Bold statement from Fuji

Headline

Mirrorless Will Maybe Beat DSLR’s In Every Aspect With Next Processor / Sensor Generation”

Quote

“Maybe one more processor and sensor generation should be enough to make mirrorless beat DSLRs in every respect”.

I don't see them as the same. The first one is a definitive maybe and the second is a hopeful maybe. Mirrorless has to become equal or better than dslr if it wishes to attract a wider audience as I see gains in many areas but it's not there for sports


 
For speed, responsiveness and auto-focus I'd agree with Fuji's statement, they aren't far off now and many professionals do use the XT-2, even for certain sports like motor racing etc

But in terms of FF vs APS-C's ability on RAW image / lighting taking abilities I'm not so sure as that's more a physical issue unless Fuji develop a new next generation technology that betters CMOS,BSI etc.

We'll have to wait and see what the future holds :)
 
Headline

Mirrorless Will Maybe Beat DSLR’s In Every Aspect With Next Processor / Sensor Generation”

Quote

Maybe one more processor and sensor generation should be enough to make mirrorless beat DSLRs in every respect”.

Marketing speak - should have added, could + possibly

For landscape there is the 'possible' painterly effect. For portraits, it's the sensor size. For unpredictable movement, I'm still definitely possibly waiting.
 
Shame they're sticking with X-trans, as someone who takes a lot of landscapes it's just not good enough. Also the waxy skin at times is a put off. If they used a traditional sensor in the next gen then imo it would be a package there's seriously hard to beat.
 
Shame they're sticking with X-trans, as someone who takes a lot of landscapes it's just not good enough. Also the waxy skin at times is a put off. If they used a traditional sensor in the next gen then imo it would be a package there's seriously hard to beat.
If it were NOT X-Trans I wouldn't buy it. I shoot landscapes almost exclusively and love the sensor. That's why I bought into Fuji from Olympus. Oh, and I mainly use Lightroom.
 
If it were NOT X-Trans I wouldn't buy it. I shoot landscapes almost exclusively and love the sensor. That's why I bought into Fuji from Olympus. Oh, and I mainly use Lightroom.
Sorry, I realise my post was a bit harsh. I realise that not everyone minds the Fuji rendering and so should have said imo. No offence meant, sorry.
 
Sorry, I realise my post was a bit harsh. I realise that not everyone minds the Fuji rendering and so should have said imo. No offence meant, sorry.
No offence taken, not by me. Everyone has their own tastes and practices, and long may it be so.
 
The waxy and painterly looks are caused by people's unsuitable processing. not the xtrans sensor.
Were it the sensor everyone would suffer from it. And they do not.
 
The waxy and painterly looks are caused by people's unsuitable processing. not the xtrans sensor.
Were it the sensor everyone would suffer from it. And they do not.
So are you saying it's the processing, or the program used to process, causes the waxing?
 
Last edited:
So are you saying it's the processing, or the program used to process, causes the waxing?

The waxy look specifically is caused in JPG only by the camera adding too much noise reduction at high ISO.

The painterly effect is more to do with the product used to manipulate the raw file (LR, Capture One etc.), the type of scene and the amount / type of sharpening applied.

BTW, the X Trans III sensor used in the X Pro2, XT2, XT20 and X100F appears to be better in both respects anyway.
 
I bet them they will never make them large enough and comfortable to fit in my hands like my Canons. I bet them their EVFs still totally suck in comparison to clear clean unobstructed pentaprism view. Whatever they do with the rest, that is the bottom line - I'm not biting the bait.
 
The waxy and painterly looks are caused by people's unsuitable processing. not the xtrans sensor.
Were it the sensor everyone would suffer from it. And they do not.
Not true imo. I do not know what causes it and it's not there all the time. I have tried about 8 different lots of software to try and alleviate it, and I can see the effect in my unprocessed RAW files. Also, I've had several people tell me they don't get it in there files and posted examples, or I've looked on their Flickr and I can see the artefacts.

The waxy look specifically is caused in JPG only by the camera adding too much noise reduction at high ISO.

The painterly effect is more to do with the product used to manipulate the raw file (LR, Capture One etc.), the type of scene and the amount / type of sharpening applied.

