Has anyone switched to a mirrorless camera?

IdiotInCharge said:
One of the main attractions I see is that we now have lenses that can actually make real use of a 36MP sensor. Sony's Zeiss-designed FE lenses are rated for extremely high resolution, and you have current and incoming Sigma lenses that can also take advantage of it.

Even better are the adapters that allow communication and AF with Canon lenses. What's not to like about having the sharpest zooms, telephoto primes, and tilt-shift lenses on the market usable with the best sensor available?
Click to expand...


There are a lot of things here that I sort of disagree with. However, my disagreements are matters of philosophy and not necessarily simply because any one answer is inherently right or wrong.

If your goal is simply to have the highest MP sensor on the smallest body possible then I suppose the A7r makes more sense. However the A7 has a hybrid AF system with significantly more AF points than the A7r. The A7 has a quieter shutter (which if you're trying to take a small camera into the street is useful). The A7 has a higher burst rate (both camera's are pitifully slow, but still, the A7 wins slightly in this regard). You'd probably never use it in a studio (some might) but the A7 has a faster flash sync speed.

I prefer the camera that I can use in more usage cases. If the point of the system is to take it everywhere and do anything, I think the A7 has more useful significant advantages. It's not just how many MP the sensor has to me, it's the entire package. The A7 offers the package. I feel this way about full sized cameras as well. If I had to start over with a clean slate and no gear and had to pick a dSLR, I'd still buy a Canon 5D3 over a D800 or D800e for many of the same reasons I've already mentioned here (I also happen to prefer Canon ergonomics and glass, but that is a side point).

I also personally don't see any real point in having more MP than 20. Whether you're in Print or Web even 12MP is more than sufficient. 36MP just means massive files that for the most part and for most applications I'm going to shrink down anyway defeating the purpose of having them in the first place (most of what I put up on the web has it's longest dimension at 2048px across). We could get into the discussion of making extreme crops as a usage case, and it saving you that <1% of the time in which you've made that error, but I am still a part of the crowd that feels you should get it right, in camera, the first time.

I should also mention that as 'great' as the 36MP sensor is, it still pales in comparison to a lot of other systems. We haven't talked about anything in medium format. If the goal is just to talk about MP, sensor size, and glass we should be talking about the new Phase One CMOS sensor or any of their 'older' 80MP backs. Even still the point of Medium Format isn't the MP, it's for the sensor size and dynamic range. I say this to say that I don't believe that having 36MP makes the A7r or even the D800/e have the 'best sensor available', and I don't really feel that only a single part of the camera should outweigh every other part. To be clear, does the A7r take excellent images?: undoubtedly. Is it a camera that I would personally want to use?: No, I think there are other better options on the market that fit my usage cases better.

In short, I don't think the A7 with it's 24MP is lacking in any real way in comparison with the A7r. I think it's a more usable camera in more usage cases and it costs less. But like I said in my previous post, I wouldn't buy either with my money. I'd much rather have the upcoming Fuji X-T1 or an 'older' X-Pro1 which effectively has half the amount of pixels as the A7r.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
There are a lot of things here that I sort of disagree with. However, my disagreements are matters of philosophy and not necessarily simply because any one answer is inherently right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Definitely not a 'right or wrong' thing; if pressed for a single primary camera between the two, I'd rather have the A7 as well :).

But then again, I'd also rather have my 6D; it's as close to perfect as I can get for my uses, and if I had to pick an alternate primary camera, it'd be a D7100, barring Canon doing anything useful with their crop sensors for still photography. I'm also quite fond of Fuji's system and Pentax's cameras as well, but they come with further weaknesses, particularly with Pentax and their lens quality (sharpness) and lens selection.

As for medium format- I think Pentax will be the one to show the world what's what with Sony's new sensor, if said sensor is as good as everyone hopes. Might even be a camera that someone like Frankie would take what with Pentax's aptitude with sturdy, weather-sealed camera bodies!
 
UnknownSouljer said:
There are a lot of things here that I sort of disagree with. However, my disagreements are matters of philosophy and not necessarily simply because any one answer is inherently right or wrong.

