Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Non Rangefinder Cameras > CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras - > Fuji X Interchangeable Lens Cameras

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

If you've shot the D700, how does the XP1 compare?
Old 03-25-2012   #1
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
If you've shot the D700, how does the XP1 compare?

Looking back over old files in LR4, I'm still amazed at how much detail the D700 held at 3200 and around there, both sharpness and DR.

My X100 was great because of its size and IQ was comparable or exceeded the Canon 7D I've used (no experience with other contemporary APS-C cams), but 3200 was definitely pushing it for anything but web display (IMO).

So I'm just curious if anyone with D700 experience has thoughts on where the XPro-1 is in relation at high ISO?

(hopefully I'll get to find out myself in a few days, but we shall see).
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2012   #2
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,216
I noticed with my X100 when I had it that 3200 was pretty good until you looked really closely ... then the files were a bit smeary IMO. While my D700 does produce some noise at that ISO it's a lot cleaner with no smearing and is similar at 6400. The Fujis in camera software does do a fair bit of work on the raw files ... to their detriment IMO.

As for the Xpro ... time will tell.
__________________
---------------------------
zenfolio

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #3
stormhalvorsen
Registered User
 
stormhalvorsen is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 19
The D700 and the X-Pro1 are the only two digital cameras I have. So far a comparison wouldn't be fair since there is not yet any Lightroom support for the X-Pro1.

My D700 photos have benefited from Lightroom noise reduction (not that I have used it much for high ISO settings to be honest).

Currently I am processing the X-Pro1 Raw files through the included software, and I haven't even looked at any settings there besides exporting to Tiff and then importing those into Lightroom. It's a temporary arrangement.

But as far as high ISO noise straight out of the camera is concerned, I think that anything over 1600 on the X-Pro1 is unusable. This of course is subjective and a matter of taste and personal style, but I did take some shots handheld with the lens wide open at 3200 the other night and they came out noisy and muddy.

I do need to try this out further with different setting and eventually my regular workflow with Lightroom however, before dismissing its high ISO capabilities altogether.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #4
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
... The Fujis in camera software does do a fair bit of work on the raw files ... to their detriment IMO.

As for the Xpro ... time will tell.
So true.

Fuji has to do something to the raw files above ISO 1600 because the X100 sesnor does not go above 1600. Even raw files are pushed in-camera above 1600. This is why I never go above 1600 and push the exposure myself with LR. For most subject matter I would print B&W at 3200. I have confidence in color at 1600.

I shoot interiors commercially at ISO 800 with the D700 day in, day out. The high ISO minimizes the off-camera strobe power required to balance strong artificial and natural light. I also rarely resort to additional noise filtering. These photos are printed in expensive procures and printing also filters the noise.

I will speculate the XP-1's raw performance will be about a 1/2 stop below the D700. This guess is based on my experience with the X100 compared to the D300 and D700. The X100 clearly beats the D300 by about a stop.

Of course I agree with Keith that we won't know until ACR supports the XP1. The results from Dpreview and DxO will be the first quantitative information available.
__________________
"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

Self-Induced Transparency Photography, FLICKR, Professional Portfolio.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #5
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by celluloidprop View Post
My X100 was great because of its size and IQ was comparable or exceeded the Canon 7D I've used (no experience with other contemporary APS-C cams), but 3200 was definitely pushing it for anything but web display (IMO).
I've printed 3200 files from the X100 and they are fine. Perhaps you just need to spend some time in post with the X100 over the D700?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #6
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I've printed 3200 files from the X100 and they are fine. Perhaps you just need to spend some time in post with the X100 over the D700?

I thought you had a D700? ... if so how could you look at the two raw outputs at 3200 and not see how superior the D700's files are.

There's quite a gap IMO.
__________________
---------------------------
zenfolio

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #7
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 49
Posts: 4,668
Hmm... perhaps a good test is in order - I know what my D700s can do at ISO3200. I'd like to see what the X-Pro1 can do at the same ISO. Maybe this evening, when I get home, I'll do a very unscientific test and see if the X-Pro1 is close to the D700.

