Fuji X Series
- Thread starter nolimit
- Start date
Fuji apparently only processes and creates genuine raw data file between isos of 200-1600.
Fuji is using a different ISO standard than Nikon/Canon. Basically their ISO 200 is about the same as Nikon/Canon ISO 100, which means you will get about the same exposure. It's the same reason you can't compare Nikon 6400 ISO with Fuji 6400 ISO... it's more fair to compare with Fuji 12800 ISO. Does it even make an observable and genuine difference? I think not : http://danbaileyphoto.com/blog/testing-high-iso-performance-with-the-fujifilm-x-t2/
Suffice it to say all Fuji X cameras are supposed to be have isoless sensors: https://fujilove.com/isoless-photography-with-the-fujifilm-x-series/
Last edited:
If you try it in the field it's about ISO 160 on a canon probably gets rounded up as 160 is an unusual number. The base ISO of the camera is set at the value which gives the best dynamic range with minimal noise. The latest Fuji's offer a simulated ISO 100 but you loose a stop of DR for no noise gain.
Ok, thanks. I had read something similar.
Well guys, I can't help it but I am falling out of love with the Fuji ecosystem. Not looking to start a debate here as everyone is entitled to their opinion and no doubt has different opinions and requirements to me, but these are my thoughts and reasons:
That is basically why I stopped investing further for the moment. It's a shame too as I really had best hopes when I switched but just am not satisfied overall with the system.
- As much as the weight savings have been great, and image quality generally satisfactory with the crop sensor, I do really miss the fast lenses and creamy bokeh of my full-frame Nikon D750... not to mention the Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 which was simply the most magical lens I have ever used and the photos I have taken with it still shock me with how beautiful they are. I would consider a switch to Sony if their next generation A7R is as amazing as they look like they will be. Yes, it's a more expensive system with larger lenses, but image quality looks sublime and being able to use Canon lenses is very appealing. Not to mention the user interface seems to be improving dramatically.
- Fuji lenses are optically good but their line-up is technologically weak in places and needs modernising, the prime (pun unavoidable) examples being the 23mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 which even at the time of release were not really competitive in terms of the slow and noisy autofocus motor and lack of weather sealing.
- I am disappointed as I feel that the X-T2 was not the best camera Fuji could have released. It lacks a touchscreen despite them touting it as a videographers dream, and has an unreasonably tiny buffer size for RAW, and there is simply no excuse for skimping out on those areas on what was supposed to be a cutting-edge camera, especially when they had the capability to implement them.
- Fuji made excuses of negative image quality effects for not developing and implementing IBIS, despite competition managing it, until they had to give in to pressure and announced the X-T2S, which looks like it is going to be the camera that the X-T2 should really have been, and while no-one would force me to upgrade of course I would buy the X-T2S for the improved features. However, it would be much quicker than I was expecting/hoping to upgrade my X-T2 as it doesn't even feel like I have had it so long due to all the shipping delays on release.
- The flash situation for Fuji has been a complete debaucle until only recently and even now there are a lack of third-party options such as from Yongnuo.
- While post processing options for Fuji have improved, I use Lightroom eclusively (and do not intend to change) and it does still exhibit slowness and some strange behaviour (such as artifacts) when processing Fuji X-Trans RAW files.
That is basically why I stopped investing further for the moment. It's a shame too as I really had best hopes when I switched but just am not satisfied overall with the system.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,888
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I think it's a good system, the compactness is a great advantage, so much so I like a X-100F. Problem is as you say, the files bug me, it's not a problem if you process the odd photo but when you go through as many as I do, there is no way i can switch.
I agree in many regards... for me the X-T2 was always planned to be a travel system and for that it is great.
However there are a few things that bug me and as such I could never consider a full switch, actually I don't think I would consider moving to mirrorless of any system quite yet. It's hard to pinpoint what I don't like, lag with the EVF is one even with the grip. I took it out on a sunset landscape shoot and found it a little awkward and ended up using the D810.
The X-T2 is a great camera and for what I intended it for it's ideal but if it wasn't more me wanting a zoom at time I would have got the X-100F as I loved the X-100T (actually still do).
However having just purchased a Nikon D850 I can immediately see how much better the D850 system is. I know there's a big price difference but there's also a big difference in quality and usability, for me at least.
The bottom line is there is no perfect camera system - all of them have their quirks and flaws including the newly released D850. Personally, I don't want to carry around a heavy Nikon DSLR & lenses ; I don't want to have to deal with poor AF point coverage or having to fine tune the AF of all my lenses. Out of all the points Richdog raised I would have to agree that finding good software to process RAF files was a big challenge for a period - but that is changing rapidly although still not optimal. But, now that I've used just about every RAW processor that is out there in my search for something better I've come to realise that Adobe Lightroom is actually quite mediocre for all RAW files irrespective of the manufacturer.
At the end of it all ( and I know it's a cliché ) you have to realise that a camera is just a tool .... recognise your needs and pick accordingly. What suits you may not suit me. I certainly won't be switching from Fuji any time soon. Once Nikon develops a top-class mirror-less or hybrid system I will have a look, but not before.
At the end of it all ( and I know it's a cliché ) you have to realise that a camera is just a tool .... recognise your needs and pick accordingly. What suits you may not suit me. I certainly won't be switching from Fuji any time soon. Once Nikon develops a top-class mirror-less or hybrid system I will have a look, but not before.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,888
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I just want Canon to make a Sony A7R2 body…….come on Canon !!!! Or a D850.
My Nikon files were beautiful with Lightroom, no odd behaviour at all.
I'm not saying they weren't but you might be surprised just how much more detail, tonality and colour you might get with some images using another RAW processor. Lightroom is mediocre at best.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,888
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
The problem with that is workflow. I personally have been using Lightroom for like 10 years, to switch because of the camera…no…I just can't personally.
You probably can ... it's just that you can't stomach putting in the time to learn an alternative workflow, which I can understand. I was in the same position last year having used Lightroom since it was in alpha.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,888
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Stuck in my old ways, the camera, the lenses, the software and Mac...
Jonasrask photography says, regarding speed, "he can't feel the difference between the XE3 and the Xpro2/XT2" : https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/09/07/fujifilm-x-e3-review-the-liberator/
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,888
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I think I'll keep my Fuji for casual stuff, I do like it, just think it can be better. When these bodies, the currency line of X-Pro2 and X-E3 etc turns up cheap 2nd hand then I will get them.
Can you please be a bit more specific here because I am genuinely interested in what you are saying. Which other package(s) is significantly (ie: noticeably) better than lightroom for both quality and workflow when dealing with Nikon and Canon files? Are there any good comparisons you can link us to evidence this?
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Feb 2017
- Posts
- 241
Capture One, it is much better than Lightroom for processing RAW files of any manufacturer.
Capture One, is considered better by some especially if you are working tethered, however, I used it for a while and didn't see much difference in other aspects. I work with the CC suite ie Lightroom, Photoshop, Premiere, After Effects etc and I preferred to keep my work flow within that system.