If your goal is simply to have the highest MP sensor on the smallest body possible then I suppose the A7r makes more sense. However the A7 has a hybrid AF system with significantly more AF points than the A7r. The A7 has a quieter shutter (which if you're trying to take a small camera into the street is useful). The A7 has a higher burst rate (both camera's are pitifully slow, but still, the A7 wins slightly in this regard). You'd probably never use it in a studio (some might) but the A7 has a faster flash sync speed.

I prefer the camera that I can use in more usage cases. If the point of the system is to take it everywhere and do anything, I think the A7 has more useful significant advantages. It's not just how many MP the sensor has to me, it's the entire package. The A7 offers the package. I feel this way about full sized cameras as well. If I had to start over with a clean slate and no gear and had to pick a dSLR, I'd still buy a Canon 5D3 over a D800 or D800e for many of the same reasons I've already mentioned here (I also happen to prefer Canon ergonomics and glass, but that is a side point).

I also personally don't see any real point in having more MP than 20. Whether you're in Print or Web even 12MP is more than sufficient. 36MP just means massive files that for the most part and for most applications I'm going to shrink down anyway defeating the purpose of having them in the first place (most of what I put up on the web has it's longest dimension at 2048px across). We could get into the discussion of making extreme crops as a usage case, and it saving you that <1% of the time in which you've made that error, but I am still a part of the crowd that feels you should get it right, in camera, the first time.

I should also mention that as 'great' as the 36MP sensor is, it still pales in comparison to a lot of other systems. We haven't talked about anything in medium format. If the goal is just to talk about MP, sensor size, and glass we should be talking about the new Phase One CMOS sensor or any of their 'older' 80MP backs. Even still the point of Medium Format isn't the MP, it's for the sensor size and dynamic range. I say this to say that I don't believe that having 36MP makes the A7r or even the D800/e have the 'best sensor available', and I don't really feel that only a single part of the camera should outweigh every other part. To be clear, does the A7r take excellent images?: undoubtedly. Is it a camera that I would personally want to use?: No, I think there are other better options on the market that fit my usage cases better.

In short, I don't think the A7 with it's 24MP is lacking in any real way in comparison with the A7r. I think it's a more usable camera in more usage cases and it costs less. But like I said in my previous post, I wouldn't buy either with my money. I'd much rather have the upcoming Fuji X-T1 or an 'older' X-Pro1 which effectively has half the amount of pixels as the A7r.
Click to expand...

Comparing the A7R to a medium format camera seems like missing the boat to the point of absurdity.

Your post also seems to insist that MP beyond 12 is essentially a meaningless number, which in some cases and applications it certainly will be, but pretending it has no effect on image quality seems pretty disingenuous (e.g. you saying "most MP on small body", rather than "best IQ on small body"). I mean, sure, if my prime motive is to scale down images to 640x480 then I might as well just use my cell phone. So what? If that's normally what I do with images then that is specific to me, seems pointless to pretend that my personal MO is relevant to anyone or everyone else.

I've compared the DP photos between the X-T1 and the A7R and I think the A7R blows the X-T1 out of the water, even with the images scaled to fit my screen. The difference isn't subtle, even at that resolution.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Might even be a camera that someone like Frankie would take what with Pentax's aptitude with sturdy, weather-sealed camera bodies!
Click to expand...

Ever been to SE AK? It'd have to be submersible to 1m before I'd take it out on a typical Lynn Canal day. :)
 
Frankie said:
Comparing the A7R to a medium format camera seems like missing the boat to the point of absurdity.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Firstly, my message was posted in response to IdiotInCharge, whom seems to grasp what I was saying quite well. He used a lot of hyperbole. Statements like "the best" followed by anything will always be target for criticism or debate. If "The Best" wasn't wasn't a purely subjective term, it wouldn't be, but it is. If it is "The Best" then it should be able to take any level analysis.

If you read the rest of my post you would note that my statements follow a singular pattern: that simply having a high amount of MP doesn't make a good camera. Either in terms of usability or in terms of as you put it in the section I quoted after this: "IQ". There are many other factors to consider.



Frankie said:
Your post also seems to insist that MP beyond 12 is essentially a meaningless number, which in some cases and applications it certainly will be, but pretending it has no effect on image quality seems pretty disingenuous (e.g. you saying "most MP on small body", rather than "best IQ on small body"). I mean, sure, if my prime motive is to scale down images to 640x480 then I might as well just use my cell phone. So what? If that's normally what I do with images then that is specific to me, seems pointless to pretend that my personal MO is relevant to anyone or everyone else.
Click to expand...

