Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Fuji X Series > Fuji X-Pro Series

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

The X-Pro 2 on the runway - a mini-review
Old 11-19-2016   #1
honozooloo
Registered User
 
honozooloo's Avatar
 
honozooloo is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: honolulu, hi
Posts: 157
The X-Pro 2 on the runway - a mini-review

This is gonna get long-winded, so apologies in advance. Here are a few of my own observations about my X-Pro 2 after an intensive week of shooting with it. I'm not sponsored by Fuji in any way, and have bought all my Fuji stuff with my own hard-earned cash. All views expressed here are my own. So anyway. Recently, one of my company's publications, Honolulu Magazine, put on it's annual Fashion Week here in Honolulu. We staff shooters were tasked with shooting 13 full runway shows in three days, with the usual behind the scenes and general crowd/location shots thrown into the mix. It was a looong weekend, and a great chance to see how the X-Pro 2 stacked up as a stand-in for my company-issued kit.

Our work-issued cameras are those dependable workhorses, the 5D MKIII. Now they're great, well-rounded, and just never quit. But they're also heavy, and in anticipation of a long weekend of running and gunning, I decided to lighten my load a bit and carry my X-Pro 2, 55-200mm, 16mm, and 35mm 1.4, with my Fuji X100s for snapshots. All of the above kit weighs less than just one 5D3 with a battery grip and 70-200mm attached. Consider that if I were shooting all Canon it'd probably require two Canon bodies (one for long, one for wide), and the requisite on-camera strobe on the wide...thats gotta be nearly 20 lbs of kit I'd be schlepping around for 12 hours a day.

I've used the X-Pro 2 on various assignments, it excels at journalistic style reportage as it's unobtrusive, not intimidating, relatively quiet (or silent if you engage ES), and FAST. So I knew it would do just fine for the behind the scenes stuff:










And while we're on the subject of using this camera for general reportage: It's sooooo good. AF-S locks quickly and confidently, and the general speed of the camera lets you rattle off fast shots in rapid succession after locking focus quickly...a reassurance for me in these situations because it's hard to track everyone's expressions in a quickly-moving backstage environment. Having an optical VF lets me "see" beyond the framelines and compose my shots with better situational awareness than the tunnel vision of an SLR. I have my AE-L button setup to start/stop AF, and use it to lock focus then reframe. I did notice one quirk with this setup: When firing off shots one after the other in single shot mode with AF locked/stopped, there can be a longer than usual lag between frames from time to time - it feels like the AF in the lens is refocusing to the previously-saved point? I had AF Prefocus on and this still happened randomly. Not sure why the camera would do this, but it seems like an easy firmware fix *ahem* Fuji.

In terms of IQ, the lighting backstage was dark (duh, it's backstage) but the X-Pro 2 was more than acceptable at ISO 1600. Honestly, the first day of fashion week, I took the 5D3 too just in case the X-Pro 2 didn't cut it. I used the Canon here and there, but it wasn't any faster to focus (actually it felt a hair slower) than the X-Pro 2. If you've never tried shooting backstage at a fashion show, it's a very challenging environment: people running around frantically, crappy dim light, and here you are trying to stay out of the way. The 16mm 1.4 and the 35mm 1.4 were my lenses of choice backstage, and both were very quick to focus despite the fast pace. The X-Pro 2's files were also significantly cleaner in post, with much more shadow detail available for recovery - the Canon showed much more "blotchiness" in it's shadow detail when pushed in post. And while we're on the topic of files, the X-Pro 2's compressed RAWs took up less space than the 5D3's...a definite advantage when you're shooting over 1500 frames a day. One drawback: the Fuji files take a LOT longer to import into LR if you leave Smart Previews on. It's even slower if the Fuji files are compressed. Like I have a loaded current-gen Macbook Pro and it still takes 4x-6x longer to import vs the same number of Canon files.

