Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Their X-A7 (and X-A3 & X-A5 cameras before it) are just Bayer sensor cameras but they are cheap entry-level models because the X-Trans sensor produces better image quality.

 

I was thinking along the lines of modified X-T4. Looked at your suggested X-A7. No thank you there is no ELF.

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

Looked at your suggested X-A7. No thank you there is no ELF.

No, entry level only. If Fuji were to market a Bayer version of the X-T4 it would be like admitting that there was some kind of problem with the X-Trans sensor. I know you've had a bad experience but they've built a successful global brand around it. I think that problems like you experienced are a thing of the past anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those wishing Fuji had Bayer sensors:

 

https://www.fujifilm.com/news/n180925_03.html

https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/cameras/gfx-50r/

 

 

I seriously doubt there's any feasible means to switch out a X-Trans sensor for a Bayer in a camera body - there's more to it than just a different physical sensor.  It isn't plug-n-plug.

 

Edited by Phil
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Phil said:

For those wishing Fuji had Bayer sensors:

 

https://www.fujifilm.com/news/n180925_03.html

https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/cameras/gfx-50r/

 

 

I seriously doubt there's any feasible means to switch out a X-Trans sensor for a Bayer in a camera body - there's more to it than just a different physical sensor.  It isn't plug-n-plug.

 

 

Yes the internal computer would need reworking too.

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Before anyone gets too alarmed about this painterly worm thing with Lightroom and X-Trans files I've been using an X-Pro1 & X-E1 (same sensor as X-T1) and I really struggle to see it. I was aware of the problem before I got them so was looking out for it and when I was feeling analytical I took my Canon 7D (also APS-C though slightly more pixels) out to take the same shots with the same lens (Micro-Nikkor 55mm). I still struggled to see it and these were landscapes with distant woods, the sort of amorphous foliage that one would expect to show it up. Not saying it doesn't happen but surprised that it is evident enough to fail Alamy QC. I'm using Lightroom 6.14 so don't have the benefits of 'Enhance Detail.  What am I doing wrong?

 

For those that do see it, if you shoot RAW plus jpeg do the Fuji in-camera jpegs also show it?

 

I did notice a lack of sharpness rather than the dreaded worm everyone mentions, I did comparison tests using other available Raw converters ( i've shot raw since it was an option ) and there was definitely an improvement outside of LR, but then i read an article on some random site about the Abode LR settings, and low and behold you could achieve the same quality within LR so no major expensive software change or new unwanted learning curve. That was with Standalone LR, since being forced into their subscription package just to keep up to date and with the Jones's, there hasn't been any issues with the files in the slightest, far from it.

Edited by Jay D
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jay D said:

there hasn't been any issues with the files in the slightest, far from it.

Thanks, that's good to know. These worms seem to be elusive, is your sharpness fix possible with just a custom setup or do you have to apply it individually tailored to each image?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks, that's good to know. These worms seem to be elusive, is your sharpness fix possible with just a custom setup or do you have to apply it individually tailored to each image?

Yeh it was literally tweak the settings ( not sure what they were off-hand ) which in turn prevented the issue from reappearing. Are you using a standalone version of LR? Since using the dreaded Adobe subscription ( not a fan ) the issue is no more. Obviously i can't compared files to those of Sony or other manufactures for sharpness etc. But i'm happy. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

 

For those that do see it, if you shoot RAW plus jpeg do the Fuji in-camera jpegs also show it?

 

 

Just saw the query.  No the worms did not appear in jpeg, Fuji is set for their files, just in LR, and mainly in some leafy tree images for me- and made worse when LR changed their defaults sharpening value.

 

  Now on C1, so not an issue anymore.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jay D said:

Are you using a standalone version of LR?

