 Your new post is loading...
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
....
Conclusions
While both lenses are quite good, Fujifilm has a major advantage with a more affordable offering while also retaining a better build quality. However, Zeiss has faster focusing and better image quality. This is kind of a tough test to consider but we should all take comfort in knowing that both lenses are excellent. But on a personal scale, I’ve always had a love for Zeiss products the same way that Steve Huff loves his Leicas. And in the end, I’ll have to give the win to the Zeiss despite owning Fujifilm’s lens.
Well, for us, it is a way of pointing out not only the strengths and weaknesses of each model, but it is also an occasion to summarize our personal experiences with them. It is a place where we can give you advice about the style of photography that best suits these cameras, while helping you answer that tricky question: which model is best for me? You won’t find scientific comparisons but rather our personal experience with each camera based on a real-world usage. For more information about the cameras, you can check out our reviews and galleries across the site (relevant links are mentioned throughout the article). But that is not all: it isn’t just about us. If you’ve had the chance to use both of these cameras and want to share your opinion about them, feel free to leave a comment or even write to us at info@bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com. We would love to hear your two cents! .... CONCLUSION
So, if you went through the entirety of my comparison, you can probably already guess what my conclusion is: we simply can't say that one camera is better than the other, because they are two different models that have been designed for two completely different purposes. The important point is that both produce excellent image quality. You really have to make hypercritical comparisons to highlight the differences between the two, even though their technical specifications may suggest otherwise.
The E-M5 is certainly more versatile: the Micro Four Thirds system offers a great variety of lenses from Olympus, Panasonic and third party manufacturers, and it has all the accessories you need to use it as a real alternative to DSLRs, with the advantage of it being lighter and smaller.
The X100s is very good at what it has been designed to do: street photography. It is small, light and discreet. Despite its few weakness, I really enjoy using it and I am starting to employ it as a second body not only for personal purposes but also professional. At the same time, I know it won't ever become my main camera, as I would always miss the beauty of a good wide angle lens, for example.
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
I recently reviewed the Fujifilm X-E1 and really enjoyed it. As a X10 owner, I’ve been very interest in the X series cameras by Fujifilm so I had great hopes that they would continue to improve. They have, so I was thrilled last week when my review copy of the X20 arrived, but I was shocked when the X100s arrived this week. I thought – how perfect, I can finally get to compare some of the most exciting Fujifilm cameras all at the same time! I was in the final stages of my X20 review and quite happy with what I was seeing, so to have the new X100s in the mix is going to delay my original plans a bit. However, I think many readers will enjoy a first hand account of how they compare. I hope you stick with me for this and the subsequent articles where I do just that. Now before anyone blows a gasket, I realize that the X10/20 are very different from the XPro-1, X-E1, and X100s cameras. I’m including this comparison simply because I have all of the cameras together. I also often get asked about all of the X series cameras, so here’s a one stop shop to find out what I think.
Conclusion I’ll dive into more details in my upcoming X20 and X100s reviews, but let me just say – Fujifilm fans rejoice – the engineers have listened and taken these charming cameras and made them usable. I’m definitely buying my X20 review unit and I’m going to have a hard time not getting the X-E1 replacement down the road (I still prefer interchangeable zoom lenses with stabilization)....
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
Kein Labor! Kein Vakuum! Es war das echte Leben, das uns an diesem Tag in Erinnerung rief, dass eine Kamera sich ganz anders anfühlt, wenn sie aus Metall ist! Und da dieses echte Leben mit Schwung aus Nord-Nordost kam, brachte es verdammt wenig frühlingshaftes mit. Wir ersparten uns das Notieren von Messwerten. Unsere verfrorenen Nasen und die Bilder sollten beredt Auskunft über gefühlte – 10° Celsius geben. Doch breiten wir den Mantel des Schweigens über unser Wehklagen, schließlich nehmen wir etwaige Vorzüge des Sommer ja auch in Kauf. Hoffentlich bald. Die nagelneue FUJI x100s war angekommen und bettelte förmlich darum getestet und verglichen zu werden. Natürlich draußen! In freier Wildbahn! Erwähnten wir die Temperaturen? Nun, es wundert Euch also nicht, dass sich niemand aufdrängte, um uns stundenlang für Vergleichsfotos Modell zu stehen. Niemand, außer dieser einen sexy Backsteinmauer. Für diese eine sexy Backsteinmauer ließen wir sämtliche digitale Kamerasysteme, mit denen wir aktuell fotografieren, antreten. Den ganzen Technik-Schnickschnack ersparen wir Euch und uns an dieser Stelle, da sämtliche Features der neuen x100s zur Genüge im Netz abgefeiert werden.