On day one, I mostly used the Canon to shoot my long shots on the runway...when I'm on the clock it's my instinct to go with the gear I know best to be sure I get results, and of course Canon's AF tracking with lenses like the 70-200L II IS is pretty much industry standard. So I used the Canon for my long shots. On day one I used the X-Pro 2 and 16mm lens to get close-up profile and 3/4 shots from my vantage point, which was about halfway down the runway facing the end of the walk. I had the X-Pro 2 in liveview, with Zone AF and AF-C engaged. And you know what? I was really impressed with how the Fuji tracked:












The 5D3's buffer (especially when shooting continuous and RAW) isn't the greatest, and it requires real discipline to rattle off a burst, then wait till the buffer clears before you shoot another one with the Canon. The Fuji's buffer literally did not fill EVER at 3FPS in RAW. I could track a model the whole length of the runway with the X-Pro shooting in RAW at 3FPS and not experience a buffer lockout. Even more impressive, during a rehearsal I stood at the head of an 80-ft runway with the 55-200mm attached, dialed in Continuous H (8FPS), Zone AF, Large JPG Fine, and AF-C, and shot a continuous 8FPS for the 40 seconds or so that the model took to complete her walk. No stutters, no buffer lockout, and about 95% of the frames were tack sharp. Crazy. The other photographers definitely took notice of this, and even the guy with the 1DX was impressed.

I'd never tried to shoot a runway show with the X-Pro 2, actually after buying it a few months ago I'd never gotten around to even trying it's AF-C mode at all. But after seeing what it did on day one, I was going to give it a try on the runway on day 2 for sure. On days 2 & 3 I broke out the 55-200mm and used it to shoot side & 3/4 view shots from the back of the seating areas around the runway, over and between guests' heads. It was a challenging environment, as people in the foreground and background can be very "distracting" for a tracking AF. The Wide AF option got distracted a little too easily for my taste, but the Zone AF let me put the area of focus just where I wanted it while I tracked the models.

And before I go any further, let me also mention one major thing that helped us do our job during fashion week: Our lighting guy, Bernhard Link. Bernhard designs lighting for the best of the best, and it shows. He's the kind of lighting guy who can just tell you "F/4, ISO 800, 1/500th" and the color temp and you just dial your camera in to his recommended settings and go knowing the whole runway is lit at that EV. The falloff from his setups is so good, the exposure differential helps darken the audience and minimizes their distraction in the images and to your AF. And finally...well holy crap just look at that light. Sculpted enough to show depth beautifully, but filled enough to not crush shadows.

Bottom line, with lighting this good I opted for the slower but lighter and slightly longer 55-200mm in lieu of my 50-140, and didn't regret it once. For a cheapo drainpipe lens, the 55-200mm really can get the job done IQ and even AF speed-wise, and as long as you don't need the fast aperture I see nothing wrong with this lens. I loved the results I got with this lens and the X-Pro 2:












In conclusion, after putting the Fuji through a pretty grueling weekend, it was able to deliver impressive results, and really, substitute in for a much larger DSLR. Image quality-wise it was great, I just love the additional shadow detail in Fuji files...yeah I know dark areas are just black, but Fuji's dark areas retain just a hair more detail and look, well, better.

I expect many of the performance issues to be improved upon by firmware updates, and hope that my experiences can help others out there decide if this camera is right for them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2016   #2
Mark A. Fisher
Registered User
 
Mark A. Fisher is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 235
What a terrific, hand-on review! And the photographs are stellar! Thanks for sharing all of the info and the photos with us. I just got my new X-Pro2 yesterday, with a 16-55 lens, and took them out for a bit of shooting today, haven't even had a chance to look at any of the shots yet. With these examples of yours I'm pretty excited to see how mine turned out.