Thanks, yes just standalone for me but I'm happy with the X-T2 which I only bought last week, seems very good, but then I'm happy with its older cousins as well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

No the worms did not appear in jpeg, Fuji is set for their files, just in LR, and mainly in some leafy tree images for me

Thank you, it does seem to be in leafy tree images when I've seen it online. For a while I shot RAW + jpeg just to see if I could spot the difference so it's good to know that there will be a difference and that the Fuji processed jpegs don't suffer the same problems, I imagined they shouldn't. I'd have another go with the Canon v Fuji test but I'd probably best not do so at the moment, it probably breaches lockdown regulations!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moved from Sony A77 to A7rRII and will add the A1 when it comes down in price in a year or so.   Can't imagine I would ever want anything heavier, unless there was an overwhelming technical reason.   Will add an APSC Sony at some point for even less weight.  Can't see any manufacturer making DSLRs in about 5 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2021 at 07:30, Harry Harrison said:

Fair to say that the X-Pros 1,2 &  3 are quite unique with their optical viewfinders. I use the X-Pro1 with back-button focus and it's excellent, I'd rather have that than a Leica frankly, even if I could afford one, and who wants to walk around with £10,000 round their neck anyway.

Harry,

 

I gave up my addiction (Leica) more than a decade ago, but the new bodies really look nice.  Now I just need to win the lotto to go M.

 

I would never go without an optical viewfinder. NEVER, I still miss the viewfinder on an M2.  FUJI lost me years ago, Loved the S2, best DSLR

in it's day for the money.

 

Chuck

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

 

I would never go without an optical viewfinder.

Chuck, I've certainly never been a photojournalist but I have always enjoyed taking candid pictures of what is going on around me. We both hold the Leica M2 in high regard and I'm lucky to still have mine. In fact the shooting experience through the optical viewfinder of the Fuji X100 or the later X-Pro series is very similar. No rangefinder of course but I would usually guesstimate the distance anyway with the Leica, zone-focussing if you like, and check with the rangefinder afterwards. With the Fujis I switch off AF and use back-button focussing to do the same thing, often focusing on something/somebody the same distance away rather than the subject itself. If I want to, then in an instant the optical viewfinder is replaced by an electronic one using a small lever on the front. Very, very clever. I bought the first version X100 as soon as it came out in 2012 and it's battered and bruised but still working perfectly, of course the later S, T, F & V versions all offer improved features as the model was refined. The X100 has a fixed 23mm f2 lens to give a '35' view, the combination that I used most often on the Leica, however I missed the '50' view so use an X-Pro 1 with a 35mm lens (52.5mm equiv.) when I want to, not that I've had very much cause to use it over the last year or so, at least for the type of pictures that I like to take.

 

So, yes, I like Fujis and now that electronic viewfinders have got much better (the one on the original X100 is not good except for checking focus) then I'm happy to use those as well, hence the X-T2.

 

There is a UK photographer called Nick Turpin, very good, he used to be a photojournalist on the UK newspaper The Independent but really helped to launch 'Street Photography' with his In-Public website. He always used Leica but then switched to Fuji X100f, he explains why in a video here. This isn't the usual 'ambassador' fluff, just genuine practical reasons why he likes the camera. In the first couple of minutes of this video he explains why:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWARQGvI88M&t=266s

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Chuck, I've certainly never been a photojournalist but I have always enjoyed taking candid pictures of what is going on around me. We both hold the Leica M2 in high regard and I'm lucky to still have mine. In fact the shooting experience through the optical viewfinder of the Fuji X100 or the later X-Pro series is very similar. No rangefinder of course but I would usually guesstimate the distance anyway with the Leica, zone-focussing if you like, and check with the rangefinder afterwards. With the Fujis I switch off AF and use back-button focussing to do the same thing, often focusing on something/somebody the same distance away rather than the subject itself. If I want to, then in an instant the optical viewfinder is replaced by an electronic one using a small lever on the front. Very, very clever. I bought the first version X100 as soon as it came out in 2012 and it's battered and bruised but still working perfectly, of course the later S, T, F & V versions all offer improved features as the model was refined. The X100 has a fixed 23mm f2 lens to give a '35' view, the combination that I used most often on the Leica, however I missed the '50' view so use an X-Pro 1 with a 35mm lens (52.5mm equiv.) when I want to, not that I've had very much cause to use it over the last year or so, at least for the type of pictures that I like to take.

