensor is sampling in that location.
Remember with film there were particles that would respond to different light colors, and it was their collage that created a certain look. I think when you print or size reduce the image gains a bit of that characteristic which may also be pleasant.
Of course, depends on subject and what you want to accomplish as a photographer.
- Ricardo
The slides for Chroma need to be adjusted to taste and image. Do keep in mind even having some mild random pixels that stray from a pure green may be desirable and even valid depending what the sensor is sampling in that location.
Remember with film there were particles that would respond to different light colors, and it was their collage that created a certain look. I think when you print or size reduce the image gains a bit of that characteristic which may also be pleasant.
Of course, depends on subject and what you want to accomplish as a photographer.
- Ricardo
Last edited:
Quick tip for Jono (or anyone):
- If you want Fuji Film simulation type colors- set your camera accordingly to those film simulations
- If you want a more Olympus m4/3rds / Kodak look - set your camera to Neg - HI and if you want a softer version of that use Neg - LO
On Fuji Jpegs- Fuji does have in my opinion the best jpeg engine overall followed by a very close second- Olympus. (I would put both in the same "class" just that I feel Fuji edges them by a hair).
The thing that Fuji does really well is color transitions - like if you edit the JPEG, they are probably the most resilient I have seen to posterization.
Another tip- play with the settings for in-camera RAW conversion. There's sharpness, noise reduction, color saturation and higher end & lower end contrast curve tweaks.
It does make a big difference. Save several versions, upload to your computer and check it out.
Personally I found Fuji JPEGS outstanding to keep and hold color in mixed color situations, while their RAWS with a good raw converter also keeps such color. It's like their clip points for the R, G and B photo sensors are similar (or enough range in each that it doesn't matter).
- Ricardo
- If you want Fuji Film simulation type colors- set your camera accordingly to those film simulations
- If you want a more Olympus m4/3rds / Kodak look - set your camera to Neg - HI and if you want a softer version of that use Neg - LO
On Fuji Jpegs- Fuji does have in my opinion the best jpeg engine overall followed by a very close second- Olympus. (I would put both in the same "class" just that I feel Fuji edges them by a hair).
The thing that Fuji does really well is color transitions - like if you edit the JPEG, they are probably the most resilient I have seen to posterization.
Another tip- play with the settings for in-camera RAW conversion. There's sharpness, noise reduction, color saturation and higher end & lower end contrast curve tweaks.
It does make a big difference. Save several versions, upload to your computer and check it out.
Personally I found Fuji JPEGS outstanding to keep and hold color in mixed color situations, while their RAWS with a good raw converter also keeps such color. It's like their clip points for the R, G and B photo sensors are similar (or enough range in each that it doesn't matter).
- Ricardo
Ario Arioldi
Member
Thank you Ricardo.
I prefer a less aggressive sharpening (something like 0.4/ 15), but this is a matter of taste and subject.
More critical in this particular picture were for me many quite evident reddish artifacts specially on the bark of the tree which I could remove only playing quite aggressively with the Chroma sliders. Not a big deal since the increased softness is easily controlled with the sharpening tool.Didn’t you see anything like that?
I prefer a less aggressive sharpening (something like 0.4/ 15), but this is a matter of taste and subject.
More critical in this particular picture were for me many quite evident reddish artifacts specially on the bark of the tree which I could remove only playing quite aggressively with the Chroma sliders. Not a big deal since the increased softness is easily controlled with the sharpening tool.Didn’t you see anything like that?
jonoslack
Active member
HI Ricardo
Whilst I agree with some of this, I don't agree with all of it.
As far as your 'done deal' post - whilst I don't disagree, if it was a done deal 2 years ago, then people buying into the camera now won't know about it - in which case this post is relevant and useful I'd say.
However, I do lots of walking, skiing, travelling, and for this personal work I like to have a camera with a good zoom lens which is reasonably robust and good to use. It needs to do close up and landscape and have reasonably snappy AF.
Mirrorless is a godsend for me, because it allows me to do this with something small and perfectly formed. However, I want to know what's best for me, and I'm questioning whether µ43 (which I've been using since the EM5 arrived) is still the right answer. First I tried an A7r (didn't like it and returned it). Now I have an A7, an E-M1 and the X-T1, - I want to know which is the best way forward, and I can't find that out from reviews.
At some point over the next month or so I'll make a decision on what I'm going to use (and write it up), then I'll sell everything else - these days with ebay it's much cheaper and more satisfactory to buy a camera and keep it for a couple of months than it is to rent.
This way I can work out whether I can fit the camera into my Aperture workflow (this is not negotiable incidentally - I've learned that lesson at least). I can work out how to process the files for me, what's good and what's bad - other people's files just don't do it.
Ergonomics are also very personal and extremely important.
For the A7 and the X-T1 I only have the zoom lens - because that's what I'll use it for most. If I decide to go for Sony or Fuji then I'll get more lenses when I sell the µ43 kit.
So Ricardo - perhaps now you understand - others are in a similar position - right now there are a lot of new options on the table, and it's a good time to be deciding which direction to jump, and I'd rather do it with the right information at my fingertips . . . wouldn't you?