Thanks!
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2016   #3
35photo
Registered User
 
35photo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 492
I love this camera as well!! I've used it on the street and used it with strobes doing portraits.. Knocks it out of the park in both regards! Its the most versatile camera out there. Image quality is excellent.. Not much to not like about this camera at all.. A couple of minor things that could be better... I'll take this camera over any DSLR any day of the week and twice on Sunday easy!
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2016   #4
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 68
Posts: 4,606
Interesting, thanks for sharing your impressions and the great photos
robert
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life


my quiet photographer's blog


My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2016   #5
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,531
I very much enjoyed reading about your experience.

The low-light results confirm the new X-Pro 2 (X-T2 and SONY 6300) dual-gain data stream texhnology makes a difference in real life.

While I fount the X-T1 and X100T AF useful for my work, it's nice to read Fujifilm's next generation AF is even better.

Thanks for taking the time to share your experience and photographs. Along with your excellent composition/eye, I found your approach to exposure to be perfectly suited to the subject matter.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2016   #6
adamjbonn
Registered User
 
adamjbonn is offline
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Porto
Posts: 60
I very much enjoyed your post, made for an interesting read, thank you.

I used my XP2 on a job a couple of weekends ago (1000s of cross country runners, while I was pearched on a rock on a steep hill over a river, doing the reportage!)

I was also impressed with the camera.

The annoyance you describe with the lag, I THINK MIGHT be the thing that the xp2 (all Fuji Xs I think...) does with the aperture, if your working aperture is not wide open, then Fuji keeps the lens wide open then stops down to working aperture to take the shot after you hit the shutter

Using preview DOF used to be a workaround, and still is on the xp2 in EVF mode, but (unlike the xp1) not OVF

I was a bit miffed about this at first, but that "don't fully relase the shutter, and take another shot immediately", feature is such a peach that I quickly got over it!
__________________
Cheers
Adam
http://adambonn.com
The largest X-Pro1 opinion piece on the 'net! http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-w...jifilm-x-pro1/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2016   #7
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 40,215
just when i was wondering if the xpro2 was worth the money...
__________________
heart soul & a camera

xt20...xe2...xe1...
16...23...23...27...50...56...55-200

original canon F1...T90...24/2.8...100/2.8...200/2.8...300/5.6
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2016   #8
narsuitus
Registered User
 
narsuitus's Avatar
 
narsuitus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by honozooloo View Post
Even more impressive, during a rehearsal I stood at the head of an 80-ft runway with the 55-200mm attached, dialed in Continuous H (8FPS), Zone AF, Large JPG Fine, and AF-C, and shot a continuous 8FPS for the 40 seconds or so that the model took to complete her walk.
What were your white balance and film simulation settings?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2016   #9
honozooloo
Registered User
 
honozooloo's Avatar
 
honozooloo is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: honolulu, hi
Posts: 157
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjbonn View Post
The annoyance you describe with the lag, I THINK MIGHT be the thing that the xp2 (all Fuji Xs I think...) does with the aperture, if your working aperture is not wide open, then Fuji keeps the lens wide open then stops down to working aperture to take the shot after you hit the shutter
Ahhh, that actually makes sense, and now that you mention it, I have noticed the aperture opening for EVF then closing for shutter. It's my first time shooting with the Fuji in conditions this manic so at times I know I was button mashing instead of being more methodical. I normally shoot a lot of staged editorial stuff and in slower paced conditions I probably just didn't notice the lag before. Interesting!

Thanks for sharing as well, it's rad knowing these cameras are actually holding their own under professional circumstances. Cheers!
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2016   #10
honozooloo
Registered User
 
honozooloo's Avatar
 
honozooloo is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: honolulu, hi
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by narsuitus View Post
What were your white balance and film simulation settings?
White Balance (per Bernhard, the lighting guy) was 2900k...interesting because most runway shows I've shot usually try to run closer to 3200k? Anyway, I shot in RAW compressed, processed in Adobe LR, and used the Really Nice Images (RNI) Agfa Vista 100 LR preset with some tweaking.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2016   #11
oltimer
Registered User
 
oltimer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 75
Posts: 385
Honozooloo, thank you for the detailed write-up on how you used your XPro-2 during this event. Your pic's sure back up your thoughts.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2016   #12
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 440
Thank you for taking the time to post this detailed write up, Aaron.