Firstly, there is truth in what you say. If you want to feel validated, there you go. But, I say what I say as someone who has chosen to work in this industry as their profession. Whether I'm good or not at my profession I'll leave it for someone else to decide. I say what I say then as someone who uses these as tools and not as toys. You seem fixated on the 12MP part but you missed the part in which I said that for virtually all uses on the web or print, exceeding that is essentially meaningless. And by print, I don't mean 3x5's of your families picnic, I mean editorial content that would end up in a high end fashion magazine or any other photographically heavy magazine such as National Geographic.

For the limit of 12MP to be sufficiently 'thrashed' shall we say, you'd have to do prints larger than a poster, but even then most viewers would never see a difference, mostly because of subject viewing distance. Only if you expect your viewers to stick their nose against the page and stare at color dots will there be an appreciable difference. These are the terms that use when I say "pointless" or "meaningless". Is there a difference? Sure. A meaningful difference for people that are working in the field? No.

To drive the point home: I should also note that the entire sports photography field is either on the D4 or the 1Dx (or previous generation D3s or 1D IV). The D4 has 16MP, the 1DX has 18MP. Both of those cameras have half or slightly more than half the pixels of the A7r, and both are more than capable of being used by the likes of Sports Illustrated, anything in the Olympics, and Nat Geo. These are not organizations that take imagery lightly.

I realize you're chiding me with your cellphone comment, but I'll offer you a retort, if you will. I could have suggested the Nokia 1020 with 41MP to oppose the A7r with 'only' 36MP, since you seem to be so stuck on that. But I didn't, because once again that MP number doesn't mean nearly as much to me as to you. MP is but one measurement in picture quality, one that people put way too much stock in. There are other considerations like the glass that goes in front of the sensor, the image processors that utilize the sensor, dynamic range of the sensor, sensor sensitivity, and a host of other factors. So no, I wouldn't say that you or anyone else should try to use their cellphones at 640x480. I think it's now you that is "missing the boat to the point of absurdity."

So, if you need more MP for the sake of MP because it makes you feel better about having it, then sure, it's your purchase, your money, etc. I didn't write what I wrote to upset you. I wrote what I wrote to say I would take the A7 with it's expanded capabilities over an A7r, and that 24MP was 'plenty' and that the extra 12MP wasn't a good compromise in comparison with the A7's better autofocusing (which is hybrid), faster continuous shooting, and quieter shutter. Camera's are more than MP, that's why I brought up medium format in the first place, but you missed that too. I said quickly after that, that medium formats benefits wasn't actually the MP, but rather the sensor size which has a direct effect on depth of field and dynamic range.



Frankie said:
I've compared the DP photos between the X-T1 and the A7R and I think the A7R blows the X-T1 out of the water, even with the images scaled to fit my screen. The difference isn't subtle, even at that resolution.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. But I'm sure you saw that coming. The X-Pro1 has shown its capability in the field. I've seen the images that have come out of that 'last' generation camera and they have been nothing less than phenomenal. The X-T1 I expect to eclipse it in all regards. In fact, I wish that Canon would move to X-Trans. It's that good. Take a look at work by Elia Locardi. He's using an XE-2 (although I admit his primary camera is a d800). Or Zack Arias that has been using the X-Pro1/X100s for editorial work.

However you may have missed what I said in my last post, you seem to be targeting only what you consider the negative things of what I said vs the positive things. So to reiterate that point: does the A7r take great images?: Yes, absolutely it does. But the compromises it has I don't consider to be worth it. I wouldn't go as far to say that either blows either out of the water. Not that you or I will be able to take the Pepsi challenge, but if there was a stack of 100 prints 50 of the A7r and 50 of the X-T1 and they were randomized and you were asked to sort them out as to which camera they came from, I highly doubt you'd be able to with any reasonable accuracy.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
Not at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, entirely. If someone looking at a mirrorless camera could be better serviced by a medium format camera, then they have no reason to be looking at a mirrorless camera. It is an absolutely absurd comparison. No one that isn't a total baboon would be cross shopping these.

If you read the rest of my post you would note that my statements follow a singular pattern: that simply having a high amount of MP doesn't make a good camera. Either in terms of usability or in terms of as you put it in the section I quoted after this: "IQ". There are many other factors to consider.
Click to expand...