BTW, the X Trans III sensor used in the X Pro2, XT2, XT20 and X100F appears to be better in both respects anyway.
As above, it's there in unprocessed RAWs, including waxy skin. I've seen waxy skin at base ISO in a studio environment.


Now it might sound like I'm bagging on Fuji, but I do really like the way they render their pics most of the time. The colours are great and for the most part they look natural. However, I also don't make excuses for some of the rendering. Viewed at normal size you rarely see any issue, and the files look really nice. However, when I'm on my iMac it has a 5k screen which is roughly 15mp therefore you're pretty much viewing the files at 1:1 (barring the new gen 24mp sensor) and so the artefacts are all too apparent :(
 
Not true imo. I do not know what causes it and it's not there all the time. I have tried about 8 different lots of software to try and alleviate it, and I can see the effect in my unprocessed RAW files. Also, I've had several people tell me they don't get it in there files and posted examples, or I've looked on their Flickr and I can see the artefacts.


As above, it's there in unprocessed RAWs, including waxy skin. I've seen waxy skin at base ISO in a studio environment.


Now it might sound like I'm bagging on Fuji, but I do really like the way they render their pics most of the time. The colours are great and for the most part they look natural. However, I also don't make excuses for some of the rendering. Viewed at normal size you rarely see any issue, and the files look really nice. However, when I'm on my iMac it has a 5k screen which is roughly 15mp therefore you're pretty much viewing the files at 1:1 (barring the new gen 24mp sensor) and so the artefacts are all too apparent :(

I'm intrigued (because I don't have a 5k screen) :( What can you see that is noticeable? Waxiness or landscape artefacts? How big is the screen? I have a Bayer x-a2 as well and want to do some side by side testing at some point, but guess I'd need a 5k screen to do that ;)
 
I'm intrigued (because I don't have a 5k screen) :( What can you see that is noticeable? Waxiness or landscape artefacts? How big is the screen? I have a Bayer x-a2 as well and want to do some side by side testing at some point, but guess I'd need a 5k screen to do that ;)
Both tbh, although I don't do many portraits so it was a friend's file. Don't get me wrong sometimes I can see it on my 'normal' screen if really scrutinising (which I don't do as a general rule but was intrigued with these files after seeing it on the 5k), but in the 5k screen it's obvious. As I said it's not on every file, but more often than not with rocks and in the peaks there's a lot of those ;) It's a 27" screen (y)
 
Both tbh, although I don't do many portraits so it was a friend's file. Don't get me wrong sometimes I can see it on my 'normal' screen if really scrutinising (which I don't do as a general rule but was intrigued with these files after seeing it on the 5k), but in the 5k screen it's obvious. As I said it's not on every file, but more often than not with rocks and in the peaks there's a lot of those ;) It's a 27" screen (y)

Bummer. Maybe I won't get a 5k screen after all lol
 
I do see the "worms" on rocks and the like when I do not sharpen correctly. Fortunately I have found settings for both the T1/Pro1 and the T2/Pro2, and they are completely different.
 
Can you view an unprocessed raw file?

I was under the impression that what you're looking at when you first open it is just your processing defaults. It's still a processed output.
 
Can you view an unprocessed raw file?

I was under the impression that what you're looking at when you first open it is just your processing defaults. It's still a processed output.
absolutely
So are you saying it's the processing, or the program used to process, causes the waxing?

Yes... or you are looking at an image so large that the underlying structure is seen. (see link below)
With a bayer screen you start to see the break down of the Pixel squares, While the Xtrans is more complex than that, and you see a strange interlocked pattern. much as In the same way as you see rosettets when you over enlarge litho printing.
All methods of creating an image have their own set pattern, except Silver prints where the grain is totally random. and in stochastic screening which changes the distribution of halftone dots in relation to their density and so does not produce rosettes.

https://hidefcolor.com/blog/printing/stochastic-printing-vs-conventional-printing/

If you look at the above link you will see that the Stochastic screening produces an effect remarkably like a Fuji Xtrans image that has been over sharpened and over enlarged.
It is this stocastic effect that helps produce the super fine detail and accurate colour of Xtrans images at normal sizes.
 
Last edited:

I'd have been disappointed, shocked even and I'd have wanted to leave. I'd have been equally unhappy if they'd brought out a bare chested Poldark type for middle aged women to photograph and I'd have been unhappy if they'd used both male and female semi naked models too.