It’s great to hear how a camera I’ve loved using for the last three months performs professionally against the industry standards.

How did you find the battery usage?

I find that walking around for, say ten hours (using the EV), I need to break into the spare.
__________________
Brian

"Maintenant, mon ami !"
http://www.asingulareye.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2016   #13
honozooloo
Registered User
 
honozooloo's Avatar
 
honozooloo is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: honolulu, hi
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Atherton View Post
How did you find the battery usage?

I find that walking around for, say ten hours (using the EV), I need to break into the spare.
Thanks for the kind words Brian, and indeed everyone! I'm so very happy to know that sharing my experiences have been helpful to others.

The battery usage is...acceptable. During Fashion Week I averaged about 2k frames a day and usually went through 3 or 4 batteries in that time. I had all the bells and whistles activated (1-minute auto power off but High Performance, AF Prefocus, AF-C, etc were all on). Of course this is pretty much a worst case scenario for battery life; I seem to get about an average day's worth of personal shooting (or about 300-500 frames) from my X-Pro on Standard or Economy settings, which are actually plenty fast for me in my everyday use anyway. Usually if my battery dies sooner than that during a day of casual, walk-around use its due to an error on my part, e.g. if I forget to turn the camera off, it sometimes doesn't go to sleep if its carried slung over my shoulder because contact with my body keeps triggering the EVF/OVF sensor, making the camera think I'm looking through the VF.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2016   #14
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,263
I missed this when it was first posted, glad it came up again.

Great job on the shots and with the review. Messes with my mind big time as I was heading down one road, but more excellent information is always preferred.

Thanks again.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2016   #15
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 836
This is a great report. It's super to know that the X-Pro 2 can perform this well in a demanding professional environment. I haven't shot a fashion event like this, but I've done similarly low light and fast paced/gotta stay out of the way events, and it's very challenging. The gear needs to be up to the task. Ugh, stop tempting me!
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2016   #16
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,531
It's different but a X-T1 OEM battery would last for at least 3 hours continuously using the LCD screen as a composition tool. I did this all the tie for interiors photography.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2016   #17
adamjbonn
Registered User
 
adamjbonn is offline
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Porto
Posts: 60
FWIW I think acceptable is the perfect word for XP2 battery life.

It's probably not great if you're used to a DLSR or even something like a Leica MD, but I regularly get 400-500 frames (raw + jpg, so 800-1000 files) out of a battery when the camera is in high performance mode, which is better than I could manage with the X-Pro1

The event I mentioned above was about 4.5 hrs of shooting, 1600 frames and approximately 1.5 batteries were used

I'm not complaining about that! YMMV!!
__________________
Cheers
Adam
http://adambonn.com
The largest X-Pro1 opinion piece on the 'net! http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-w...jifilm-x-pro1/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2016   #18
bhop73
Registered User
 
bhop73's Avatar
 
bhop73 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 583
Thanks for this real world review. I've wanted an XP2 since it came out, but just can't fit it in the budget at the moment. I've even thought of selling my M6 to get one, but luckily I always realize what a mistake that would be before I actually do it.