Es treten also an: Canon 5DMK2 & EF 35mm 2.0 // 21 Megapixel Nikon D800 & AF-G 24 @ DX-Mode (36mm Brennweite am Kleinbild ) // 16 Megapixel Fuji X100s & 23mm 2.0 (34,5mm Brennweite am Kleinbild) // 16 Megapixel Fuji X-E1 & 35mm 1,4 (52,5mm Brennweite am Kleinbild) // 16 Megapixel Leider lässt das für diesen Test passende Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 noch auf sich warten. Ein Blick auf die Fuji Lens-Roadmap verrät aber einen Erscheinungstermin 2013. Im nächsten Post gibt es dann Bilder aus der Werkstatt von Lutz Graichen von Windflüchter Boards. Lutz baut in Rostock „Custom Made Surfboards“, also ganz nach den Wünschen seiner Kunden und Timo war mit der Fuji x100s beim Shapen eines dieser „Bretter nach Maß“ dabei.....
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
I spend the evening, night and next morning with the camera (I was up at 6 to keep trying it!) and tried it in all the sort of situations that I’d normally use my X100. I had already decided I wasn’t going to upgrade (at least not yet) as my X100 is now pretty much just a personal camera and I have other commitments to buying some more professional work kit before I can go and drop £1099 on a new camera just for fun! I was none-the-less excited about the latest Fujifilm camera as I’m a huge fan of their X-Series cameras. I know I might not have had it to test for a long time, but I know how I use my cameras and I know what sort of shots I take and put it through the same sort of routine I would on a daily basis with my X100 and can spot any issues pretty quickly. I first ran around the house chasing my little girl and trying to get photos of her (any camera that can get in-focus shots of her has got to be good!) The X100S was certainly getting a lot more hits than my X100 would normally do. I started to believe the hype surrounding this camera, and some of the things I’ve read online. I was already thinking of how I could explain to my wife that I wanted yet another camera after telling her previously that I didn’t need it! +1 for the X100S! My wife and I were due to go out to a restaurant that evening. The X100S came along (as my X100 would normally). To start with it was performing well, then it got dark. I couldn’t get it to focus on my wife’s face. I gave up and switched to MF, and using the brilliant split-screen focusing I could continue shooting without any more frustration. Wow, that split-screen focus-assist mode is fantastic – whoever thought of putting that on the X100S should get a large pay rise! Twist the focus ring, it zooms in automatically, line up the split rectangles and boom! You’ve got your shot. I do remember saying something about not using MF on my X100 and wondering why anyone would bother, well with the split-screen assist mode I can absolutely see why someone would use it! +1 for the X100S! Sadly though the love affair with this new camera was starting to fade – it was still missing in auto-focus and frustrating me. Again, it was faces that it had a problem with – I don’t know what it is with Fujifilm and faces, all their X-Series cameras seem to suffer from this issue! After we got back, I took a wander around the streets in the dark on my own (I do love night time scenes in a deserted town). This time I took both the X100S and the X100. I carefully set both cameras to identical settings beforehand. I started testing out the high ISO to compare the two cameras. The X100S really does out-perform the X100 here, anything over ISO 1600 and you can really notice the difference, get to ISO 6400 and it’s seriously ahead, another +1 for the X100S. Then things started to go wrong again. I found a bench lit by a streetlight from above. The X100S resolutely refused to focus no matter what I did. I switched to split-screen, but because the bench had only horizontal slats I couldn’t see the splits in the focus panel! Now I understand why they put focus-peeking in as well! I got it focused and took a few shots, then switched to my X100 – bang, AF locked first time!! I repeated this over and over, checked the settings on both cameras – the X100S totally refused to focus where the X100 got it every time. I couldn’t really believe it – after everything I had read about how wonderful the new AF system on the X100S was and that it was slaughtering the poor old X100, but here I was with the X100 locking AF where the X100S just wouldn’t! Several other incidents that night proved to show the same thing. I got up early the next morning and sat the X100S and X100 up side-by-side to do a video comparing the two, running through the differences and the new X100S menu system, followed by some AF tests. Initially the X100S was outperforming the X100, as I fully expected that it would do, then I turned the lights out – the X100 started focus quicker than the X100S. I closed the blinds and they both ended up pretty much identical! There is one case where the X100S is very clearly way ahead of the X100 and that’s close range shooting – you no longer have to switch to macro mode for things that are at close-ish range (30-50cm) to get it to autofocus reliably – and that’s where the X100S was beating my X100 the previous evening shooting my little girl. The X100S is so much faster than the X100 at that, you can hardly tell that they are related. The problem comes when you get into low light, where phase-detection doesn’t work all that well. For some reason it looks like Fujifilm have installed an older AF firmware routine in the X100S than the X100! As I say in the video (below) I think a lot of people, particularly ones that only ever used the X100 at launch don’t realise just how much better the X100 became after Fujifilm started releasing firmware updates for it. If you don’t believe me then have a look in the video below. I’m not trying to put the X100S down, I’m a massive Fujifilm X-Series fan and I’d much rather tell you that it’s better and harp on about how wonderful it is and you should buy it, but I’m not going to lie just because I love Fujifilm! ....