Dunno what the answer is really. For me a topless model is unacceptable but I can see the appeal in appreciating both male and female beauty so I'm not sure when any line is crossed or where to draw the line. Is it ok to use fully clothed models that some may see as sexy? What percentage of the female breast needs to be covered for it to be acceptable? Is it ok to pose models in what could be interpreted as sexually provocative poses? What is visually pleasing and artistic and what is sleazy and not something I'd want to be a part of? As someone once said, I know it when I see it.

Anyway. sorry to intrude :D
 
Last edited:
Looks like the photographer involved may not have a relationship with Fuji in future......

"Fujifilm has a long tradition in photography, an art-form that covers many different genres.

In a workshop on 24th February to demonstrate one of our new products in a real-life shooting situation with a working professional photographer, the choice of shooting subject made by the photographer was not appropriate and we sincerely apologise for any offence that it might have caused.

The workshop itself was arranged by an external professional commercial photographer that we have previously worked with on many different projects. On this occasion, his choice of shooting subject was not in line with our company values.

Had we known in advance that this shooting subject was going to be used we would have requested an alternative subject for the workshop. We would never knowingly use such shooting subjects to promote our brand."
 
For me a topless model is unacceptable but I can see the appeal in appreciating both male and female beauty so I'm not sure when any line is crossed or where to draw the line. Is it ok to use fully clothed models that some may see as sexy? What percentage of the female breast needs to be covered for it to be acceptable? Is it ok to pose models in what could be interpreted as sexually provocative poses? What is visually pleasing and artistic and what is sleazy and not something I'd want to be a part of? As someone once said, I know it when I see it.
My old headmaster, many years ago, said that most women were more attractive with their clothes on. In my adolescent innocence I thought that tits and bums were the be all and end all. Now I'm (a lot) older I see what he means. The allure of the unseen and unknown exudes a frisson of excitment. "What will I find when I get there" is far more exciting than WYSIWYG!
 
I do see the "worms" on rocks and the like when I do not sharpen correctly. Fortunately I have found settings for both the T1/Pro1 and the T2/Pro2, and they are completely different.
Worms are from oversharpening, but watercolour smearing can be seen with no sharpening or processing.

I have tried:-

Lightroom
Photoshop
Aperture
Irident
Photo ninja
Raw Therapee
Capture One
Silkypix

none of which solved the issue. But I'll leave it here as I don't want to keep criticising what is for the most part a really great system. It's just not for me unfortunately.
 
I'm intrigued (because I don't have a 5k screen) :( What can you see that is noticeable? Waxiness or landscape artefacts? How big is the screen? I have a Bayer x-a2 as well and want to do some side by side testing at some point, but guess I'd need a 5k screen to do that ;)

Both tbh, although I don't do many portraits so it was a friend's file. Don't get me wrong sometimes I can see it on my 'normal' screen if really scrutinising (which I don't do as a general rule but was intrigued with these files after seeing it on the 5k), but in the 5k screen it's obvious. As I said it's not on every file, but more often than not with rocks and in the peaks there's a lot of those ;) It's a 27" screen (y)

Snerkler, what was the cause of the artifacts from your D750 files on the Tower Mill you posted a couple of days ago on Flickr, I commented on it on Flickr..... Seems strange you're seeing artifacts on Fuji as its also happening with your D750, it's not your screen or processing causing it?
 
Last edited:
Snerkler, what was the cause of the artifacts from your D750 files on the Tower Mill you posted a couple of days ago on Flickr, I commented on it on Flickr..... Seems strange you're seeing artifacts on Fuji as its also happening with your D750, it's not your screen or processing causing it?
Totally different artefacts. The ones from the Mill were halos now known to be caused by a combination of motion blur due to strong winds 'shaking' the tripod, CA's and too much exposure difference between the sky and foreground, mainly the latter. Said artefacts were not visible before I messed the files up due to trying to compensate for poor light and conditions. I've now fixed them pretty much.

It's this watercolour effect and lack of detail that I see in Fuji files as per this crop of an image I took (no sharpening applied). Nothing I tried could extract any more detail or lessen the watercolour effect. This is just one example of numerous.
 