Yes. Many other factors, like size, and weight, which you conveniently throw out the window when it suits you.

For the limit of 12MP to be sufficiently 'thrashed' shall we say, you'd have to do prints larger than a poster, but even then most viewers would never see a difference, mostly because of subject viewing distance. Only if you expect your viewers to stick their nose against the page and stare at color dots will there be an appreciable difference. These are the terms that use when I say "pointless" or "meaningless". Is there a difference? Sure. A meaningful difference for people that are working in the field? No.
Click to expand...

There's an appreciable difference between the A7R and your alternative on my computer screen which is less than half the res of the R, so I'm not really sure what you're even saying here. ALL viewers would see a difference. As I said, it isn't subtle. View it for yourself.

To drive the point home: I should also note that the entire sports photography field is either on the D4 or the 1Dx (or previous generation D3s or 1D IV). The D4 has 16MP, the 1DX has 18MP. Both of those cameras have half or slightly more than half the pixels of the A7r, and both are more than capable of being used by the likes of Sports Illustrated, anything in the Olympics, and Nat Geo. These are not organizations that take imagery lightly.
Click to expand...

Anyone that buys an A7R for sports photography is a moron. I think you and I both know that.

I realize you're chiding me with your cellphone comment, but I'll offer you a retort, if you will. I could have suggested the Nokia 1020 with 41MP to oppose the A7r with 'only' 36MP, since you seem to be so stuck on that.
Click to expand...

Uh, it seems to me like you're the one that's stuck on it.

I think it's now you that is "missing the boat to the point of absurdity."
Click to expand...

Lol.

So, if you need more MP for the sake of MP because it makes you feel better about having it, then sure, it's your purchase, your money, etc.
Click to expand...

There you go again, divorcing MP entirely from IQ.

and that the extra 12MP wasn't a good compromise in comparison with the A7's better autofocusing (which is hybrid), faster continuous shooting, and quieter shutter. Camera's are more than MP
Click to expand...

All of which may be completely irrelevant to the purchaser.

that's why I brought up medium format in the first place, but you missed that too. I said quickly after that, that medium formats benefits wasn't actually the MP, but rather the sensor size which has a direct effect on depth of field and dynamic range.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't miss it, it was just a dumb thing to bring up.

I respectfully disagree. But I'm sure you saw that coming.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't looked at the images, or the differences don't matter to you because you only output at low res.

However you may have missed what I said in my last post, you seem to be targeting only what you consider the negative things of what I said vs the positive things. So to reiterate that point: does the A7r take great images?: Yes, absolutely it does. But the compromises it has I don't consider to be worth it. I wouldn't go as far to say that either blows either out of the water. Not that you or I will be able to take the Pepsi challenge, but if there was a stack of 100 prints 50 of the A7r and 50 of the X-T1 and they were randomized and you were asked to sort them out as to which camera they came from, I highly doubt you'd be able to with any reasonable accuracy.
Click to expand...

With test images even a 6 year old could pick them out with 100% accuracy. Will that translate to actual photos? Not on every one, but that doesn't mean that they're equivalent.
 
What's your purpose here? To convince me that a medium format camera is better suited to my purposes than an A7(R)? That the X-T1 is superior to the A7(R) for my purposes? Or superior in general? To convince me that an A7 is better than an A7R even though the advantages that the A7 has matter not a whit to me, and the advantages that the A7R has do matter to me?

Or to convince yourself of something?

I shoot landscapes almost exclusively, and you (repeatedly) mention things like shutter noise, autofocus speed, and continuous shooting speed. Why?
 
Last edited:
Frankie said:
What's your purpose here? To convince me that a medium format camera is better suited to my purposes than an A7(R)? That the X-T1 is superior to the A7(R) for my purposes? Or superior in general?

Or to convince yourself of something?

I shoot landscapes almost exclusively, and you (repeatedly) mention things like shutter noise, autofocus speed, and continuous shooting speed. Why?
Click to expand...

Well, my first post was actually in response to IdiotInCharge. You've asked me questions, and I've responded. Your post 'refuting' my post continues to miss every-statement that I've made, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Additionally you add insults into your responses and seemingly have no interest in what I have to say.