Also luckily, I've got my X100T to keep my taste for Fuji files somewhat sated..
__________________
my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #19
Darthfeeble
Accidental Photographer
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 1,066
Got my wife an X-T2 and liked what I saw so I bought a used X Pro2. We both went on an outdoor trip and I find that I am unhappy with the image quality in my Pro2. Very noisey particularly in the sky and the the mushy foliage blur that was such an issue with the first Xtrans sensor. Even the T2 has it. Both processed in Lightroom. Thoughts? Suggestions?
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #20
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
We both went on an outdoor trip and I find that I am unhappy with the image quality in my Pro2. Very noisey particularly in the sky and the the mushy foliage blur that was such an issue with the first Xtrans sensor. Even the T2 has it. Both processed in Lightroom. Thoughts? Suggestions?
If you are unhappy with the image quality, try another camera. Life is short.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #21
Darthfeeble
Accidental Photographer
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 1,066
I am sending mine back, We're not sure on the other, I had hoped for some insight to other post processing info. I know the Phase One program is supposed to be good. A little expensive.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #22
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 4,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
I am sending mine back, We're not sure on the other, I had hoped for some insight to other post processing info. I know the Phase One program is supposed to be good. A little expensive.
I'm using capture one after using LR for years because it doesn't work well on my new windows laptop. They are much of a muchness.

A fuji file shouldn't be noisey in the skies at all. I can shoot at iso6400 with a previous generation x-t1 and it has about the same noise in the sky as an iso1600 canon 5d or sony a7 file. If you want to post some examples I'd be happy to have a look and tell you if it's normal?

As far as the mushy landscapes go, lightrooms sharpening for x-trans files is pretty average. The trick is - don't sharpen your files. They don't need it. You'll find they look far more natural.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #23
Darthfeeble
Accidental Photographer
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 1,066
Thank you. I did a little playing around and while I agree that the Pro1 is less noisy, exactly what you say about sharpening is the case. The 2 seems to not like LR sharpening at all, though Topaz detail makes it happy but not much is needed. I found that for the big expanses of sky, the best thing seems to be to just brush in some blur. I'll be keeping it now.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #24
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
Got my wife an X-T2 and liked what I saw so I bought a used X Pro2. We both went on an outdoor trip and I find that I am unhappy with the image quality in my Pro2. Very noisey particularly in the sky and the the mushy foliage blur that was such an issue with the first Xtrans sensor. Even the T2 has it. Both processed in Lightroom. Thoughts? Suggestions?
The X-Pro 2 and X-T2 should not render with such dramatic differences. Their data-stream technologies are almost identical.

Skies are always noisy... even when one uses base ISO with a perfect exposure. The noise comes from quantum noise (a.k.a photon noise or shot noise). This is true for all digital cameras. But the noise should only be obvious in extreme crops.

I suspect a more rigorous comparison is in order. Shoot the same subject at base ISO (200) with optimum and identical shutter times and apertures. Use the same DOF. When comparing green foliage, wait until the air is still. Use raw files or at least take care that all in-camera JPEG rendering parameters are identical and DR =100.

For shadow regions the X-T2 should be a bit cleaner than the X-Pro 2. For a sky the noise should be essentially identical. Here's a comparison of the in-camera electronic noise levels (read noise) vs ISO for both cameras.

For the X-Series cameras (and many other newer models from other brands), as light levels decrease the main noise contribution transitions from read noise to quantum noise. This is not the case for older digital camera technologies.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #25
Darthfeeble
Accidental Photographer
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 1,066
I confess to pixel peeping. One thing that surprised me is the Classic Chrome jpeg setting. I could see myself giving up RAW altogether. I won't though. Obviously my expectations were a bit unreasonable. All that said, my trusty X100 offers the cleanest files of any camera have owned. I can get shots at ISO 6400 that while noise is present, it is very manageable.

One point you made is to have the DR at 100%, does increasing that create some of my problem? I believe on that day I had it on the Auto setting and I was shooting at some pretty small apertures, thus it might have been more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #26
adamjbonn
Registered User
 
adamjbonn is offline
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Porto
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
I confess to pixel peeping. One thing that surprised me is the Classic Chrome jpeg setting. I could see myself giving up RAW altogether. I won't though. Obviously my expectations were a bit unreasonable. All that said, my trusty X100 offers the cleanest files of any camera have owned. I can get shots at ISO 6400 that while noise is present, it is very manageable.