Last edited:
Totally different artefacts. The ones from the Mill were halos now known to be caused by a combination of motion blur due to strong winds 'shaking' the tripod, CA's and too much exposure difference between the sky and foreground, mainly the latter. Said artefacts were not visible before I messed the files up due to trying to compensate for poor light and conditions. I've now fixed them pretty much.

It's this watercolour effect and lack of detail that I see in Fuji files as per this crop of an image I took (no sharpening applied). Nothing I tried could extract any more detail or lessen the watercolour effect. This is just one example of numerous.
To be honest, this simply looks out-of-focus to me. What aperture, where was the focus point, and what size crop is this? I cannot see the photo in its original location (Photobucket). Coming up with an error message.
 
To be honest, this simply looks out-of-focus to me. What aperture, where was the focus point, and what size crop is this? I cannot see the photo in its original location (Photobucket). Coming up with an error message.
:facepalm: I know I'm a numpty at times but give me some credit ;) The fact that you say that shows that it's not right though ;) Crop is 1:2 approx IIRC
 
:facepalm: I know I'm a numpty at times but give me some credit ;) The fact that you say that shows that it's not right though ;) Crop is 1:2 approx IIRC
Oh, I admit it's not right. But I've not seen it in context. So I'll shut up and stop trying to help.
 
To be honest, this simply looks out-of-focus to me. What aperture, where was the focus point, and what size crop is this? I cannot see the photo in its original location (Photobucket). Coming up with an error message.

:facepalm: I know I'm a numpty at times but give me some credit ;) The fact that you say that shows that it's not right though ;) Crop is 1:2 approx IIRC

Looks soft and out of focus to me also. This painterly effect maybe caused with missed focus when you think you've nailed it, perhaps the tripod or you was shaking in the wind;) like the one at the Mill;)
 
Oh, I admit it's not right. But I've not seen it in context. So I'll shut up and stop trying to help.
Lol no worries, normally I need all the help that I can get. In this case I can assure you that it's not out of focus and that is just the effect that you can get. I initially thought it was more to do with distant objects but these rocks were only a few metres away. I'll see if I saved the RAW files to check the settings but it was at f8, focussed correctly ;)
Looks soft and out of focus to me also. This painterly effect maybe caused with missed focus when you think you've nailed it, perhaps the tripod or you was shaking in the wind;) like the one at the Mill;)
Nah, the rest of the image is sharp (front to infinite), no shaking (shutter speed was high). This is just one example, there's a few tbh. Just for the record I'm not the only one to notice and mention this :p
 
Lol no worries, normally I need all the help that I can get. In this case I can assure you that it's not out of focus and that is just the effect that you can get. I initially thought it was more to do with distant objects but these rocks were only a few metres away. I'll see if I saved the RAW files to check the settings but it was at f8, focussed correctly ;)

Nah, the rest of the image is sharp (front to infinite), no shaking (shutter speed was high). This is just one example, there's a few tbh. Just for the record I'm not the only one to notice and mention this :p

Are you saying that all the rest of the photograph is sharp and clear with out problems, and only this area is effected?
If that is the case, it would seem to be a sensor problem such as a grease smear or a patch of temporary condensation.
But what you have shown, looks for all the world as lacking focus.

George Eastman, back in the day, remarked that the commonest cause for spoilt snaps was camera shake.
It has a long history.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that all the rest of the photograph is sharp and clear with out problems, and only this area is effected?
If that is the case, it would seem to be a sensor problem such as a grease smear or a patch of temporary condensation.
But what you have shown, looks for all the world as lacking focus.

George Eastman, back in the day, remarked that the commonest cause for spoilt snaps was camera shake.
It has a long history.
I'll try and dig out the full pic, and will see if I've kept any of the other examples to show. It's not OOF, it's not smearing, it's not camera shake. It's watercolour rendering. I've also seen it on other's pics on here, as well as random examples on Flickr.

All I can re-iterate is that as so many of you think it's OOF it tells me how bad it is.
 
I'll try and dig out the full pic, and will see if I've kept any of the other examples to show. It's not OOF, it's not smearing, it's not camera shake. It's watercolour rendering. I've also seen it on other's pics on here, as well as random examples on Flickr.

All I can re-iterate is that as so many of you think it's OOF it tells me how bad it is.

