Fuji is starting to get to me!

That is posterization, not banding. And it is visible on a Mac if you download the original and view it at 100%.

Shawn
 
philosli said:
Why simulating if you can use the real?
Click to expand...

This is the dilemma.

I find it disconcerting one can render a digital image with a perceived aesthetic that is indistinguishable from film image rendering.

But this happens to be the case.

When a film negative/positive is digitized, the inherent flaws caused by modeling continuous information content using discontinuous technologies will be in the digital image. You end up with a simulation.

When a digital image has a high level of information content, there is enough information to achieve the same perceived aesthetic as an image produced with a pure analog work flow. It will require significant expertise and high quality printing equipment and paper to produce the same perceived aesthetic, but it can be done.

Using "the real" offers no significant aesthetic image advantage. The advantage is realized by the satisfaction one obtains by using a pure analog process.
 
I should clarify. Everything about the Fuji cameras is "almost". Their ethos is a flimsy homage. That is not to say Fuji cameras aren't good or even great tools in the right hands. But they are certainly mediocre products.
 
They don't feel to be build like German Leicas, but they are priced very accordingly.
And despite their feel, they do lasts.
 
LCSmith said:
I should clarify. Everything about the Fuji cameras is "almost". Their ethos is a flimsy homage. That is not to say Fuji cameras aren't good or even great tools in the right hands. But they are certainly mediocre products.
Click to expand...

Wine with supper? Perhaps you meant claret instead of clarify?

Your post is a contradiction followed by a contradiction.
 
LCSmith said:
I should clarify. Everything about the Fuji cameras is "almost". Their ethos is a flimsy homage. That is not to say Fuji cameras aren't good or even great tools in the right hands. But they are certainly mediocre products.
Click to expand...

You have not clarified at all.
What is "almost" about the Fujis in their picture making capabilities?
What is mediocre about them?
 
olifaunt said:
I wonder if we are looking at the same image:
https://i2.wp.com/jonasraskphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/DSCF4409.jpg?w=3000&ssl=1

Banding is obvious to me on several different machines, including my calibrated laptop and iPad Pro. Especially the purple band above the kayak, but also several bands in the top right quarter of the image. It is more obvious when viewed through my slightly tinted reading glasses but even without them it is visible if you look for it. You can click on the mage to enlarge to full size and then it is really very obvious. This is supposed to be a camera jpeg and the full size version is large so I doubt PP or web compression has anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

I concur, there's very slight banding or posterization radiating out and down from the upper corner. This on a calibrated NEC.
 
shawn said:
The bodies are solid and the buttons and controls have great tactile response. They just aren't heavy. Heavy alone isn't 'build quality.'

Shawn
Click to expand...

I almost bought an X100F last year until I found out the store was selling me their demo at full price. Fingerprints all over (including the lens) and a huge scratch on the back were included free of charge.

For the short while I had it in my possession though it felt like a really solid build, with good ergonomics.

PF
 
Had the original X100 and purchased the X100F last spring as a backup to the Leica's for a trip around the world. Well, the Leica's have been left in Texas and I have been traveling with the X100F and GoPro7 for diving. There is nothing second rate about the Fuji. I wish Leica gave me the value/price that the Fuji delivers.

And no it is not a Leica so get over it!
 
Huss said:
You have not clarified at all.
What is "almost" about the Fujis in their picture making capabilities?
What is mediocre about them?
Click to expand...

I hope I may be able to state an opinion without its being confused for doctrine.

If we must be precise, no camera is "almost" in its picture-making capabilities, so long as it makes pictures. Think of what Atget was able to do with his obsolete camera.

What is mediocre about the Fuji cameras? Again, NOT the images that can be made by them. Mediocre images are the products of mediocre photographers and have nothing to do with the camera's "image making capabilities" so I am speaking only of aesthetics and design.

The question here is also not one of "durability" since plastic is quite durable.

No, "candy cigarettes" I think gets to the point quite well, a kind of unabashed simulacrum.

"Instant mashed potatoes" works well too. Something which is consciously intended to simulate something else but doing so in a mediocre way while at the same time reducing the skill required by the user. That seems to me to be the rather express marketing strategy for those Fuji cameras.
 
Fuji ‘X’ cameras now have been around for a while, increasingly a number of their models are being used professionally; so long enough, I feel, to make an unscientific assessment on their reliability.

For ‘mediocre products’, in terms of mechanical and electrical failures they appear to be holding up just fine against the competition - certainly judging by my limited experience of reading the web about other owner’s experiences and extensively using my X-Pro2 over four years around the world, deluge and shine, from -20C in Norway to 33C in India.

The only hiccup I had was early on while in Paris when my camera intermittently wouldn’t save images to the cards. I worked with Fujifilm, downloading camera files they requested but they were unable to ascertain the cause, suggesting I re-install the firmware.

Not a problem since.

Going forward I have criticised the X-Pro3’s battery charging cover, which I feel is flimsy with a weak lock, taking into consideration it will get a lot of use. Time will tell.

Another are the motors and electronics in the lenses. Will these areas prove to be weaknesses? I prefer to buy the weather-sealed versions, but have both sealed and a non-sealed (the 23/f1.4); so far, neither type have let me down.

What are other Fuji ‘X’ owner’s thoughts?
 
The only real problem I know of was in the original x100 with the sticky aperture blade problem. In cameras that developed that problem they would inconsistently expose when in aperture priority and stopped down a bit. Basically something to watch for if buying a used original x100. Besides that they are solid.

And there is nothing second rate about Fuji’s ongoing software support.

Shawn
 
I consider my XPro3 to be a “relaxed” Leica. The build quality is good, the lenses seem to me very good (and are of a size that is comfortable to use), the images are very good with a minimum of effort. In a way, it’s the promise of digital mirrorless realized - Light, compact, makes nice looking images with a minimum of fuss. I can shoot with it with a varying degree of involvement on my part. Casual.

My Leicas are “all-in” cameras. You have to pay attention, you have to work for your images. Less than 100% involvement in the process will result in disappointment. When I carry my M, I am photographing. It’s all up to me.

Both experiences can be pleasurable. Just different.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
They don't feel to be build like German Leicas, but they are priced very accordingly.
And despite their feel, they do lasts.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, what Fuji is priced at $8000 (other than their 100mp medium format camera)? The hyperbole on this forum is at an all time high.

LCSmith said:
Something which is consciously intended to simulate something else but doing so in a mediocre way while at the same time reducing the skill required by the user. That seems to me to be the rather express marketing strategy for those Fuji cameras.
Click to expand...

And every other digital camera out there...if you are cynical enough to think digital is copying film all the time.
 
oldwino said:
My Leicas are “all-in” cameras. You have to pay attention, you have to work for your images. Less than 100% involvement in the process will result in disappointment. When I carry my M, I am photographing. It’s all up to me.

Both experiences can be pleasurable. Just different.
Click to expand...

This is well-said. I enjoy using real rangefinders (as in, a camera with a rangefinder focusing mechanism) precisely because they require so much from me. It's fun because it's difficult, but it's satisfying because it is more my own.

I mean sure, I could use a synthesizer to replicate the sound of a violin and sound like Heifetz in a day or two after punching at some keys; but it's much more fun to learn to play a real violin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top