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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 08-01-2018   #121
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
 
Dave Jenkins's Avatar
 
Dave Jenkins is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Beautiful Northwest Georgia Mountains
Age: 82
Posts: 607
Good grief, Nick. May I respectfully suggest that you get a life?
__________________
Dave Jenkins

My newest book, Backroads and Byways of Georgia is available now wherever books are sold.
Georgia: A Backroads Portrait http://blur.by/1gg1SMt is awaiting publication.
My best-selling book (28,000+ copies) is Rock City Barns: A Passing Era.
My web site: davidbjenkins.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #122
kshapero
Press the Shutter
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 69
Posts: 9,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
Suddenly, about the same time I bought the E3, Lightroom seemed to have gotten the Xtrans figured out. I've checked on the older files from my XP1 that had me concerned and all the new stuff I've done and it seems that the "shear" is gone. In spite of all that, I'm still crazy.
What is an E3?
__________________
Akiva S.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #123
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,490
Fuji X-E3. There's been enough hype I figured I could use a shortcut.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #124
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faintandfuzzy View Post
Simple solution...stop using Lightroom or Adobe Raw. Switching to Iridient, Raw Therapee, etc, etc, and learning that sharpening and detail setting for XTrans are different than Bayer will solve the issues. No wormy, watercolor effects in prints I've made out to 32x48.

Can't believe people are selling cameras instead of doing a bit of homework and changing their software. Such a waste of money.
Or use Iridient X-Transformer if you want to stick with Lightroom.

Or shoot JPEG.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #125
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Ridiculous.

This watercolor effect renders any X-Trans camera completely unacceptable, and any camera that has one effectively useless as a photographic tool. This is akin to buying a car that will stall whenever it's (say) in second gear on a road with a 30 degree incline and the temperature is between 40 and 50 degrees F. (That is, the flaw will occur 100% of the time when it encounters some intermittent but somewhat common condition that one will experience during normal usage and ownership timeframe... that is, it will occur. Repeatedly, in fact.) Oh. And you can't fix it because this flaw is "baked in" to this wonderful new engine design. (It's a "feature" you see, for those who like foliage photos to look like watercolor paintings...) Oh. And they're putting this same "special engine" on other models -- for years. Would I buy such a car regardless of how "retro cool" it looked? No. No, I wouldn't. In fact, this hypothetical scenario would never happen because no auto manufacturer would be able to get away with it. Yet? Somehow Fuji does (get away with it).

I, personally, think anyone who owns a Fuji with an X-Trans is a bit cwazy, sorry to say. This watercolor effect is completely unacceptable. Face the facts. Shocking that this sensor is in so many cameras. Every single one of them is damaged goods from the second it rolls off the assembly line. Wlhy would anyone buy such a camera body with such a known/proven fatal flaw/defect?

It defies logic.

These sensors should have never found their way into any camera body -- pro or amateur. Period. Unacceptable. And every one of these cameras should have been recalled and had their sensors replaced. The notion that Fuji continues to use them is nothing short of mind-boggling. Even more mind-boggling that people still buy them.
People still buy them because not everyone thinks the way you do.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2018   #126
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 518
Faintandfuzzy nails it. This isn't necessarily a Fuji problem per se so much as a Fuji Raw issue with some of the post software. And I remember these threads back in my Fuji days, and it led me to leave LR for CaptureOne which I've used ever since.

You can download and try CaptureOne and I'm sure many of the others sufficient to test whether this explanation still holds. For my part, Fuji cameras are great and hit a nice sweet spot, and the X-PRO2 (though bulky) is a very respectable camera in every way. Gave me many great shots from my trip to England, and even though I had all JPEGS 'cause it was new, and my settings were off, and sometimes the color wasn't spot on, with Capture One and a LOT of work, those were all rescued and printed quite nicely on 17 X 22. If you already know the camera and like it otherwise, stick with it and upgrade your software... or at least try that first.

Another option is to untrain your eye from seeing this characteristic. Most folks don't see it. Ignorance is bliss.
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #127
Yokosuka_Mike
The Beat Goes On
 
Yokosuka_Mike's Avatar
 
Yokosuka_Mike is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Yokosuka, Japan
Age: 64
Posts: 2,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Right. Not everyone thinks logically.
You're right about that, Nick, thank goodness. Everything I do is illogical; and happily so. My career, my marriage, my camera equipment choices, the whiskky I drink, the country I live in, the everything about me. I say "no-thank-you" to logical. But, to you, Nick, I say live long and enjoy being logical.

It's a big world, plenty of room for everyone.
Mike
__________________
Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
-- Oddball
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #128
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Ridiculous.