I have yet to see any examples of smearing that can not be explained some other way. So i would be interested to see such an example.
Of course all sensors lose the capacity to show details beyond their resolution. While still being able to show the outlines containing them. Such as leaves with no internal detail, this is of course a limiting factor of resolution not smearing.
 
Last edited:
I have yet to see any examples of smearing that can not be explained some other way. So i would be interested to see such an example.
Of course all sensors lose the capacity to show details beyond their resolution. While still being able to show the outlines containing them. Such as leaves with no internal detail, this is of course a limiting factor of resolution not smearing.
Here's the full image, I've still not had chance to look to see if I have the original RAW file yet as it will be on an external drive.

DSCF6720.jpg


P.S. I'm aware that it's not a great image ;)
 
Last edited:
Here's the full image, I've still not had chance to look to see if I have the original RAW file yet as it will be on an external drive.




P.S. I'm aware that it's not a great image ;)

Nor is it especially sharp... The section you enlarged simply showed that part of the image that that was at the extreme of the depth of field. No matter what aperture you use the only part showing maximum focus and resolution is limited to the point of focus. Areas both in front of, and behind that point display progressive blurring with distance..
This shot demonstrates that very well.

In addition,
As nothing is critically sharp,I would suggest there is some residual camera movement, probably caused by Vibration in the tripod. Probably more weight would have helped dampen it.
 
Nor is it especially sharp... The section you enlarged simply showed that part of the image that that was at the extreme of the depth of field. No matter what aperture you use the only part showing maximum focus and resolution is limited to the point of focus. Areas both in front of, and behind that point display progressive blurring with distance..
This shot demonstrates that very well.

In addition,
As nothing is critically sharp,I would suggest there is some residual camera movement, probably caused by Vibration in the tripod. Probably more weight would have helped dampen it.
I know you're trying to help, but I really wish I had the full original file as it is sharp, I agree the uploaded image on here looks incredibly soft (if the original was like this I wouldn't have even bothered processing it and chucked it straight in the bin). I'm sure you'll all go away from this thinking I don't know what I'm doing and I'm not listening to advice, and if that's the case then fine. But I do know about DOF, I do know about critical sharpness, I do know about camera shake, I do know about circle of confusion etc etc. I have shot with many different brands, and shooting with Fuji is the only time I've seen artifacting like this. Also, as I've stated before I've seen it in others shots who claim they have never seen it, and also there's other landscape togs on here that have noticed the same issue, and there's no way you'll think they don't know what they're doing.

For completeness that shot was at 18mm, f9, 1/100 on a clear bright calm day.

Contrast this with the shot I took below from the same location. OK not a very good comparison as the quality of light was much better as can be seen, but light intensity was actually much less. This was at 1/13 on a windy day and look no camera shake :p

Owler Tor Sunset re-edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr

Here's a similar crop to the first, look at the detail in the grass and the rocks, no smearing, no watercolour effect (although hosting from photobucket makes images look soft. I'm not wanting to put these on my flickr though :))
Screen%20Shot%202017-02-28%20at%2014.08.05_zps8kizgqpr.png



And the other for comparison.
Screen%20Shot%202017-01-07%20at%2011.58.09_zpsmrh5tz4k.png



And just to show that I can get well rendered images with the same camera/lens combo ;) :p
DSCF5771-5 by TDG-77, on Flickr


Now I'm not going to say any more on the issue as you all have your opinions about my shot and I know you all think I'm a muppet and don't know what I'm doing and not listening ;) :p The only time I will add anything is if I find the original RAW file for your curiosity/entertainment ;) At the end of the day Fuji doesn't work for me so I've gone back to Olympus for my light setup which I'm much happier with in terms of rendering (y)
 
Last edited:
I know you're trying to help, but I really wish I had the full original file as it is sharp, I agree the uploaded image on here looks incredibly soft (if the original was like this I wouldn't have even bothered processing it and chucked it straight in the bin). I'm sure you'll all go away from this thinking I don't know what I'm doing and I'm not listening to advice, and if that's the case then fine. But I do know about DOF, I do know about critical sharpness, I do know about camera shake, I do know about circle of confusion etc etc. I have shot with many different brands, and shooting with Fuji is the only time I've seen artifacting like this. Also, as I've stated before I've seen it in others shots who claim they have never seen it, and also there's other landscape togs on here that have noticed the same issue, and there's no way you'll think they don't know what they're doing.