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
This page will get updated as I get to know the camera better. Having used the previous model, the X100, I will primarily focus on the differences between these two models.
I will also link to photos as soon as I have had time to shoot properly. Check back in a while! :)
Auto focus
- Let’s just get that one out of the way. Incredible speed-up compared with the X100. Nothing more to add. It’s fantastic. - There is something called “High Performance” under “Power Management” in the settings, which will increase AF speed further (as well as shorten startup time). I will get back on how this may impact the focus speed. Somehow it doesn’t feel important as the AF speed is already fantastic.
Manual focusing and the MF ring
- The MF ring is quick, responsive and smooth and it just works! It features variable sensitiveness and becomes more sensitive as you go closer (e.g. macro), requiring more turns. - You can set the camera to automatically zoom into the MF assist modes (standard, focus peaking, split image) when you touch the MF ring. Half-pressing the shutter will zoom out. Nice feature! - Quickly switch between AF-S and MF as they are now the outer options of the switch on the side of the camera. Minor design difference which gives major impact on how I will use this camera.
Hybrid viewfinder
- Higher resolution is very noticeable and refreshing. - Less lag, if any.
Menus
- Auto ISO is now available in the same menu as ISO. - ND no longer accessible from Q menu (but can still be assigned to the Fn button, just like on the X100). It should really be added to the new Q menu though (via future firmware update), if possible. - Menus feel much snappier, no lag anywhere. Now you can shoot and use the menus immediately without any lockup of the menus. - The menus are now organized and with tabs on the side and the new Q menu is a quick way to choose - or divert from - the three saved custom settings (C1, C2, C3). - Hold and press Q results in increased brightness of LCD. Great for shooting outdoors in bright light. Nice! - Possible bug: The Q menu’s “Basic” mode does not remember the Auto ISO setting when switching between C1/C2/C3/Basic. Instead it inherits values from custom profiles C1 or C3 (depending on which way you scroll through the three custom profiles). To clarify, “Basic” mode is what your camera is set to when you haven’t loaded a saved custom setting — or what happens when you load a saved custom setting (e.g. C1) and then divert from it by changing a setting on top of it.
Video
- The MF ring works really well while recording video. When turning the MF ring, it’s hard to not shake the camera (just like with any camera) and some sound noise is generated. - Much improved bitrate/quality, video looks great. - MF assist does not work with video, where it is badly needed. Especially focus peaking. I hope Fuji will implement this in a future firmware update. - Macro control can’t be reached in video mode (you have to exit video mode and enable macro, then go back into video mode and it will work). - There sometimes seems to be strobing in video shot the wider you go and in certain lighting conditions. This is probably just the way it works as the camera is setting the shutter automatically (this also means no need for zebra). When I’ve experienced strobing, I can just go less wide and it disappears. It’s a non-issue to me. - Both 30 and 60 fps modes produce a 1920x1080 movie. I’ll check and see if there are different bitrates to them. I’ll also perform a slowdown test from 60fps to 30 fps to see how slow motion would look.
JPEG
- JPEG blacks by default seem to too dark for my taste. I’m experimenting with custom shadow tone values here… - Sometimes noise reduction smearing at default value when pixel peeping at 100% scale. I’m experimenting with custom NR values here…......
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
I've done a comparison on a Fuji X-Pro 1 file using The new Photoshop ACR 7.4 and Raw Photo Processor 64, the excellent Mac platform raw converter. Different software but I processed each with no sharpening added and only added a slight amount in Photoshop later. I used the same values for each file. Click on the link for the full-size high-res file. As many who have tried the new ACR are saying, the files are slightly softer than they were before, but unlike the previous ACR conversion, it is now possible to add sharpening to these X-Trans files without creating unpleasant artefacts. RPP still produces slightly sharper results to my eyes, but there isn't a lot in it. After waiting a long time to see this, I spent yesterday working on some X-Pro 1 files and it was pleasing to see the results. I have been so frustrated by the fact that I knew that there was more in the files, but was unable to get to it. RPP is great and I recommend it, but Photoshop is the cornerstone of my processing workflow and I know it well and how to get what I want from it. So for any camera I use, proper support is essential. It is now finally available. So what went on? Was this a spat between Fuji and Adobe? Did Adobe just take their time to get round to this? We will never know the whole story, but it has been a long wait. As you know I baled out on the X-Pro 1 early when it looked like there wasn't going to be decent ACR support and I've had lots of files sitting on my hard drives that I haven't done much with, since I wasn't keen to upload what I considered to be sub-standard versions to my picture libraries. I can now get some really nice files from my original raws and they do have a different 'look' to conventional bayer sensor files. With the ACR conversions and indeed with the RPP ones as well, there isn't that classic non-AA filter look. But then with the different sensor array I'm not sure that there would be. What is extraordinary is the ability to produce 'clean' files at high(er) ISO's. I believe it would be perfectly feasible to shoot high-quality landscape at ISO 400 and even ISO 800 with an x-trans sensor and I'm seeing a 2-stop improvement in noise levels over virtually everything else I use. This has all sorts of advantages in terms of narrower apertures and higher shutter speeds when shooting in good light, which for what I do is a good thing. I've been very critical of this whole raw conversion saga and indeed seem to have developed somewhat of a reputation as a 'Fuji basher', but my only concern was to see a realisation of the FULL potential of these files. We do now have that and I'm glad to become a Fuji X-Trans enthusiast at long last. But lets be honest, its been a long and unnecessary wait and thats not really good enough. For those who had the patience to stick with it, welcome to your new camera!
