Making a comeback - But does it need to be dSLR?

Cagey75 said:
You were doing something very wrong in post then, because I use an old version of LR, I shoot RAW with the XT-1 and don't experience this. People see one vlog or article where the writer hadn't a clue how to set up their camera or post process, and suddenly it's a big issue ...
Click to expand...

I dont see any of these problems on any of my images using the Xpro2 and Adobe LR CC?
 
JohnN said:
Believe me I'm sensitive to it and hate it, odd about the jpegs though.
Click to expand...
I can only think it's something inherent to Fuji files and not just RAW software algorithms as most sites suggest.
 
snerkler said:
I disagree. I tried at least 8 different pieces of software and no matter what I tried (including not sharpening at all) I could still see artefacts. I could even see them with jpeg. When I raised it on here several people posted me examples of their shots to show that these artefacts weren't present on their images, and do you know what? I could see it on several.

I deduced that some people are sensitive to it and some aren't. If you are it'll drive you mad to the point of ditching Fuji, for the rest Fuji will be excellent for you. I wish I was the latter as I like the Fuji colours, but I had far too many landscapes ruined. What's frustrating is that it's not present all the time and I couldn't figure it out.
Click to expand...


Of course, you can disagree all you desire - I'm not defensive about bits of gear! :)

I'm not experiencing any messy 'artifacts' though - or, maybe I couldn't give a fiddler's? :D In fairness, I don't really do much landscape, I'm more likely to have backdrops OOF, so you wouldn't really notice anyway

It does remind me though, when I shot with the D800E for about 4 years, I would get irritated by this light 'noise' I was getting in clear, daylight images at low ISO. And then I would be impressed at how it handled high ISO shots at night. My mind was expecting perfection at ISO 200, and a lot of noise at 6400+ perhaps, so I was let down then impressed for different reasons.
 
Last edited:
niko said:
the a7r11 625 g with bat etc. and canon 6d mk1 is 770g with bat etc.. so not a lot in it really.
Click to expand...

18% lighter. That's not insignificant, particularly when you look at the rest of your system.

Likewise the size difference doesn't seem huge but there is significantly more room in my bags.

Like I said, not my personal reason for switching but it does make a difference.
 
Aye the worms are a funny thing, once you see them you can't unsee them, but it almost always requires pixel peeping too.

Once I knew I could see them all over, but I don't shoot jpeg so couldn't comment on that side, but Adobe's native handling really brought them out, but once I'd set it up correctly (and as part of my import because I'm lazy!) all was well again and sharper than some of my Nikon lenses, but that probably because I became sick of messing with AF adjustment, something else I'm glad to see the back of :)
 
Cagey75 said:
Of course, you can disagree all you desire - I'm not defensive about bits of gear! :)

I'm not experiencing any messy 'artifacts' though - or, maybe I couldn't give a fiddler's? :D In fairness, I don't really do much landscape, I'm more likely to have backdrops OOF, so you wouldn't really notice anyway

It does remind me though, when I shot with the D800E for about 4 years, I would get irritated by this light 'noise' I was getting in clear, daylight images at low ISO. And then I would be impressed at how it handled high ISO shots at night. My mind was expecting perfection at ISO 200, and a lot of noise at 6400+ perhaps, so I was let down then impressed for different reasons.
Click to expand...
I wasn't disagreeing that you don't see any artefacts, just the statement you're doing something wrong in post if you do (y)
 
snerkler said:
I wasn't disagreeing that you don't see any artefacts, just the statement you're doing something wrong in post if you do (y)
Click to expand...

Yeah I was a little hasty with that statement, I guess what I meant was some people hit LR and the first thing they do is pump sharpness and contrast way over the top, for almost every picture, it's like a habit they can't get out of. Also, Jpeg shooters allowing the cameras to add noise reduction, and then wonder why their images have 'mushy' textures. When I import to LR I have it set to have everything zeroed, I want as flat a RAW as possible. I do shoot both raw + jpeg, so I can check sharpness in better detail on cam - great for my manual focus lenses. But I'll always PP the RAW only.
 
snerkler said:
I wasn't disagreeing that you don't see any artefacts, just the statement you're doing something wrong in post if you do (y)
Click to expand...
I don't often disagree with you, but I sort of agree with him, seriously noones fault but Adobe's as it's far from obvious and you have to work to almost the opposite of the defaults.

I'm my gallery I saved of an image the other day for someone who asked my settings, as it happened I'd saved them off whichever website I found it on so it's foreign, but please try those sharpening settings, if we're both lucky it could save some of the shots you took when you had Fuji. Or it could be my fix doesn't work for everything.
 
JohnN said:
Aye the worms are a funny thing, once you see them you can't unsee them, but it almost always requires pixel peeping too.

Once I knew I could see them all over, but I don't shoot jpeg so couldn't comment on that side, but Adobe's native handling really brought them out, but once I'd set it up correctly (and as part of my import because I'm lazy!) all was well again and sharper than some of my Nikon lenses, but that probably because I became sick of messing with AF adjustment, something else I'm glad to see the back of :)
Click to expand...
I could minimise the worms tbh, it was the watercolour effect that bugged me. I've been happier since moving back to m4/3 as my lightweight system but I can see myself trying Fuji again in the future as I did like the rendering a lot when it didn't have artefacts. I can't decide if it's Fuji's processor or the X-Trans sensor. Maybe I should try one of the Fujis with the Bayer sensor to rule that out ;)
 
JohnN said:
I don't often disagree with you, but I sort of agree with him, seriously noones fault but Adobe's as it's far from obvious and you have to work to almost the opposite of the defaults.