I get that you're interested in the A7r primarily for MP, the only things that I've stated with every post that I've made is that MP isn't the most important thing and shouldn't be the driving factor in camera purchases. I've also simply stated that other systems offer a more complete package whereas the A7r isn't balanced. You believe that I'm trying to 'divorce MP from IQ'. That isn't the case. I've only merely stated that MP isn't the biggest factor when considering buying a camera. That's it.

Any other camera or system brought into it was to illustrate a point. Here, I'll reiterate these points, and perhaps you'll be able to see them under this new light.

I brought up the 1DX and D4 not to say that the A7r should challenge them in their ability to shoot sports. I brought them up because of their "relatively" low MP counts and noted that they perform (and by perform, I mean in terms of how many MP they have) in this regard more than enough to satisfy any viewer. 16MP tack sharp as a centerfold two page spread in any sports magazine is plenty. It's plenty in Nat Geo whether in print or on the web.

I brought up Medium Format to say that it's not their MP that make them good, but rather their sensor size and dynamic range. I'm not obtuse enough to compare a $40K system vs a $2K on the basis of direct comparison.

I brought up other competitors to say that I believe that they have a better more complete package.

Landscape has existed long before 36MP sensors. 36MP sensors are not the end all be all. The D700 is still a phenomenal camera and was Elia Locardi's among others primary camera for a long time and it bosts a "paltry" 12MP. When 60MP sensors come out on full frame are you all of a sudden going to feel like your 36MP sensor was inadequate? This is a numbers war and camera manufacturers have been inflating this number past what anyone really needs. You disagree with me clearly, at least at this level. How many MP will it take for you to be satisfied that there is no appreciable difference? 70MP? 80MP? 140MP? Will you need to be able to gather the same data from an electron microscope on a camera sensor for you to be satisfied?

===

Finally for the 3rd time. The A7r takes great images! You continue to apparently miss me saying that. Colby Brown as an example is considering moving to that and ditching his Canon gear. Obviously there are other people in the market that have high interest in this camera. I haven't tried to convince you or anyone else to purchase anything or any other camera, but you've selectively decided to listen to certain things that I say that apparently bother you and ignore others.

The very first response I said was this: "There are a lot of things here that I sort of disagree with. However, my disagreements are matters of philosophy and not necessarily simply because any one answer is inherently right or wrong."

I didn't try to convince IdiotInCharge, I'm not trying to convince you. You've got a lot stronger agenda than I do. I can tell by your choice of words. Anything that threatens the A7r or any preference to the contrary clearly bothers you.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
Definitely not a 'right or wrong' thing; if pressed for a single primary camera between the two, I'd rather have the A7 as well :).

But then again, I'd also rather have my 6D; it's as close to perfect as I can get for my uses, and if I had to pick an alternate primary camera, it'd be a D7100, barring Canon doing anything useful with their crop sensors for still photography. I'm also quite fond of Fuji's system and Pentax's cameras as well, but they come with further weaknesses, particularly with Pentax and their lens quality (sharpness) and lens selection.

As for medium format- I think Pentax will be the one to show the world what's what with Sony's new sensor, if said sensor is as good as everyone hopes. Might even be a camera that someone like Frankie would take what with Pentax's aptitude with sturdy, weather-sealed camera bodies!
Click to expand...

Pentax? Not sharp? Try their FA31,FA77 and DA*55 lenses. Their DA*300/4 is a fantastic lens, better than the Nikon 300F4 AF-S IMO.
Even their pancake DA40/2.8 is a brilliant little lens... with Pentax, primes are where its at.
 
Keep it polite. We're talking camera systems, not video cards =b
 
TechHead said:
Pentax? Not sharp? Try their FA31,FA77 and DA*55 lenses. Their DA*300/4 is a fantastic lens, better than the Nikon 300F4 AF-S IMO.
Even their pancake DA40/2.8 is a brilliant little lens... with Pentax, primes are where its at.
Click to expand...

Take a stroll over to DxOMark- not the most revered testing house, but they're the only ones to have tested a good range of Pentax lenses on the K-3, and have also tested the very similar D7100 with a slew of Nikon and Sigma/Tamron/Tokina lenses, as well as the 70D with the same spread of lenses.

While Pentax lenses have many great qualities, being smaller and lighter among them, competitive sharpness isn't where they put on their best show.