This watercolor effect renders any X-Trans camera completely unacceptable, and any camera that has one effectively useless as a photographic tool. This is akin to buying a car that will stall whenever it's (say) in second gear on a road with a 30 degree incline and the temperature is between 40 and 50 degrees F. (That is, the flaw will occur 100% of the time when it encounters some intermittent but somewhat common condition that one will experience during normal usage and ownership timeframe... that is, it will occur. Repeatedly, in fact.) Oh. And you can't fix it because this flaw is "baked in" to this wonderful new engine design. (It's a "feature" you see, for those who like foliage photos to look like watercolor paintings...) Oh. And they're putting this same "special engine" on other models -- for years. Would I buy such a car regardless of how "retro cool" it looked? No. No, I wouldn't. In fact, this hypothetical scenario would never happen because no auto manufacturer would be able to get away with it. Yet? Somehow Fuji does (get away with it).

I, personally, think anyone who owns a Fuji with an X-Trans is a bit cwazy, sorry to say. This watercolor effect is completely unacceptable. Face the facts. Shocking that this sensor is in so many cameras. Every single one of them is damaged goods from the second it rolls off the assembly line. Wlhy would anyone buy such a camera body with such a known/proven fatal flaw/defect?

It defies logic.

These sensors should have never found their way into any camera body -- pro or amateur. Period. Unacceptable. And every one of these cameras should have been recalled and had their sensors replaced. The notion that Fuji continues to use them is nothing short of mind-boggling. Even more mind-boggling that people still buy them.

Truth.

1. 'retro' is a word people used by those that aren't interested in good design. The use of a shutter speed dial, aperture ring and ISO dial is good design. It allows you to see and judge your physical settings even when the camera is off, or hanging from a strap, or in your bag. Unmarked twiddly dials implanted in the front and rear of the grip a'la Nikon and Canon is bad design - a simulacrum from which the user is insulated from the baseline of the function of the dials themselves. Nikon dont even have consistent placement of an ISO adjustment- one of the 3 main control points for a digital camera.

2. The 'watercolor' effect was highly publicized early on in the lightroom/ACR raw conversion game - more recent builds of each are far better. Fine detail of foliage is still not quite as good as bayer sensor cameras in some circumstances. I would argue that the positive points of the sensor design far outweigh that trait though - specifically nearly non-existent color noise, smoother tonal transitions, better colors straight out of raw/jpeg.

3. Fujinon lenses. More consistent, better built, more ergonomic, cheaper, smaller. And the cameras focus those lenses accurately down to the millimeter every time.

Truth.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #129
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Right. Not everyone thinks logically.
And some people mistake opinion for fact....

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #130
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
 
Dave Jenkins's Avatar
 
Dave Jenkins is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Beautiful Northwest Georgia Mountains
Age: 82
Posts: 607
It's better not to feed the trolls.
__________________
Dave Jenkins

My newest book, Backroads and Byways of Georgia is available now wherever books are sold.
Georgia: A Backroads Portrait http://blur.by/1gg1SMt is awaiting publication.
My best-selling book (28,000+ copies) is Rock City Barns: A Passing Era.
My web site: davidbjenkins.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #131
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faintandfuzzy View Post
Simple solution...stop using Lightroom or Adobe Raw. Switching to Iridient, Raw Therapee, etc, etc, and learning that sharpening and detail setting for XTrans are different than Bayer will solve the issues. No wormy, watercolor effects in prints I've made out to 32x48.

Can't believe people are selling cameras instead of doing a bit of homework and changing their software. Such a waste of money.
interesting.

care to elaborate?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #132
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faintandfuzzy View Post
Simple solution...stop using Lightroom or Adobe Raw. Switching to Iridient, Raw Therapee, etc, etc, and learning that sharpening and detail setting for XTrans are different than Bayer will solve the issues. No wormy, watercolor effects in prints I've made out to 32x48.

Can't believe people are selling cameras instead of doing a bit of homework and changing their software. Such a waste of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
interesting.

care to elaborate?
Let me take a swing at the answer.

Think of the software, the application, which version, any plug-in, what operating system you are using as one of the chemicals you might use to develop your film.

D76 vs. HC110 vs. Xtol each will treat Tri-X differently, give you different results. The temp you use, the dilution, dip and dunk vs sitting in a tank, all of those pay a role in the results.

I got used to knowing how to use D76 if I needed to push or pull. If you use LR a particular version works really good with a camera and a patch level might yield different results with an upgrade or two. Lots of moving parts in the equation.