Now I'm not going to say any more on the issue as you all have your opinions about my shot and I know you all think I'm a muppet and don't know what I'm doing and not listening ;) :p The only time I will add anything is if I find the original RAW file for your curiosity/entertainment ;) At the end of the day Fuji doesn't work for me so I've gone back to Olympus for my light setup which I'm much happier with in terms of rendering (y)

As In most things in life It is rarely profitable to blame the least likely events for your problems.

Sensors do not give variable results, they are highly predictable one shot to another.

However Vibration, Shutter speed, Focus, and choice of depth of field, are all variables. Any combination of which can cause the effect you complain about.

My tripod a Manfrotto 055b is as heavy as I would want to carry about. Nevertheless it vibrates in certain wind conditions and I can find that I need to put a hand on a leg to dampen it out.
It also vibrates for about 5 seconds it tapped lightly with a hard object. Such micro vibrations are observable quite clearly in live view with a longish lens. And very easily smear micro contrast details. It is hard to select a shutter speed fast enough to freeze them in normal use.
It first came to my notice when shooting pans as not all the shots in a sequence were equally sharp. I now do what I can to dampen them, and always duplicate every set of shots.

Tripod vibration is something rarely discussed and is perhaps not encouraged by the makers. However all tubular structures have a natural resonance that is unavoidable. But can in most cases be dampened by one strategy or another. It is a subject that was rarely noted with film photography. as the High definition necessary to see it was rarely achieved. Todays sensors and lenses have entered the degree of precision that can easily record the effect of these minute vibrations. Therein lays a problem....the better the lens and sensor the greater the effect.
 
Last edited:
As In most things in life It is rarely profitable to blame the least likely events for your problems.

Sensors do not give variable results, they are highly predictable one shot to another.

However Vibration, Shutter speed, Focus, and choice of depth of field, are all variables. Any combination of which can cause the effect you complain about.

My tripod a Manfrotto 055b is as heavy as I would want to carry about. Nevertheless it vibrates in certain wind conditions and I can find that I need to put a hand on a leg to dampen it out.
It also vibrates for about 5 seconds it tapped lightly with a hard object. Such micro vibrations are observable quite clearly in live view with a longish lens. And very easily smear micro contrast details. It is hard to select a shutter speed fast enough to freeze them in normal use.
It first came to my notice when shooting pans as not all the shots in a sequence were equally sharp. I now do what I can to dampen them, and always duplicate every set of shots.

Tripod vibration is something rarely discussed and is perhaps not encouraged by the makers. However all tubular structures have a natural resonance that is unavoidable. But can in most cases be dampened by one strategy or another. It is a subject that was rarely noted with film photography. as the High definition necessary to see it was rarely achieved. Todays sensors and lenses have entered the degree of precision that can easily record the effect of these minute vibrations. Therein lays a problem....the better the lens and sensor the greater the effect.
The shot was handheld which rules out tripod vibration. Also, before you blame it on me I could handhold the 18-135mm at 1/4. I appreciate your comments about the sensor not being variable, and I get that which makes the effects very odd. But it's not as though I'm the only one as I've said before. Now it could well be the way software interprets particular files for whatever reason, which would make more sense rather than it being the sensor. EIther way it gave me results I wasn't happy with. With my time with Fuji I shot over 2k shots and saw this effect over a handful of times, maybe closer to a dozen. For comparison I've shot over 100k with my D750 and never seen this effect. I've shot maybe 20k with Olympus and never seen this effect. I've shot maybe 20k with Sony and never seen this effect. For me blaming the camera was not the easy way out, I tried to get to the bottom of it and ran various tests (tripod and handheld) as I really wanted to stick with Fuji, but in the end this pic was the final straw. In fact I was so adamant I wanted to stick with Fuji that I tried about 8 lots of software as mentioned above. I even trawled thousands of Fuji landscapes on Flickr to see if it was just me doing something wrong, but there were enough examples on flickr for me to make the assumption that it wasn't.

Now I'm the first to admit I make mistakes, and I will continue to do so. But I normally analyse it, work out where I went wrong and try not to do it again. I could never work out the issue with Fuji.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top