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
English Photographer Ben Evans compares the Fuji XE1 and XPro1 cameras in Barcelona. Hand-on photography with several photographs made with the cameras during the review.
The balance is that the Fuji XE1, while lacking the hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder makes up for this with a cheaper price, upgraded EVF (electronic viewfinder), built-in flash and slightly smaller size. It was therefore the 'winner' in this little hands-on camera test.
Many thanks to Hiromi from www.HiromiTorres.com for shooting this video! If you'd like to get in touch and contribute to a microphone for her so that future tutorials and reviews sound better, she'd really appreciate it!....
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
Better late then never. I finally had the chance to play with the Sony Nex 6 and the new collapsible 16-50mm kit lens. First thing I noticed was the size of the lens, retracted, it is about the same size as the Fujinon 18mm f2 and looked proportionally “correct” on the Nex body. There was no time for an in depth comparison between the Fuji X-E1 since I only had the camera for half a day. Instead, I will try to summarize my impressions of both cameras..... As a purist with no interest in video, the choice is easy. Fuji X-E1. Anyone serious about video, the Nex 6 is a no brainer. I hope this helps some of you to make a decision. PS: I was also interested to find out how the 16-50mm collapsible lens performs, esp when compared to Sony’s monster flagship 18-200mm and managed to shot a quick test. Should have it up in a couple of days.
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
This is the 5th (and last) part of my comparison of the "trinity": the Fujifilm X100, X-Pro1 and X-E1. In the past posts I have covered some of the aspects that were most important tome. In this last post I will cover some remaining differences and will also let you in on my decision.
I am keeping the Fujifilm X100 First, I want to get this out of the way: although from the same "X-family", I feel the X100 is quite a different camera than the X-Pro1 or the X-E1. It has a fixed lens and with that fixed lens it is compact enough to fit into the pocket of my jacket. So I can always carry the X100 with me - whether I go skiing with my kids or for a drink with a couple of friends (the two photos in this page were taken in such situations). Although 23mm (35mm-equivalent) is not my favorite focal length, it's very versatile - and it has all the physical controls and a great viewfinder....
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
The EVFs on the X-Pro1 and the X100 seem to be the same. At least I cannot see a difference. The X100 is slightly easier to look into, but the difference is very small. Both viewfinders are quite nice featuring a 1,440,000-dots color LCD panel. The X-E1's EVF has a 2,360,000-dot OLED. So there are quite a few more dots. The difference in dots seems very large, but in the real world, I don't find the difference to be huge. The X-E1 does have an edge here, but it's not that much in my view. The X-E1 is said to have the same EVF as the Sony Nex-7/-6. I used to own a Sony Nex-7, so I can compare a little. On the Nex-7, the EVF had a faster refresh rate (much better than on the X-E1), but on the other hand, the image becomes quite noisy in low light. The X-E1 seems much better here. I'd really love to have the refresh rate of the Nex-7 combined with the low noise of the X-E1......
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
.... I looked for chromatic aberration at 18mm, and found it. It's about the same as the CA on the prime 18mm lens - so that's no big deal, easily corrected in Lightroom. I turned off the image stabilization on the zoom (more about the IS later) and took a few test shots at 18mm and 35mm so that I could compare the sharpness to the two prime lenses. At 18mm it's pretty much the same. At 35mm the prime has a thick hair's advantage. I didn't have any complaints about the focus speed of the prime lenses right out of the box, clearly this wasn't a clunky DSLR with huge, heavy lenses so I had realistic expectations. After the firmware updates the speed of focus was a non-issue for me. At 18mm and 35mm the auto focus speed of the zoom lens is the same as the primes. The response is a little slower at 55mm, but I don't have the 60mm prime to compare. I had only one lens for my Nikon D700 with image stabilization, a 70-300 f3.5-5.6 zoom. I rarely used the lens, so I have nothing to which I can compare the Fuji's IS. I am, however, totally impressed with the increase in flexibility that the IS allows. I have been able to hand hold the camera and shoot comfortably at shutter speeds down to 1/30th second. I pushed some shots one stop slower - to 1/15th sec. - and the results are quite satisfactory considering that the slower shutter speed buys some ISO speed and lower noise in the image. The first of these shots was taken at 1/60th second, f4, ISO 5000, these are jpegs, generated from raw data by Lightroom, without any processing.....