Whilst I agree with some of this, I don't agree with all of it.
As far as your 'done deal' post - whilst I don't disagree, if it was a done deal 2 years ago, then people buying into the camera now won't know about it - in which case this post is relevant and useful I'd say.
Thank you
Whilst I agree with you about the E-M1, I don't think the argument in general holds. I've been using Leica M cameras for 7 years now, no filter - and the number of shots where Moire was a problem are very very few - and fixable in Aperture - colour artefacts in specular highlights is another issue . . . but then the Xtrans suffers from that as well.
Well, I really agree with you about the colour - which is why I'm here frankly (together with the lovely design of the XT1
I'm sorry - I really dispute this - I've shot lots of weddings with the M9 and the M, and it simply isn't an issue. Whatever Thom Hogan might say!
Well, I'm still holding out for Aperture to be good enough for most circumstances - I looked at their processing for previous Xtrans sensors and it looked okay. nice to have Iridient up one's sleeve, and of course I do also have LR and Capture one 7 (although I don't like either very much)
Clearly this is directed at me, so I'll answer for me. I use my M cameras for most things, certainly everything where I'm producing work for other people and of other people.And that's pretty much it. The world doesn't end and a lot of you quite frankly seem to me buying this camera when you already had a -so you have said- a fantastic camera, so I don't get it.
Why the "need" to buy greatest and latest when the domains of shooting for the tool overlap with the one you have which you said you love so much?
Anyway
However, I do lots of walking, skiing, travelling, and for this personal work I like to have a camera with a good zoom lens which is reasonably robust and good to use. It needs to do close up and landscape and have reasonably snappy AF.
Mirrorless is a godsend for me, because it allows me to do this with something small and perfectly formed. However, I want to know what's best for me, and I'm questioning whether µ43 (which I've been using since the EM5 arrived) is still the right answer. First I tried an A7r (didn't like it and returned it). Now I have an A7, an E-M1 and the X-T1, - I want to know which is the best way forward, and I can't find that out from reviews.
At some point over the next month or so I'll make a decision on what I'm going to use (and write it up), then I'll sell everything else - these days with ebay it's much cheaper and more satisfactory to buy a camera and keep it for a couple of months than it is to rent.
This way I can work out whether I can fit the camera into my Aperture workflow (this is not negotiable incidentally - I've learned that lesson at least). I can work out how to process the files for me, what's good and what's bad - other people's files just don't do it.
Ergonomics are also very personal and extremely important.
For the A7 and the X-T1 I only have the zoom lens - because that's what I'll use it for most. If I decide to go for Sony or Fuji then I'll get more lenses when I sell the µ43 kit.
So Ricardo - perhaps now you understand - others are in a similar position - right now there are a lot of new options on the table, and it's a good time to be deciding which direction to jump, and I'd rather do it with the right information at my fingertips . . . wouldn't you?
Which part of the bark of the tree? I mean, I posted the tree and I didn't see any. I saw some hints in some areas of the branches, but that can be easily tweaked and it was pretty minor.
- Ricardo
I am not saying your post isn't useful. But look at the context in which it was posted- "oh noes, camera doesn't seem to work, I may have to return." ;-) And it all piled on all of it. So yes, I think it's useful to know what works and doesn't, but I just thought the initial context of some of what was posted was a bit too alarmist for a story that has been played already.
Sure thing (on the Iridient Settings).
The frequency with which you will find color moire is going to depend a lot of how sharp the lens is at the moment you shoot with it and what you are shooting with. I can say right now, with the Ricoh GR I have found a share of situations where color moire shows up - but then the Ricoh GR from what I see has a very sharp prime lens. It's not every single shot, but there are "danger areas" that I already know what to look for - like vertical blinds, I just got some last weekend on a radial metal thing that was on the ground, etc.
Yes, you can clean it up in LightRoom, but usually that involves zapping out some detail. What I mentioned on the E-M1 was about the jpegs, not the RAW's per se, as an example of how the jpegs engines are differing form the sensor's potential.
Now, if you had to shoot a wedding- the wedding example- that is workflow a killer, if you just have to look for every shot *just in case* the color moire showed up- since you now have a client, and it's a wedding, and etc. etc. etc.
So I didn't mean to say that you will see color moire in every shot or such, and sorry if that's how it came across. But basically Xtrans is much more resilient to it.
The wedding example is something I said, not him. What Thom Hogan commented was that Fuji changed a set of artifacts for another. As for the Leica again, if the moire is not showing up that much, it's because it's not being shot at the sharpest. In that case the lens is acting as a mild AA filter (it's what happens most of the time with the Q).
I find Aperture pretty decent for handling color, just not the best DR or sharp. To me (my personal take) it all depends what I am shooting- if I am shooting a portrait I really don't care all that much for max detail as long as there's a bit of micro contrast bite. If I was shooting a landscape (which I normally don't) then I would like to get the max.
To be certain and precise, not just you
I see a group here that seems to upgrade to whatever is the latest. Of course, just an observation, it's not my money. In the end we only live once. I do personally find changing systems and cameras a lot hurts photography and I have had my share of this too.