One point you made is to have the DR at 100%, does increasing that create some of my problem? I believe on that day I had it on the Auto setting and I was shooting at some pretty small apertures, thus it might have been more.
Yes the DR modes can add noise to the RAWs, there's some very detailed info on this out there, so I won't rehash... but the DR modes basically underexpose the RAW 1 (DR200) or 2 (DR400) stops

It gets a little convoluted at this point, as it depends which photo editor you're using (as they handle the fact the DR mode has been used in different ways, some ignore it completely others automatically implement their own approximation of it)

But bottom line - underexposed RAW + lift exposure in post = more noise

LR/ACR is (in)famous for doing a poorer job with Fuji X-Trans. Many people have dropped $30 into the Iridient RAF to DNG convertor, which resolves the problem.

As far as I'm concerned, that ACR does a mediocre job with X-Trans is 100% an Adobe issue, pretty much every other RAW convertor out there does a better job (than ACR) and most people rate Iridient as the best.... and that's a one man band.
__________________
Cheers
Adam
http://adambonn.com
The largest X-Pro1 opinion piece on the 'net! http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-w...jifilm-x-pro1/
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #27
Darthfeeble
Accidental Photographer
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 1,066
Thank you, I tend to underexpose for highlights as well as use the DR settings. I'll work on that to see what happens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #28
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 188
The OP seemed a little surprised that the Fuji did fine on the runway and backstage, even suggesting that he was taking a risk using it rather that his usual Canon gear. I don't see any reason why the Fuji, and a half a dozen other cameras, wouldn't do fine. What's with all the drama?
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #29
honozooloo
Registered User
 
honozooloo's Avatar
 
honozooloo is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: honolulu, hi
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
The OP seemed a little surprised that the Fuji did fine on the runway and backstage, even suggesting that he was taking a risk using it rather that his usual Canon gear. I don't see any reason why the Fuji, and a half a dozen other cameras, wouldn't do fine. What's with all the drama?
When you're assigned with shooting every single look during a weeks' worth of fashion shows without missing a single one, you tend to stick to the gear you know best. Unpredictable lighting and challenging conditions means you try to control what you can, in most cases even if you don't know what to expect, using a familiar set of gear may be one of the few factors you can actually get a handle on.

"I think it will work in these conditions" is not "I know it will work in these conditions" - hence the acknowledgement of the inherent risk in trying something challenging with new, untested gear, and also my surprise in finding out that the Fuji was up to snuff. I certainly didn't buy the X-Pro 2 for its tracking abilities, but finding out that they worked as well as they do was a pleasant surprise...I've owned the X-Pro 1, X-T1, XE-2, and would not have expected any of those cameras to handle these conditions nearly as well. Just in my experience.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #30
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by honozooloo View Post
I've owned the X-Pro 1, X-T1, XE-2, and would not have expected any of those cameras to handle these conditions nearly as well. Just in my experience.
I understand going with what you are familiar with, but that goes to your familiarity with the gear, not its inherent capabilities. What specifically is it about the Fuji cameras that led you to the expectation that the Fuji cameras wouldn't handle the assignment nearly as well as your Canon gear?
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #31
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
...

One point you made is to have the DR at 100%, does increasing that create some of my problem? I believe on that day I had it on the Auto setting and I was shooting at some pretty small apertures, thus it might have been more.
When DR is >100 exposure (shutter time and aperture) is never maximized. The camera intentionally underexposes. Then, during in-camera JPEG rendering, the shadow regions are selectively pushed. Setting DR > 100 all but eliminates the risk of loosing highlight information caused by overexposing the sensor when the shutter is open and, or clipping the analog-to-digital converter after the shutter closes.

So, when DR is > 100 the images' signal-to-noise ratios are always compromised. The noise remains relatively constant, but the intentional automated underexposure reduced the signal levels. So DR > 100 reduces image quality in order to protect the photographer from blowing highlight regions (usually skies).