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
The X-E1 is touted as an affordable alternative to the X-Pro1, but is it good enough to replace it? See how it performs. The good: Superb image quality and low-light performance; faster AF performance than X-Pro1; good ergonomics; versatile pop-up flash. The bad: Lack of a dedicated movie button; AF accuracy needs to be improved; pricier than competing models. Following the success of the X-Pro1, Fujifilm has launched yet another mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (ILC), the Fujifilm X-E1. Slated as a more affordable model, this 16.3-megapixel, APS-C ILC now comes in a more compact form factor and sees the inclusion of a pop-up flash and an electronic viewfinder (instead of the hybrid viewfinder in the X-Pro1). Other improvements include a diopter adjustment control for bespectacled shutterbugs, as well as an improved autofocus (AF) algorithm that promises faster AF speeds. Capable of capturing 6 frames-per-second (fps) in burst mode shooting, the X-E1 also records 1080p full-HD videos at 24 fps. The Fujifilm X-E1 with XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS zoom lens now retails at S$2,099 in Singapore stores. Conclusion The Fujifilm X-E1 is a very capable performer and seems like a downsized version of the X-Pro1. It features the same image quality and handling as the X-Pro1 but at a lower price point. It also has other useful improvements such as faster autofocus and superb high-ISO noise performance that most enthusiasts would appreciate. Overall, we think that the X-E1 will appeal to those who've been holding out on the company's flagship mirrorless OIC due to its high price, as we as to serious enthusiasts who appreciate the mix of retro styling and manual controls. CNET Editors' rating: 4 / 5 stars Performance: 8 Image Quality: 9 Design: 8 Features: 7
|
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
The other day while going through my blog reading, I happen to come to Lloyd Chambers web site http://diglloyd.com. Which I must say is a very good review site, albeit a paid subscription is required. Mr. Chambers had a done a recent review of the new Fuji X100S. It appears Mr. Chambers is not a fan of the Fuji X-Trans sensor, which appears in the new X100S, X-Pro1 and XE-1. There are plenty of examples in his review showing “artifacts” or smearing of fine detail. The examples include a piece of worn fabric, a paper label form a bottle and a leafy scene all presented at “actual pixel size”, which I take to mean at 100%. These appear on the "free"part of his site, dated 23 April. Later on I visited Ken Rockwell’s site http://www.kenrockwell.com where I noticed he had also done a recent review of theFuji X100S. In the review there were also examples, which looked entirely different then from diglloyd’s. Even though there were some similar examples (e.g. a rope net and a brocade like fabric, both which can be viewed at 100%) there isn't any of the smearing of fine detail that diglloyd's has shown. Now let me make this clear, I am an owner of the Fuji X-Pro 1 and I do love my camera. It may not have the professional build quality of a Leica. Nor is it the end all camera. But it is a joy to use and produces some pretty good files. The X-Pro 1 has been in my possession for over a year now. So it is safe to say I do know a little about the camera. As of yet I have not experienced the same effects from “artifacts” or smearing of fine detail that Mr. Chambers has shown. Really! To try and at least bring to rest in my mind I decided to do a little test. In thinking about this test, I chose four pieces of material, that I thought would present some difficulty to the sensor's ability to avoid smearing and or moire effect. In addition I chose red material as I thought this would also test the sensor. Shot in RAW and Fine jpeg. For the test I used four different RAW converters; Adobe Camera RAW 7.4, SilkyPix which came with the Camera, Raw Photo Processor 64 and Apple’s newest update to Aperture. Along with a SOOC jpeg.
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
Adobe made a little noise with the release of Lightroom 4.4 and its working closely with Fufifilm to provide top notch decoding of .RAF files from Fujifilm X-Pro1, X-E1, X100S, and X-20 cameras. This lead to some speculation that Apple would be left out in the cold with Raw decoding for X-Trans sensors.
Well, apparently not. Apple today released Raw Compatibility Update v4.05 with support for these very same cameras. So how do these two applications stack up for Fujifilm camera owners?
No image editing was enabled in either application. Files were saved out at the highest export settings. So what you see here is essentially how each application decoded the .RAF files from a Fujifilm X-20 camera. (Imagine how the Raw files from the X100S look!). In my opinion, both applications do an excellent job of handling .RAF files. And the fact that both Apple and Adobe had the RAW updates so quickly after the release of the new X-Trans cameras (X-20 & X100S), says that both are taking these cameras seriously. Well done....
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
My opinion is, that the xPro1 is doing a very good job but the M is a bit better.
The question now is, would I go back to Leica?
Well, a though question - I still love the Leica feeling, the way to take pictures and the Leica look of the M - but after shooting for one hour with the rangefinder, my eye problem were back. But, even if I wouldn't have the issues with my eye, I am not sure if I would purchase the new M. With a 35 mm lens the M costs around 8000€ - 9000€. That is a lot of money!