As these are all 1 and 0s, how a particular piece of software performs it's magic in your work flow might be more place to look for improvements in IQ over swapping systems every two years. Now we no longer have the ability to move from Ektachrome to Kodachrome to Tri-X, our film is hardwired into the camera. For RAW devotees those changes happen in their work flow.

Just some thoughts from the cheap seats.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #133
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
1. 'retro' is a word people used by those that aren't interested in good design. The use of a shutter speed dial, aperture ring and ISO dial is good design. It allows you to see and judge your physical settings even when the camera is off, or hanging from a strap, or in your bag. Unmarked twiddly dials implanted in the front and rear of the grip a'la Nikon and Canon is bad design - a simulacrum from which the user is insulated from the baseline of the function of the dials themselves. Nikon dont even have consistent placement of an ISO adjustment- one of the 3 main control points for a digital camera.

2. The 'watercolor' effect was highly publicized early on in the lightroom/ACR raw conversion game - more recent builds of each are far better. Fine detail of foliage is still not quite as good as bayer sensor cameras in some circumstances. I would argue that the positive points of the sensor design far outweigh that trait though - specifically nearly non-existent color noise, smoother tonal transitions, better colors straight out of raw/jpeg.

3. Fujinon lenses. More consistent, better built, more ergonomic, cheaper, smaller. And the cameras focus those lenses accurately down to the millimeter every time.

Truth.
1. INcorrect. Dials are relics from old mechanical film cameras made of springs and gears that couldn't put information in the viewfinder. I simply tap the INFO button and get all that information and way more, plus it's also in the viewfinder and on the top plate LCD which is can be illuminated to view in the dark. I can control aperture and shutter with the control dials on the front and back of the camera body by easily rotating the control dials with my index finger for aperture and shutter with my thumb all while still holding the camera. Dials require two fingers to rotate. Control dials in modern cameras are way, way better ergonomically.

Faster, better.

The control dial system is way better which is why all pro cameras use them and manufacturers moved away from dials which are relics from the mechanical era.

2. See OP. It's an issue. Damaged goods from the git go. "Better" is not "gone". Two different words, two completely different meanings. I would never buy a Fuji camera with an X-Trans sensor. Besides, they don't make full frame cameras, which is all I shoot. I didn't shot APS film during the film era. No way. And I would never go back to shooting APS-C in the digital era. Ever.

3. Yes. I have an old Fuji rangefinder and love how that 50/1.8 renders. I always liked Fuji optics. No arguments from me here.

Truth^2
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #134
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Right. Not everyone thinks logically.
Not everyone remembers their opinion is no better, no worse
than everyone else's either.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #135
Yokosuka_Mike
The Beat Goes On
 
Yokosuka_Mike's Avatar
 
Yokosuka_Mike is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Yokosuka, Japan
Age: 64
Posts: 2,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Jenkins View Post
It's better not to feed the trolls.
Dave, I agree with you.

All the best,
Mike
__________________
Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
-- Oddball
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2018   #136
pyeh
Registered User
 
pyeh is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Taylor Square
Age: 58
Posts: 599
Have to say, Nick Gone Troppo does great rant. He's consistent, tireless and eloquent, and quite funny in parts. I enjoy reading him even if he affects to be a wowser (Australian patois).
__________________
Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2018   #137
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
1. 'retro' is a word people used by those that aren't interested in good design. The use of a shutter speed dial, aperture ring and ISO dial is good design. It allows you to see and judge your physical settings even when the camera is off, or hanging from a strap, or in your bag. Unmarked twiddly dials implanted in the front and rear of the grip a'la Nikon and Canon is bad design - a simulacrum from which the user is insulated from the baseline of the function of the dials themselves. Nikon dont even have consistent placement of an ISO adjustment- one of the 3 main control points for a digital camera.

2. The 'watercolor' effect was highly publicized early on in the lightroom/ACR raw conversion game - more recent builds of each are far better. Fine detail of foliage is still not quite as good as bayer sensor cameras in some circumstances. I would argue that the positive points of the sensor design far outweigh that trait though - specifically nearly non-existent color noise, smoother tonal transitions, better colors straight out of raw/jpeg.

3. Fujinon lenses. More consistent, better built, more ergonomic, cheaper, smaller. And the cameras focus those lenses accurately down to the millimeter every time.

Truth.
All three paragraphs match my experience.

The second is particularly relevant. ACR/LR RAF rendering improves with each new XTrans generation. However, if LR one used the same post-production rendering workflow and parameters one uses with Bayer raw, the results will likely be sub-optimal. There is a learning curve.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  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 20:47.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.