If you have DR on auto and use JPEGs, a photo from one X-Series camera could appear noisier than one made with a different X-Series body because of a difference in the DR parameter. The one with a higher DR has less signal because it is underexposed.

I use raw with LR CC. DR is always =100. I can try different the FUJIFILM rendering Camera Calibration Profiles.

I do protect myself from loosing highlights. I almost always automatically bracket aperture three raw exposures. I typically use +1/3, 0 and -1/3 stops. In very bright conditions I sometimes switch to -2/3, 0 , +2/3 aperture steps. In post-production I select the image with the optimum exposure (only unneeded highlights are lost). I delete the other two. I do this to maximize the raw data signal-to-noise ratio. When appropriate I selectively push shadow region brightness.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #32
Darthfeeble
Accidental Photographer
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 1,066
Again, many thanks for all the help here. What a great forum! If I understand the whole in camera adjustment thing, the DR setting should only affect the jpeg. My isssue was with the RAW output. None the less, I shoot a third of a stop under most of the time and sometimes even more. I'm trying shooting at 0 under to see what goes. The other compensation is to use the brush tool to reduce noise where it is most visible and as suggested, no sharpening. That has had the most affect toward improving my opinion of the image quality. The one factor that was most influential for buying the camera was the increased detail. I rather blindly continued the same workflow as the XPro1 and it's apparent that was a mistake.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #33
honozooloo
Registered User
 
honozooloo's Avatar
 
honozooloo is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: honolulu, hi
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
I understand going with what you are familiar with, but that goes to your familiarity with the gear, not its inherent capabilities. What specifically is it about the Fuji cameras that led you to the expectation that the Fuji cameras wouldn't handle the assignment nearly as well as your Canon gear?
In the case of the X-T1, X-Pro 1 (lol) and X-E2, neither had buffers big or fast-clearing enough to handle rapid fire bursts of RAW files the way I needed them to. High ISO performance wasn't quite there either. The tracking AF on all three cameras was not bad (most notably the X-T1), but they were not as fast as the X-Pro 2's, or any number of Canon DSLRs. The responsiveness the older X-cameras and AF accuracy in low light was also not quite fast enough for me either - Canon performed just a little better before the X-Pro 2.

This is NOT a critique of the previous X-Cameras, which I would expect to be more than good enough for most. Hell they're more than good enough for me 95% of the time! But the older cameras weren't quite enough for my needs under demanding conditions, like fashion week. They were 'close' but not quite there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #34
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by honozooloo View Post
In the case of the X-T1, X-Pro 1 (lol) and X-E2, neither had buffers big or fast-clearing enough to handle rapid fire bursts of RAW files the way I needed them to. High ISO performance wasn't quite there either. The tracking AF on all three cameras was not bad (most notably the X-T1), but they were not as fast as the X-Pro 2's, or any number of Canon DSLRs. The responsiveness the older X-cameras and AF accuracy in low light was also not quite fast enough for me either - Canon performed just a little better before the X-Pro 2.
Makes you wonder how photographers were able to cover runway/backstage back in the film days.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #35
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 40,215
all the photographers had the same 'advantages'...just like today...
__________________
heart soul & a camera

xt20...xe2...xe1...
16...23...23...27...50...56...55-200

original canon F1...T90...24/2.8...100/2.8...200/2.8...300/5.6
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #36
adamjbonn
Registered User
 
adamjbonn is offline
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Porto
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
Again, many thanks for all the help here. What a great forum! If I understand the whole in camera adjustment thing, the DR setting should only affect the jpeg. My isssue was with the RAW output. None the less, I shoot a third of a stop under most of the time and sometimes even more. I'm trying shooting at 0 under to see what goes. The other compensation is to use the brush tool to reduce noise where it is most visible and as suggested, no sharpening. That has had the most affect toward improving my opinion of the image quality. The one factor that was most influential for buying the camera was the increased detail. I rather blindly continued the same workflow as the XPro1 and it's apparent that was a mistake.
No - the DR expansion modes very much affect RAW files.