There was a customer at the Leica store who was asking me if the new M is worth it?
If you have the money and you love shooting with Leica YES! Instead purchasing the new M getting a used M9 or M-E - NO! The M9 is not as good as the xPro1! You get the much better package & deal with the Fujis! I will stick with Fuji! They make a brilliant job! Using the xpro1, x100 etc. is fun, it is light, fantastic lenses and the IQ is awesome and I don't have any eye problems! ...so, what about the RAW workflow?
Last week I decided to give another try - to work just with the jpegs and change a bit my settings. But it seems that the RAW file issue is now solved! Today Adobe released the new version of Lightroom. It includes now a correction to the demosaic algorithms for Fujifilm cameras with the X-Trans sensor. YEAH - problem solved! I just downloaded the new version and I am thrilled! The files look awesome... I can get now the look I want and cant wait to start my editing process. My pictures are getting back their soul and that feels damn good! So, back to old habits? No - I am looking forward to I stick with Fuji - for two reasons: First of all they make fantastic cameras and lenses and secondly they hear what customers say! They improved the X100 after getting feedback from Pro photographers and customers and worked together with Adobe to solve the RAW Processing problem. I just purchased the new x100S and I'm very curious to find out about the faster AF and improvements! Is Fuji the new Leica? In my opinion, NO - Leica will always be Leica. These are 2 different camera systems and brands... Owning a Leica is much more than owning a camera or a tool to take pictures with. You'll get a hand crafted camera with soul. It is a lifestyle and everyone who ever owned a Leica knows what I try to say.
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
Da ich meine Fuji X-Pro1 verkauft habe und sie nun doch etwas vermisse, habe ich mir eine Fuji X100s bestellt. Zum einen da sie für Hochzeiten einfach perfekt ist – klein, unauffällig, stylisch, flüsterleise…unglaublich leise !! – zum anderen um zu sehen ob all die kleinen Probleme nun der Vergangenheit angehören. Nur soviel Vorweg, alles arbeitet perfekt. Der Autofokus ist schnell, sicher, sozusagen “spielende Kinder tauglich” und man hat nicht mehr das Gefühl das die CPU in der Kamera hoffnungslos überfordert ist. Zusätzlich ist da noch die unglaubliche Blitzsynchronisation von 1/4000sec (Zentralverschluss macht’s möglich). In den nächsten Tagen lassen wir die Kleine mal gegen verschiede Kameras antreten, darunter eine Canon 5DMK2, Nikon D800 & Fuji X-E1.....
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
It's been a while since I posted something on my blog. I needed a little break from photography and time to reflect last year! I have been on the road for more than 6 months lately. It was an exciting and fantastic year! I got a contract with a press agency, shot at the Olympics in London, the US-elections and switched my gear from Leica M to Fuji X-100 & Fuji X-Pro1. The x-Pro 1 is not a Leica - honestly I miss my Leica from time to time - but the xPro is a trusty partner in nearly all situations. But there is one thing that I don't like with the x-Pro - working with the RAW files! I used to work with Aperture. But till now they don't support the RAW files of the x-series of Fuji. I hope that this will change with the upcoming Aperture X ! There are so many rumors with Apple releasing the new Aperture X - but I finally came to the point that I am not willing to wait anymore! With the x-series, I switched from Aperture to Lightroom. I have never been a huge fan of Lightroom - I never liked the interface - but with every software there are pro's and con's. So I tried to make the best of the situation to get along. I have to admit - I have never spend so much time editing my files! Till now, after hours of editing I still don't get the look I want with Lightroom. It really sucks, cause usually I uploaded my Leica DNG files, edited a bit the curves and that was it. You can imagine that I was very excited when Capture Oneannounced the support of the x-files! I downloaded the trial version and I tested C1 for a few weeks. All I have to say - it is such a relief! The RAF files are looking great! The colors, the details & skin tones of the pictures look amazing! Here is a comparison of 2 random shots from Venice Beach last year. RAF files straight out of the camera - not editing at all. The jpegs look great in Capture One, but I have to admit, that I do like the Aperture file a bit more. So finally after months and weeks I came to the decision that I will work with Capture one & Aperture! Capture One - because of the fantastic RAW Converter & Aperture for the interface, the file managing and the plug-In's (VSCO, Nik Software) I use. I know that Capture One is not cheap at all and again I have to get used to another software - but at the end of the day I want to achieve the best result for a picture within a minimum of time. I know it will take a bit of time to get used to Capture One - but there are fantastic Online Tutorials on youTube and everything looks pretty easy so far. I also like that u can switch the interface & tools the way you prefer it. For me - my Odyssee has ended and I feel pretty good with my decision. I hope I could help some of you who are in a similar position but at the end of the day it is a personal question of the preferred look and feel! ....