I'll have to agree with some of that. It's true, reviews- a lot of them are not really all that good. I still think pushing oneself with one model one finds at certain point one likes may be better for photography but I can see with ever changing technology why check out something new.
I honestly don't see why you picked an A7 if you didn't like the A7R. I guess the AF but was that the reason? (genuinely curious). If you ask me if Aperture is that key I would give a good workout of some extreme files you would like to see or expect a certain result with the XT1 on Aperture, and then decide there. I think if you would like to use Aperture mainly, maybe the EM-1 is better.
Out of curiosity, what is not "making it" for you in m43rs that you are questioning it?
I agree a lot with this. I would say that some ergonomics can be objectively criticized on some angles as better or worse. Not all of it, but some. I really think that Olympus E-3's introduction of the button + mode change by wheel was a step back from the E-1 design. (just one example).
I really dislike "wheels" that also act as arrow buttons because the feedback and how sometimes it's easy to hit a setting when you wanted to turn the wheel (in particular I saw this issue real bad with the GM1 when I tried it 4 times because I really wanted to like it).
I understand that part but picture this. Not so long ago you seemed pretty happy- er. no, ecstatic with the Em-1. What changed? Did the camera become worse? I propose that the amount of time spent researching a possible "greener field" takes away from learning more photography.
By now I have been here long enough to see a group of people sing praises of a brand and a model, saying that this is it, it meets their needs and is better than what they had in general, only to change to whatever is next greatest and latest.
Anyway, in the end that's not my business, not my cash, not my time.
Now that you do have an XT1 in hand, it's good to know how to make the best of it to decide, for sure.
To come forward with a disclosure- I am also thinking long and hard at the moment what's next, because I am realizing that I really am not using cameras that at this point do not have either a leaf shutter or an electronic shutter option. This is why I knew the XT1 wasn't for me- but if I was shooting a wedding a month (at least) that's most likely what I would pick up.
Either that or a great Pentax K-5ii which is now ridiculously cheap here ($650 USD? For a semi pro DSLR with weather sealing? Wow).
- Ricardo
Ario Arioldi
Member
I see them at the base of the tree, mainly, and some on the grass. But as I said is not a big deal to control them.
jonoslack
Active member
Actually Ricardo - this is a real misrepresentation of how I started the post, which was like this:
Nothing about returning the camera, nothing alarmist, an admission that I didn't know the right settings and asking for help.
Last wedding I shot was mostly with the 50 Apo Summicron . . . no moire - sharp - indeed.
Actually, I think it's really tough in LightRoom - I said Aperture - which seems to do a much better job
I'm sorry - I STILL disagree - I understand all about weddings and workflow (which is why Aperture is non-negotiable incidentally) - I certainly don't have to look at every shot *just in case*
Aperture seems to be much more 'hands off' in terms of processing, I do agree about DR and sharpness (and noise reduction too) - there are better solutions for all of these, but if I can get a decent A2+print for landscapes then that's okay for me.
I realise that it wasn't *only* directed at me, but it turns on a lot of people, and as you say - it's not your moneyTo be certain and precise, not just you
I do personally find changing systems and cameras a lot hurts photography and I have had my share of this too.
Personally I Actually find it quite stimulating to try out different solutions, but, to be honest I'm getting a bit tired of it at the moment and would like to settle for a mirrorless system to go with my Leica M and Ricoh GR (pocket cam). But anyway, one of the things I do is test cameras! It's kind of good to keep up with what everyone is doing.
Well, I agree with this.
I REALLY disliked the double clang shutter on the A7r, I actually bought it with the intention of using Leica M and R lenses handheld, and that first clang made it quite impossible without using 3x shutter speed. Added to which most of the M lenses wider than 50mm simply didn't work properly (colour shift, smudgy corners). So it was a non-starter
The A7 has an electronic first curtain - and anyway I don't want to use M and R lenses on it - so, no, not the AF, the electronic first curtain. If I'm using it as a standard mirror less I don't need the extra resolution either.
I will decide in Aperture - as I said before, I was hoping that the legendary jpg engine on the Fuji would do the trick until RAW support comes - which turns out to be only partly true, but at least I can use Iridient to produce .tiffs where necessary.
I'm not going to criticise µ43 - it's just that after 2 years shooting with it and the Leica it's a good time to check out what the competition has to offer. Ergonomically I already know the X-T1 is much more to my taste (I just like to have dials which I can see).
But I think ergonomics is pretty subjective - I realise that different people use cameras so differently that it's hard to make general statements
As I say - just a good time to take stock - I still think the EM1 is great - and especially that lovely 12-40 zoom.
I hear what you say about "greener field" but sometimes having something different to work with encourages you to step outside your safety zone - one could argue the point forever in both directions. Right now I'm putting some effort into getting into the right field (which may be the one I've been in for the last two years).
Ah yes, the Pentax - I loved my K5 - but I couldn't get a decent zoom to go with it (maybe I was unlucky). Anyway, I don't want to go back to a dSLR, however good it is.