Firstly lets take a quick look at how digital ISO works

ISO above native (200 for the Fuji) works by UNDEREXPOSING the raw file, then applyng a global exposure push digitally, 1 stop underexposure and 1 stop push for iso 400 2 for 800 etc

This is basically the same as using the exposure slider in LR (or whatever)

When we import the raw in to our editing app, the ISO and corresponding exposure push are in the meta data of the raw, and the app acts on the info

The DR expansion modes work by under exposing the raw file 1 or 2 stops (as per ISO 400 or 800)

Then FOR THE SOCOC JPEG the shadows and midtones are lifted as the jpeg is created

This is basically the same as using the shadow slider in LR

But the RAW file doesn't get the global exposure meta data (you want to retain highlights, not apply a global positive exposure value, which is the antithesis of highlight preservation), so you end up with a RAW file that's 1 or 2 stops under exposed (depending on DR200 or 400 mode)

What's the easiest way to make a noisy file? Underexpose it, which is what the DR modes do

The largest amount of DR is available at base ISO

You'll get a cleaner image shooting @ iso200 and exposing for critical highlights and doing the shadow recovery yourself in post, than you will using DR400 and throwing away data before you even take the RAF from th SD card
__________________
Cheers
Adam
http://adambonn.com
The largest X-Pro1 opinion piece on the 'net! http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-w...jifilm-x-pro1/
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #37
infrequent
Registered User
 
infrequent's Avatar
 
infrequent is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 833
Basically if you shoot jpgs and prefer the SOOC route, you are better off using Auto DR. If you shoot RAW only, depending on your converter the metadata recalls the DR setting and either uses it or ignores it. As a sidenote, the DR setting will also override the Auto ISO setting or whatever maximum threshold you might have. For a scene that has a really high dynamic range, shooting RAW+Fine (hit Q or program a Fn button) and/or exposure bracketing is recommended.

Did I get the gist of it?
__________________
x100s + BM 201 + iPhone 6s
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #38
lcpr
Registered User
 
lcpr is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: London
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by honozooloo View Post

This is NOT a critique of the previous X-Cameras, which I would expect to be more than good enough for most. Hell they're more than good enough for me 95% of the time! But the older cameras weren't quite enough for my needs under demanding conditions, like fashion week. They were 'close' but not quite there.
I agree, I've used the XP1 at London Fashion Week before (a mix of Front of House/Backstage work) and while I could get some great images out of it I always felt that I had to finesse things a little more compared to my 5DIII/D800E. Some images in the link below:

http://www.lloydramos.com/foh/

http://www.lloydramos.com/pringlescotland/

http://www.lloydramos.com/katie-eary-aw14/
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #39
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjbonn View Post
No - the DR expansion modes very much affect RAW files.

....

What's the easiest way to make a noisy file? Underexpose it, which is what the DR modes do

The largest amount of DR is available at base ISO

You'll get a cleaner image shooting @ iso200 and exposing for critical highlights and doing the shadow recovery yourself in post, than you will using DR400 and throwing away data before you even take the RAF from th SD card
Absolutely. The sole purpose of DR > 100 is to protect photographers from blowing highlights. FUJIFILM's product groups' embrace an in loco parentis philosophy.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #40
honozooloo
Registered User
 
honozooloo's Avatar
 
honozooloo is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: honolulu, hi
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcpr View Post
I agree, I've used the XP1 at London Fashion Week before (a mix of Front of House/Backstage work) and while I could get some great images out of it I always felt that I had to finesse things a little more compared to my 5DIII/D800E. Some images in the link below:

http://www.lloydramos.com/foh/

http://www.lloydramos.com/pringlescotland/

http://www.lloydramos.com/katie-eary-aw14/
Killer work Lloyd! I agree - nothing against the X-Pro 1 as I LOVE mine and still use it...but it had its trade offs.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:38.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.