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
The X100, X-Pro1 and X-E1 are famous for their low-light, high-ISO capabilities, but sometimes a touch of flash can make an image pop where is could be flat otherwise. This is especially true in bright sunlight where harsh shadows and bright backgrounds can often lead to subjects not being properly exposed, or having harsh and ugly shadows across their faces. A fill-in flash can make all the difference. If used properly, flash can enhance a scene and allow you to use a lower ISO to get better image quality without the caught-in-the-headlights look so often associated with it. That’s another topic though, but I came to the realisation that with the correct use of flash I could enhance my images, so I started looking for the best way to add an external flash to my X-Series cameras. The X-Pro1 doesn’t have an on-board flash, so I initially bought the Fujifilm EF-20 flash as it was half the price of the X-Series EF-X20 version of what was seemingly basically the same flash in a different body! I didn’t see the point of buying the “X” version. I was happy enough with the EF-20, it worked well and was nice and compact for the X100 and X-Pro1, although it does hang a little far forwards....
Summary of the differences between the EF-20 and the EF-X20: - Both flashes work in TTL with the X-Pro1, X-E1, X100, X100s, X20, X10 and X-S1 cameras and I believe they work with some of the Fujifilm bridge cameras as well. - Both flashes have a Guide Number of 20, which is significantly more than the on-board flashes, though that reduces to 12 with the wide-angle option on the EF-X20. - The EF-20 can tilt 90 degrees up to allow you to bounce flash whereas the EF-X20 is fixed facing forwards. - The EF-X20 can operate as a slave, which means it can be used off camera wirelessly. - The EF-X20 has +/-EV controls as a simple dial and full manual control down to 1/64th. The EF-20 is purely TTL. - The EF-20 uses 2xAA batteries where the EF-X20 uses 2xAAA batteries. - The EF-20 retails for around £80 where the EF-X20 retails around £170. ....
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
Fuji has announced the successor to their hugely popular X100, the imaginatively named X100S, but what does the “S” stand for? Superior? Sexier? Successor? Or, just a rip off of Apple’s unimaginative upgrade path? Well, the new X100 S may have a poorly thought out name change, but is the new camera better than Fuji’s naming strategy? The original X100 was a hugely successful camera for Fuji. The retro styling and fixed lens combination took off in a way that few saw coming. The camera offered great styling and imaging quality to match. It was reminiscent of rangefinder cameras of the past and offered a camera that made people fascinated by it when they saw it. Beyond being camera bling it was effective as a serious photographic tool that could be used to great effect in several different situations. The X100 was, simply put, a “cool” camera. Let us not forget that it had more than its fair share of bugs that could be more than a little frustrating. The well documented issues with the camera were not enough to deter people. Many of the initial problems with the X100 were fixed by firmware updates, but issues still remained. Fuji has strived to address this with the new X100S. So what are the improvements being touted by the X100S and what do they offer you?.....
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
I have been using the Capture One beta version 7.0.2 for a bit and wanted to share an example of the difference in processing RAW files from the X-Pro1 between Adobe Lightroom and Capture One’s beta. Yes, yes, I know the Capture One is beta. I’m not going to speak to the details of its stability, any errors, etc. Anything like that I would report to Phase One. Since I mainly shoot landcapes, I’d like to illustrate the difference between the two RAW processing engines using an image with a bunch of foliage. The image I’m showing is one I shot at North Fork near Ogden, Utah during autumn. There was great light but I wasn’t too happy with the lack of foreground interest when I took the photo. Since there is mainly foliage and grass in the shot, it’ll serve to illustrate the stark difference between Lightroom and Capture One. The image was shot using the 35 mm prime lens, ISO 200, 1/15 second, f/16, with a polarizing filter. In both Capture One and Lightroom, my standard sharpening was used. I cannot push the Lightroom sharpening much at all or details get even more mushy where it seems I can push Capture One as far as I’d like. Amazing. First comparison is a 100% crop of the trees, first from Adobe Lightroom 4.3 and the second from Capture One 7.0.2 ....