It's funny because I'm actually considering selling one of my D700's now that I have the X-Pro1.. we'll see....

Cheers,
Dave
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #8
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
I thought you had a D700? ... if so how could you look at the two raw outputs at 3200 and not see how superior the D700's files are.

There's quite a gap IMO.
Well, I never said they were better or even on par did I? I was just refuting the notion that 3200 files from the X100 are only good enough for the web. What I meant is that maybe the X100 files require more work than the D700's files.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #9
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
That's not really a refutation, just a difference of opinion.
The X100 loses fine detail starting at 1600 and definitely at 3200. That can be okay for some images, and not noticeable at 1024x682 but when you're talking 8x12 or 10x15 prints it's generally unacceptable to me. I'd also say that Fuji was a bit aggressive in their claimed ISOs - at equivalent light levels the X100 seemed like it needed a slower shutter speed than other cameras I've used.

re: the camera pushing RAW above 1600, the info I've seen on this says that it's generally irrelevant if the software doing the in-camera pushing works as it should. ie DXOMark "As long as the algorithms used for the treatment are performing well, there is no real problem for the end user. As far as RAW measurements are concerned, the sensor’s maximum sensitivity is ISO 1000. That’s why none of our metrics goes further."

Again, I was very very fond of the X100 and at 800 or below it was a match for any camera I've used. But its reputation as a low-light wonder always surprised me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #10
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,485
Perhaps you are expecting too much from 3200? Perhaps they aren't exposed correctly? Perhaps you aren't doing enough PP?

I don't know what the deal is for your needs, but the X100 can perform at 3200 and can be printed. I just don't want people to read this and start a new myth about the X100 (i.e. not usable at 3200).
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #11
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
It's not about expecting too much - ideally the X100 would have matched or exceeded the D700, but I knew going in that it would not. I was willing to make that trade-off in order to not carry around a D700 and the choice worked out fine. Going into the XP-1 now, I expect even better from Fuji - and thus I asked the original question of people who'd shot both.

Not every less-than-'this camera is amaaaaaaazing' statement about the X100 or XP1 requires defenders to take to the ramparts and fight off the Visigoths. The cameras aren't perfect. The former certainly doesn't and the latter may not perform at the level of a D700 and that's fine - doesn't make them bad cameras in any way.

In any case, I'm not sure what kind of PP creates detail where it has been lost to ISO increases. PP couldn't replace detail that the D700 lost above 6400, either.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #12
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by celluloidprop View Post
It's not about expecting too much - ideally the X100 would have matched or exceeded the D700, but I knew going in that it would not. I was willing to make that trade-off in order to not carry around a D700 and the choice worked out fine. Going into the XP-1 now, I expect even better from Fuji - and thus I asked the original question of people who'd shot both.

Not every less-than-'this camera is amaaaaaaazing' statement about the X100 or XP1 requires defenders to take to the ramparts and fight off the Visigoths. The cameras aren't perfect. The former certainly doesn't and the latter may not perform at the level of a D700 and that's fine - doesn't make them bad cameras in any way.
Fair enough...

Quote:
In any case, I'm not sure what kind of PP creates detail where it has been lost to ISO increases. PP couldn't replace detail that the D700 lost above 6400, either.
true, no detail gained, but ... other aspects might be gained. whatever, I'm sorry to have posted here and to have wasted your time. I'll know in a few days hopefully if the X-Pro1 is better in this respect.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #13
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is online now
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,779
I find the x100 useable up to about iso5000 in JPEG. The raws are noisier without actually having any more detail. Embrace the JPEG engine in the camera, and turn the noise reduction down to medium low if you want more detail.