Now, I'm not dissing Pentax, as much as I'm just disappointed- I'm very intrigued by their camera bodies and commitment to producing weather resistant lenses across their range and I was quite looking forward to seeing results from the K-3 that were competitive with the D7100 and 70D.

One example I can dig up for comparison is at 40/2.8 on the K-3 vs. 70D, where the 40/2.8 Limited is 2MP (20%) behind the Canon lens while the K-3 it's mounted to is 4MP (20%) ahead of the Canon 70D. The Canon 40/2.8 STM is known for having 'adequate' sharpness, in line with most of their primes when stopped down to f/2.8 and largely comparable to their fast zooms.

What I get out of that is that Pentax simply hasn't kept up their lens designs, and now that they have Sony's 24MP sensor in the K-3, it shows.
 
Different folks different strokes. I think it's really interesting to read about the differences between camera brands and technologies (advantages and disadvantages). Ultimately each of us have a different rationale in our choice of cameras.

By the way... Fujifilm4lyfe! :D
 
So, I've been looking at mirrorless cameras again. One thing I've noticed is that on almost all sample images, at 100%, they all seem to exhibit a weird kind of softness, like the shot wasn't focused correctly. Some even look like oil paintings.

Is this a problem with all current mirrorless cameras?
 
Megalith said:
So, I've been looking at mirrorless cameras again. One thing I've noticed is that on almost all sample images, at 100%, they all seem to exhibit a weird kind of softness, like the shot wasn't focused correctly. Some even look like oil paintings.

Is this a problem with all current mirrorless cameras?
Click to expand...

Nope. It's a problem of bad technique, or really bad lenses (like a NEX kit lens), and probably bad/no post-processing.

I get shots out of my EOS-M, with Canon's aging 18MP sensor, that are sharp as hell- and I get shots out of it that look like mud! The native 22/2 and 11-22 lenses are crazy sharp, as sharp as you'll get out of an APS-C camera mirrorless or not, while the 300mm end of my adapted full-frame telezoom is very hard to clean up. I'm trying to use it to shoot birds on a bird feeder, and I'm not getting terribly great results yet :).

Also note- with the smaller sensors, higher ISOs (and lower/challenging light) will destroy sharpness at 100%. The images will still very likely be usable for almost every application except larger (>8x10) prints, of course, but they won't impress a pixel-peeper!
 
Thanks, I'm about to pull the trigger on an X-T1. As much as I love my D800e, I rarely use it out of size and utter paranoia. I am usually asked to do photo shoots at dingy dive bars, and I can't focus on shooting at all because I'm worried some drunk will bust up my camera, or I'll get jumped around the corner.

I hope the X-T1 is as light and compact as I think it is. I'd really like to get a system that I can easily take with me even if I'm just leaving the house for a meal or something. The only thing I'm bummed about is going back to half frame, but the asking price for the Sony a7R is outrageous to me. Oh well, at least the X-T1 also lacks an AA filter.
 
My experience being a mirrorless (OM-D) and D800 owner is that I honestly barely use my OM-D any more since I got my D800. That may change again however, because for a while I didn't have a full D800 system, so it was a choice between my OM-D and a bag of lenses, or my D800 with 24-70 2.8. Now I've got a selection of lenses to carry with my D800, and my OM-D's small size may become more desirable again.

I still love my OM-D though.
 
Megalith said:
Okay, I hate to go back to this again, but am I the only one who thinks these images are absolutely gross at 100%?

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_t1/sample_images/index.html
Click to expand...

The one with the canoe looks like a painting of a photograph. Kinda weird... then I scroll down a bit the closeup of the Indian woman is fantastic. My short experience with the only decent camera I've ever had (Canon 5D) was that I started getting more detail than I even wanted with the 25-104 lens I was using. Know next to nothing about photography.
 
Megalith said:
Okay, I hate to go back to this again, but am I the only one who thinks these images are absolutely gross at 100%?

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_t1/sample_images/index.html
Click to expand...

Fuji's X-Trans is a bit weird right now. The biggest issue is that the reconfigured color filter array used in X-Trans sensors has required the RAW processing houses to rethink their demosaicing algorithms in order to get best results, and even Fuji has had to tweak their own software- on camera and for post-processing- in order to get optimal results.