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
A few observations that I made during the test: - While focusing I noticed that the Canon lens tended to show more color fringing from green to red while I was fine tuning the manual focus. - The Canon was also more difficult to fine tune since the manual focus reacted rather fast and direct to small movements. - The Fujinon on the other hand actually benefited from the fine graduation of the “focus by wire” setting in this situation at close focusing distances. This was the first time that I actually saw the benefit of this technology. - The Fuji seemed to have a larger sweet spot of the sharp focus area depth compared to the Canon – even though both were set to f/1.4 I was surprised that the Fuji lens did this good in direct comparison to my favorite Canon lens! But there is one factor in favor of the Fuji lens that also needs to be mentioned: The X-Pro 1 recognizes the Fuji lens and applies some lens correction inside the JPG engine. The Canon lens does not get this special treatment and shows an uncorrected result from the lens. I could have partially avoided this by shooting in RAW but then the RAW converter of i.e. Adobe Camera RAW could have recognized the Fuji lens as well and add some auto correction. But in the end I wanted to see how the Canon lens compared when I use it on the X-Pro 1 in my normal use and this is what I got. The X-Pro 1 will not internally compensate for the Canon lens no matter what I do. But if you happen to own some Leica M lenses and purchased the Fuji X-Mount to Leica M-adapter, then the Fuji will internally apply corrections to some of the Leica M lenses (i.e. the SUMMICRON-M 35mmF2 ASPH) My resume: The Canon EF 35mm f1.4 is a fantastic lens on my Canon FF DSLR camera. It has a fast Ultrasonic AF motor and the weight and size match the bigger camera body well. The Fujinon XF 35mm f1.4 R is a fantastic AF lens for the Fuji X-Pro 1 / X-E1 cameras. This comparison has solved the question for me if I could improve the image quality by using the Canon EF 35mm f1.4 instead of the XF 35mm f1.4 for special occasions. The answer for me is “No!” and I can now comfortably leave the bigger Canon 35mm lens attached to my Canon camera.“Bigger is not always better” :)
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
In this 4th part of my comparison, the Fujifilm X-E1 will not really take part, because I will cover the optical viewfinders (OVFs) - and the X-E1 simply doesn't have one. The OVF on the X100 was one of the reasons I fell in love with that camera. So expected the same to happen on the X-Pro1. However, I was quite surprised to find that the X100's viewfinder is actually quite a bit more comfortable to look through than the X-Pro1's. I do not see a huge difference in the technical specifications, but from practical use, I find a noticeable difference. Of course the X100's viewfinder is optimized only for one focal length, while the X-Pro1's OVF has even an additional lens built in to cover both wideangle lenses and normal/tele lenses. So it's even more complex than the OVF in the X100. The difficulty with all rangefinder-type viewfinders is that you don't exactly see what you get, since the OVF is on a different optical axis than the lens (parallax). The closer the subject is, the more pronounced the effect is. A longer focal length also makes it more difficult. I have illustrated this with some pictures taken through the viewfinder of the X-Pro1. I apologize for the bad quality, but I only had an iPhone 4 at hand. Nevertheless, I hope this helps to illustrate my comments.
|
Scooped by
Thomas Menk
|
This evening I installed Phase One Capture One 7.0.2 beta and ran some test with Fuji X-Trans RAW files in comparison with Adobe's Lightroom 4.2. The test was simple, I grabbed an existing RAF file, imported and exported it in LR4.2 and CO7.0.2b. Then I took the same file and added some extra sharpening and exported it again. No other edits were done.One thing I have noticed with X-Trans RAW files in LR is you can't sharpen them much before the image becomes swirled and painting-like. This didn't happen with CO7b. Here are some after I did what I would consider normal sharpening for this shot. I've not used Capture One software before but it is all self explanatory. It opened, zoomed and edited Fuji RAW files much faster than LR4.2. I would say CO and LR are both about the same for ease of use, not something I would say for Silkypix.
|
Suggested by
Mehrdad Abedi
|
Ich gebe zu die Fuji x-pro ist für mich vor allem auch eine Kamera mit der ich vornehmlich available-light-Fotografie betreibe. Die sehr guten Ergebnisse, auch bei ISO 6400, machen den Blitzeinsatz meist unnötig. Dennoch, ich bin ein Freund von Blitzlicht, demnach war es nur eine Frage der Zeit bis ich mich mit der Blitzlichtfotografie und der x-pro 1 auseinandersetze. Der erste Punkt der mir etwas Kopfzerbrechen machte war: Welchen Blitz soll ich nehmen? Natürlich wollte ich ungern auf TTL verzichten, wodurch meine Auswahl sich zunächst auf die Fujiblitze beschränkte. Fuji bietet derzeit drei Blitzgeräte an. Den ef-42, den ef-20 und den Formschönen und kleinen ef-x20. Der ef-42 kam für mich wegen der Grösse nicht in Frage. Wie ich schon mehrfach erwähnte liebe ich kleines und leichtes Equipment. Idealerweise habe ich mein nötiges Equipment in meiner kleinen ThinkTank retrospective 10 Fototasche. Der ef-20 und der ef-x20 sind von der Leitzahl im gleich, unterscheiden sich aber in ein paar Features. Der ef-20 ist um einiges grösser als der ef-x20, hat aber den Vorteil das er zumindest das Bouncen beherrscht (wenn auch nur an die Decke z.B.). Er hat leider kein Drehgelenk. Auf der x-pro wirkt er optisch irgendwie deplatziert. Aber das ist für mich kein Hauptkaufkriterium. Er besteht aus Plastik und fühlt sich von der Wertigkeit (ein ganz subjektives Kriterium übrigens) okay an. An der x-pro, x-e1 und/oder der x100 unterstützt er genauso TTL wie die anderen zwei Fuji-Blitze. Gut ist das der ef-20 2 AA’s als Energiequelle benötigt. Google Translater (ENG) http://bit.ly/QXlnRB
|