 

So, yes, I like Fujis and now that electronic viewfinders have got much better (the one on the original X100 is not good except for checking focus) then I'm happy to use those as well, hence the X-T2.

 

There is a UK photographer called Nick Turpin, very good, he used to be a photojournalist on the UK newspaper The Independent but really helped to launch 'Street Photography' with his In-Public website. He always used Leica but then switched to Fuji X100f, he explains why in a video here. This isn't the usual 'ambassador' fluff, just genuine practical reasons why he likes the camera. In the first couple of minutes of this video he explains why:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWARQGvI88M&t=266s

 

 

 

 

 

I have been using EVFs for a couple of years now and despite my systems being a few years old I still find them very very good. I suspect some people that are skeptical about them still envision it like '90s camcorders where you were looking essentially at a tiny CRT screen with a lot of lag and poor dynamic range. I have personally got used to a lot of the features offered by EVFs such as the ability to display a live histogram and even live exposure. To go back to a DSLR now and have to rely purely on the light meter and memory of settings I would normally use in such events would feel antiquated. Fortunately the zero-sum thinking that one is good therefore the other is bad doesn't apply in the real world and we can all use what we prefer, though it remains to be seen if traditional DSLRs do stick around.

Edited by Cal
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cal said:

we can all use what we prefer, though it remains to be seen if traditional DSLRs do stick around.

If I do use my Canon DSLR now then it takes me a while to understand why I can't review the pictures in the viewfinder, or zoom in to check focus, it feels quite primitive in a way. I need glasses for close-up so reviewing on the back screen is no good for me. I'm fine with EVF for most things, my X-E1 is my everyday camera though the X-T2 will probably take over. For situations where expressions on peoples' faces are important to me, or just arrangements of moving elements within a scene then I still prefer the optical viewfinder of the X100 or X-Pro1.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the total demise of the DSLR is still some way off, as I suspect that Nikon will keep on producing several and then a few different models for the foreseeable future, given the company’s history of supporting its older technologies. They have only very recently stopped making their last SLR. However, no doubt there will be a narrower range to choose from.
 

Optical viewfinders still give a purer, non-interpreted view of a scene if that is ever of any importance. Matching an image on a computer screen to an actual scene is an example. Who would want to do such a thing you might ask? Well I discovered such a usage when trying to match original slides to copies on my monitor. I found an easy way was to view the slide through the ES-1 copier using the same light used for copying while beside the computer screen. I could then adjust the image on the computer screen to get an approximate match. This only works with an optical viewfinder. 
 

There are definite advantages to an EVF, not least being able to judge exposure without taking the camera away from the eye. However, having used DSLRs for so long, I am more than sufficiently confident with my metering ability that it is not an issue as long as I remember I am using an optical viewfinder rather than EVF and that the scene is no longer wysiwyg.
 

One great advantage of EVF is when shooting sunsets or sunrises. You can look at the scene through the viewfinder without risking blindness. 😎

Edited by MDM
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hesitant about switching from an optical viewfinder. However, I find the the current EVF's superior in all the ways mentioned above.

 

Interestingly enough, our eyes seem to be a combination of both these types of viewfinders. The optical image cast on the retina is broken down into electrical signals (nerve impulses), which are then somehow reassembled by the brain. In a way, the world that we see is created inside our heads. Hmmm...

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I was hesitant about switching from an optical viewfinder. However, I find the the current EVF's superior in all the ways mentioned above.

 

Interestingly enough, our eyes seem to be a combination of both these types of viewfinders. The optical image cast on the retina is broken down into electrical signals (nerve impulses), which are then somehow reassembled by the brain. In a way, the world that we see is created inside our heads. Hmmm...

 

I used to wonder if we all saw different colours (colors).  What I see as blue someone else might see it as green or red but still call it blue as that what they were told that colour was when they were youngsters.