But yeah, many people have complained that images from X-Trans cameras can come out looking weird, though there's also been a lot of traffic comparing Fuji's JPEGs with the outputs of RAW converters like Capture One, Photoninja, and Lightroom. You may have to try more than one to get the results you're expecting.
 
Megalith said:
Thanks, I'm about to pull the trigger on an X-T1. As much as I love my D800e, I rarely use it out of size and utter paranoia. I am usually asked to do photo shoots at dingy dive bars, and I can't focus on shooting at all because I'm worried some drunk will bust up my camera, or I'll get jumped around the corner.

I hope the X-T1 is as light and compact as I think it is. I'd really like to get a system that I can easily take with me even if I'm just leaving the house for a meal or something. The only thing I'm bummed about is going back to half frame, but the asking price for the Sony a7R is outrageous to me. Oh well, at least the X-T1 also lacks an AA filter.
Click to expand...
It's not much of a solution, but have you considered getting insurance for your camera equipment? It will give you the piece of mind, should anything happen, you will get reimbursed for the damages/theft. I've had my stuff insured through State Farm and they paid for the repairs on my lens and reimbursed me for the cost of the ND filter that I lost on the trip way back when. Again, it's not a solution, but I thought I throw this idea at you. It would be cheaper to do that than investing in another system.
 
I haven't even thought of that and it sounds like a great idea, thanks.

I went ahead and pre-ordered the X-T1 with a 18mm lens (the latter seemed particularly stupid expensive). I figured the best idea was to just try the damn thing out and see if I like it or not. Unfortunately it's out of stock until who knows when at B&H.

I also had a hunch that the weird look of the photos at 100% might have been a software issue. What I don't get if why Fuji would actually post those as sample images.
 
Megalith said:
I also had a hunch that the weird look of the photos at 100% might have been a software issue. What I don't get if why Fuji would actually post those as sample images.
Click to expand...

Apparently, manufacturers regularly post less than stellar example images, as I see people complaining about that pretty often.

As for software, you're 100% correct- as I posted above, you'll have to do your research on RAW converters for the X-Trans sensors, as the various RAW houses are developing their support quite literally as we speak.

And for insurance vs. another system- I'll have to agree that insurance is a good idea, but I think you've caught on to the basic advice of 'don't be stupid' already. A D800 and a lens that does it justice is going to get noticed, and even more so if you're alone. These mirrorless cameras look more like film SLRs or the old film rangefinders, and in turn present a lower profile to would-be thieves.
 
owning Canon 5DIII and Sony a7R, and Olympus OM-D E-M1.

I have to say my favorite (and most used) camera right now is E-M1.
 
Holy shit. Okay, so I just received my X-T1 and 18mm (27mm) today. I thought the camera's build quality and form factor were absolutely amazing, but I was very disappointed at what the EVF and LCD were showing me when I began shooting. Artifacting, grayish blacks, and other stuff that made me think I just bought a glorified point-and-shoot. But when I imported the shots into Lightroom, I was pretty stunned. Here's a sample...

ZTBtwMI.jpg


The image looks great to me even at 1:1. One thing I don't get is how I got such a clear image at a shutter speed of 100. With my DSLRs, I would always shoot at a speeds of 200 or greater, or I'd probably get a soft or blurry image. Maybe the lightness of the X-T1's body is really helping me.

The remote app is also really, really neat. It basically lets you use a smartphone or tablet as a second screen and remote shutter.
 
Looking good!

WRT shutter speeds, if you consider the 1/f(in 35mm terms) rule would have you shooting at 1/35, so you're really shooting at 3x what you might need to; and you're not shooting a 'high resolution' sensor really either, so 1/100 was probably overkill :).

Also, for a modern comparison, my 6D handheld with a stabilized Canon 24/2.8 at 1/8 and ISO10,000:

 
Fuji has gotten my interest lately- they're putting out a line of weather-resistant lenses with really nice optics in the next year or so. Coupled with a 24MP X-Trans (based on Sony's 24MP Exmor in the A6000, just with a CFA switcheroo) I'll be hard pressed not to pick up one if Canon doesn't push out a decent semi-pro body and lens for their M.
 
Canon EOS M is dead in the water, Canon is scared to release a decent mirrorless camera because it will take a bite out of their DSLR market share...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top