I'm my gallery I saved of an image the other day for someone who asked my settings, as it happened I'd saved them off whichever website I found it on so it's foreign, but please try those sharpening settings, if we're both lucky it could save some of the shots you took when you had Fuji. Or it could be my fix doesn't work for everything.
Click to expand...
I tried every sharpening setting in LR including no sharpening and upping detail instead, as well as neither sharpening or detail. I tried aperture, silkypix, Capture One, Photoninja, the one everyone says is best for Fuji (can't remember the name), and a couple of others I've forgotten. I had NR set to the lowest possible (annoyed me you couldn't turn it off even with RAW), and tried sharpness from lowest to highest.

I'll have a look at your gallery when back on the computer just in case there is a setting I haven't tried (y)

Edit: remembered the name, it's irident ;)
 
Lol, sounds like you might have already but fingers crossed you'd not :)
 
JohnN said:
Lol, sounds like you might have already but fingers crossed you'd not :)
Click to expand...
I'll deffo have a look as I've saved all my RAWs,............. somewhere :confused:
 
Wayne Els said:
18% lighter. That's not insignificant, particularly when you look at the rest of your system.

Likewise the size difference doesn't seem huge but there is significantly more room in my bags.

Like I said, not my personal reason for switching but it does make a difference.
Click to expand...
yep horses for courses, for me it is insignificant-its the weight of an apple. I carry over ten time more weight in water. as I hill walk with just the camera and a 24-70 most of the time, the size/weight saving between a 6d or Sony full frame both with f4 24-70 is negligible really. we all have different needs
 
JohnN said:
Lol, sounds like you might have already but fingers crossed you'd not :)
Click to expand...
I've now managed to look at those settings, and yes I've tried those. IMO they're not the best for Fuji files in terms of minimising artefacts, I find that increasing sharpening anything above default can make things worse but obviously YMMV. I know a lot of people mention foliage at a big problem, but I find rocks can be a big problem and in the peak district you tend to find a lot of them ;)
 
snerkler said:
I've now managed to look at those settings, and yes I've tried those. IMO they're not the best for Fuji files in terms of minimising artefacts, I find that increasing sharpening anything above default can make things worse but obviously YMMV. I know a lot of people mention foliage at a big problem, but I find rocks can be a big problem and in the peak district you tend to find a lot of them ;)
Click to expand...
I remember seeing your rock photos :D and they were terrible, I myself saw some artifacts during my Fuji XT-2 ownership but not enough for me to ditch the system solely for this reason, in the end it came down to high ISO/DR abilities which drew me back to full-frame albeit at a hefty cost, weight and size disadvantage.
 
mrbez said:
Hi Guys,

I've been away from the photography scene for quite a few years now and I'm looking to pick the hobby back up.

I used to have a 7D and my main topics of interest were candid street photography and landscapes.

The question that I now have, is do I truly need a dSLR?
One of the reasons that I sold off most of my equipment was due to the weight of it all - I travel a lot and therefore felt myself no longer wanting to bring my camera everywhere.

More and more people appear to be jumping to the likes of the Sony A series or the Fuji X-T's, but can they really deliver the same quality images?
If so, which of those are preferred?

Looking forward to your replies.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
So, lots of people had opinions and offered advice, but what did you do in the end?
 
JohnN said:
So, lots of people had opinions and offered advice, but what did you do in the end?
Click to expand...
I'm glad I'm not the only person who gets "annoyed" when someone asks a question, gets lots of advice then doesn't let the thread know what they decided.
 
My advice is (my opinion only). If you don't see a problem with your eyes, then is not a problem.

My expectation is probably low compare to other people, but I have no problem with my XT1 and XE2s. No problemn processing in LR too.
 
Hey All,

Apologies for the delay, I've been traveling with work and had limited access to the internet.

Some great discussion and options being provided in this thread, which I highly appreciate.

I am still yet to decide - I handled an Olympus OM-D the other day on a layover and really liked it, but then I also had a 5D in my hands which makes me think of picking up a used MK2.
Additionally, I do use Adobe products for PP and I wasn't aware of the limitations with the Fuji.

I'm going to spend a little bit more time this weekend handling the OM-D and the Sony A7 to see how I feel about them in my hand.

In regards to the 5DMK2...If I were to go back to dSLR, would you guys recommend a used 5D over say a more modern body?

Thanks again for the great advice.
 
I've been through a few cameras and of course purely personnel but I love the 5D now,but only you can decide
 
mrbez said:
Hey All,

Apologies for the delay, I've been traveling with work and had limited access to the internet.

Some great discussion and options being provided in this thread, which I highly appreciate.

I am still yet to decide - I handled an Olympus OM-D the other day on a layover and really liked it, but then I also had a 5D in my hands which makes me think of picking up a used MK2.
Additionally, I do use Adobe products for PP and I wasn't aware of the limitations with the Fuji.

I'm going to spend a little bit more time this weekend handling the OM-D and the Sony A7 to see how I feel about them in my hand.

In regards to the 5DMK2...If I were to go back to dSLR, would you guys recommend a used 5D over say a more modern body?

Thanks again for the great advice.
Click to expand...
Pretty much any DSLR (and mirrorless) will give you great images, but a modern body will likely offer several advantages such as better AF, less noise, better dynamic range, etc etc. It depends how important these things are to you.
 
Were you to go back to DSLR, my personal suggestion would be the Nikon D750, it's one of the smaller bodies, full frame and excellent AF, I had a 5D3 before that and thought the 750 the better of the two.
 
I had the D750 and is the best camera I have used.

But....................

I've never liked the Nikon's colour rendition for greens and especially skin tones so I went for a Canon.

I now have the 6DMK1 and am thoroughly enjoying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top