 

Bit simplified explanation but give you the gist.

 

Allan

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

I used to wonder if we all saw different colours (colors).  What I see as blue someone else might see it as green or red but still call it blue as that what they were told that colour was when they were youngsters.

 

Bit simplified explanation but give you the gist.

I've read some interesting articles before about perceptions of colour in different cultures. Not all cultures have colour words, or the same ones as in English. Some might not have a word for blue, for example. In one case I read about the Warlpiri people here in Australia having a word that translates as what a tree branch looks like after it has rained rather than a specific abstract colour word for that. There is a rich language to describe how things look without reference to colour, if that makes sense. It's like what we perceive is enculturated, so what one person sees and what language they use can be different from someone else. Perception is a very interesting thing and it definitely varies between people.

 

It's interesting to think about EVFs as a reassembly similar to the way our brains reassemble the electrical signals they receive. It's like we have our own internal EVF but one that is shaped by culture and what we learn growing up 🤔  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

The optical image cast on the retina is broken down into electrical signals (nerve impulses), which are then somehow reassembled by the brain

I grew up thinking that there was an experiment, or maybe a real life event, which meant that someone was kept in the dark for months and when they came out everything was upside down. Now I have a feeling that might have been nonsense. I've read that there is no 'upside down' as far as the retina goes, even though the image is upside down on the back of the eye, instead it's just a processor as you suggest.

 

I think I did read that someone, as an experiment, lead their daily lives wearing goggles that turned everything upside down and they were able to adapt to an extent, certainly as far as riding a bicycle, scary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion on viewfinders.

 

One of the "Old" arguments for the Leica Optical Viewfinder vs. Single Lens Reflex (SLR) was that the photographer

could see the image that they photographed.  The old saying "If you saw it, you did not shoot it" applied to SLR's.

 

I have not spent much time playing with Electronic Viewfinders (EVF), but I've worked with both the Viewfinder and

SLR's for many years.  I go back to the days of shooting Polaroids in the studio, before shooting film.  Over the years

I would say that my favorite tool (camera) for doing candid work was the Leica M system, but I would rather put a

AMG engine in my Benz than try to get back into the M system in 2020's

 

In the end it is about the image, not what it was made with.

 

Chuck

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sally R said:

I've read some interesting articles before about perceptions of colour in different cultures. Not all cultures have colour words, or the same ones as in English. Some might not have a word for blue, for example. In one case I read about the Warlpiri people here in Australia having a word that translates as what a tree branch looks like after it has rained rather than a specific abstract colour word for that. There is a rich language to describe how things look without reference to colour, if that makes sense. It's like what we perceive is enculturated, so what one person sees and what language they use can be different from someone else. Perception is a very interesting thing and it definitely varies between people.

 

It's interesting to think about EVFs as a reassembly similar to the way our brains reassemble the electrical signals they receive. It's like we have our own internal EVF but one that is shaped by culture and what we learn growing up 🤔  

 

 Our built-in human "EVF's" also suggest that the world is as much "in here" as it is "out there." -- i.e. when we name objects, colours, etc., we are in effect projecting the world -- or our world anyway -- on what is really just energy/matter. I think that traditional indigenous cultures were (and probably still are) much more aware of this than we are. They saw everything, even what we would call inanimate objects, as being alive in some way. But I digress as usual... 🙄

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real disadvantage that I have come across with the EVF in the a6500 is that the contrast detect colour very occasionally makes it difficult to compose the scene. This feature is a real boon for manual focusing, but of course you can switch it off, and I have programmed a button to do just that. It would be useful if contrast detect colouration was optionally only available when looking at an enlarged view, because then the purpose is focusing rather than composition.

 

I still struggle a bit hitting focus with the little RX camera, where I rely on autofocus. Mostly it gets it right, but today I took a shot of my greenhouse and the camera peered through the glass and focused on the background. Ok, probably due to my ineptitude but that would never happen when manually focusing with the a6500.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.