There are other tricks too - Provia mode will show more banding/noise as it's less contrasty. Velvia and Astia are better in low light because they clip the blacks slightly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #14
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalintrigue View Post
X-Pro1, ISO 25,600
I never understood what's the purpose of taking high ISO shots of perfectly lit scenes?!

OK, it shows you how the camera will NOT perform when you really need high ISO (in poor light). Anything else? What am I missing?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #15
stormhalvorsen
Registered User
 
stormhalvorsen is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
I find the x100 useable up to about iso5000 in JPEG. The raws are noisier without actually having any more detail. Embrace the JPEG engine in the camera, and turn the noise reduction down to medium low if you want more detail.

There are other tricks too - Provia mode will show more banding/noise as it's less contrasty. Velvia and Astia are better in low light because they clip the blacks slightly.
That's very interesting! Too bad you cannot save all of these options in Custom Settings. Would have loved to instantly switch between Raw, Standard film simulation with Silent Mode, and then Jpg, Astia with focusing light, for instance.

Would have been more convemient than to remember to go back and change things all over the menus when switching between saved settings.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #16
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Perhaps you are expecting too much from 3200? Perhaps they aren't exposed correctly? Perhaps you aren't doing enough PP?

I don't know what the deal is for your needs, but the X100 can perform at 3200 and can be printed. I just don't want people to read this and start a new myth about the X100 (i.e. not usable at 3200).

All that was said by myself and another poster is that the Fuji's in camera processing 'does it's thing' to to the raw output before you can take it to lightroom or wherever. I agree that they would print perfectly fine but when you look closely at a 3200 raw file straight out of the Fuji the in camera noise reduction has already done stuff that you can't undo. This doesn't seem to happen at ISO 1600 which as Willie said is obviously the cameras comfort zone.

I'm curious to know if the Xpro does the same.

'Usability' is very subjective IMO.
__________________
---------------------------
zenfolio

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #17
stormhalvorsen
Registered User
 
stormhalvorsen is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 19
Isn't the Raw file precicely that... Raw? So with in-camera noise reduction turned off, this format has to be the origin of any Jpg generated? I don't know, that's how I understood the format. Don't know much about this topic really.

When we get profiles for Lightroom and other Raw file processor apps, won't a Raw file always have at least as high quality as anything made from it in camera?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #18
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is online now
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
All that was said by myself and another poster is that the Fuji's in camera processing 'does it's thing' to to the raw output before you can take it to lightroom or wherever. I agree that they would print perfectly fine but when you look closely at a 3200 raw file straight out of the Fuji the in camera noise reduction has already done stuff that you can't undo. This doesn't seem to happen at ISO 1600 which as Willie said is obviously the cameras comfort zone.

I'm curious to know if the Xpro does the same.

'Usability' is very subjective IMO.
I just ran a check of RAW iso performance from iso 800-6400, and I couldn't see any difference in softening or apparent noise reduction other than the deterioration of quality usually associated with going up in ISO. I'm fairly confident that they don't do any raw processing at any ISO. However I know that Nikon uses software processing on their RAW files, which is why astrophotographers overwhelmingly use canons (unprocessed raws), so anything is possible.

At any rate, the JPEG files are much better in terms of detail and noise performance than the RAWs imo. The fuji processing is excellent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #19
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,216
The thing that has impressed me most about the samples I've seen from the Xpro so far has been the colours ... it's ISO performance will be more than adequate I'm sure.

Those images that Noimmunity posted the other day really caught my eye!
__________________
---------------------------
zenfolio

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2012   #20
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 49
Posts: 4,668
I didn't bother to shoot anything with the D700 - didn't have time to take it out etc. but had the X-Pro1 on hand so.. here ya go.. ISO 6400 with a 100% crop as well - These are with Noise Reduction set to "0" or "standard"; you can always turn it down to "low" or "-2":



and the 100% crop:



Image shot with the 18mm set at f2 and manual focus

Cheers,
Dave
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
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 15:02.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, 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.