fuji sensor vs olympus OM-D sensor

[sashbar]

But there's a real big catch. Fuji's X-Trans sensors don't have a classic 4 square Bayer array, but rather a unique and very Fuji specific array that uses two alternating 6x6 filter sets. This novel sensor array allows the Fuji's to dispense with an optical low pass filter and the photos are very detailed and razor sharp as long as your software knows how to deal with the Fuji array. If all you do is shoot camera JPEGs this doesn't have to concern you. If on the other hand you shoot and process raw files then there's a real big catch. You're limited in the raw processing software that works well with the Fuji array. Photo Ninja, Irridient Developer, Capture One and Aperture (RIP) all handle the X-Trans array and deliver superb results. Notice that list does not include Photoshop or LR.
Joe

Lightroom 5,4 does process FUJI X-Trans files, and some professionals even prefer it now to Iridient Developer.

 

[Ron Evers]

"i was looking at your signature. You have quite the array of lenses to select from. Which would you say is your favorite and the one you use the most?"

I do not have a favorite lens but the one most often on my camera is the Oly 40-150, it is my walk-about lens. I live in the country so that makes a difference in my choice of zoom from that of an urban dweller.

I like the Oly 25/1.8 for street shooting, the Oly 45/1.8 for indoor portraiture & the Sigma 60/2.8 for outdoor portraiture. I use the Pany 14/2.5 for landscapes because I do not have the Oly 12/2 (too expensive) & also the Bower 7.5/3.5 fish-eye on occasion.

As you can see, my preference is to shoot with primes up to 60mm.

 

[Ysarex]

But there's a real big catch. Fuji's X-Trans sensors don't have a classic 4 square Bayer array, but rather a unique and very Fuji specific array that uses two alternating 6x6 filter sets. This novel sensor array allows the Fuji's to dispense with an optical low pass filter and the photos are very detailed and razor sharp as long as your software knows how to deal with the Fuji array. If all you do is shoot camera JPEGs this doesn't have to concern you. If on the other hand you shoot and process raw files then there's a real big catch. You're limited in the raw processing software that works well with the Fuji array. Photo Ninja, Irridient Developer, Capture One and Aperture (RIP) all handle the X-Trans array and deliver superb results. Notice that list does not include Photoshop or LR.
Joe

Lightroom 5,4 does process FUJI X-Trans files, and some professionals even prefer it now to Iridient Developer.

Adobe does process the Fuji X-Trans array raw files. I said "works well" and Adobe's demosaicing algorithm works poorly handling the X-Trans array. LightRoom is the marketplace default raw converter. A lot of professionals have a workflow based on LR that they're not willing to alter. In the case of the Fuji RAF files they either accept Adobe's poor performance or they adopt a position of denial about it. As of the recent LR 5.5 release Adobe has not improved their demosiacing performance for X-Trans.

Joe

 

[rexbobcat]

Thanks for disclosing that caveat. I have Lightroom and Photoshop....just purchased them! I don't want to have to have a special program to view my files.

Lightroom works fine with Fuji files. When the Fuji X Pro came out LR had really bad issues with the odd raw files, but they've come along way with updating it. The only issues I've seen is that if you over-sharpen the Fuji files in LR it can make them kind of painterly looking. But that's if you do really heavy sharpening. For the most part, the photos look like any other raw photos. Really the only way to see any issues (when they're there) is by pixel peeping.

I've tried the other raw processors mentioned btw.

They might initially interpret the Fuji raws better, but their actual raw processing, from what I've seen, doesn't really come close to Adobe in terms of flexibility and power (IE: color shifts when bringing down highlights, lack of editing options, etc)

 

[Ysarex]

Thanks for disclosing that caveat. I have Lightroom and Photoshop....just purchased them! I don't want to have to have a special program to view my files.

Lightroom works fine with Fuji files. When the Fuji X Pro came out LR had really bad issues with the odd raw files, but they've come along way with updating it. The only issues I've seen is that if you over-sharpen the Fuji files in LR it can make them kind of painterly looking. But that's if you do really heavy sharpening. For the most part, the photos look like any other raw photos. Really the only way to see any issues (when they're there) is by pixel peeping.

I've tried the other raw processors mentioned btw.

They might initially interpret the Fuji raws better, but their actual raw processing, from what I've seen, doesn't really come close to Adobe in terms of flexibility and power (IE: color shifts when bringing down highlights, lack of editing options, etc)

LightRoom completely sucks with Fuji X-Trans files. Your history note is correct except the really bad issues weren't with a few odd files and they haven't come a long way with updating. The issue is if you try and even lightly sharpen and add detail to a Fuji X-Trans file in LR it smears your detail away into what is now well-known as the dreaded Adobe "watercolor effect."

When an Adobe fan or user is confronted by this issue (it was a dead horse a long time ago) the first thing they typically do is throw an accusation of pixel peeping; "Stop pixel peeping and take some photos!" The pixel peepers respond with, "Here's some Vaseline for you to smear over the front of your lens. You wouldn't want to let that lens take a sharp photo!"

The truth is likely somewhere between us. I'll start with this blog entry by Mark Soon: Fuji X-Trans RAW...

And then I suggest that the real proof is in the processing. And to that end I propose we rely on a friendly exchange of hard evidence. Here's a Fuji RAF file that I just shot last Tuesday: DSCF3969.RAF (Secure FTP site you'll need Username: Fuji and Password: XF-14mm)

In processing that file, compared with the competition, Adobe just pees it's pants. You are welcome to try and demonstrate otherwise. It is correct that the severity of Adobe's problem with Fuji X-Trans raw files is variable. LR can do "OK" with some X-Trans raw files, but it can't compete with the competition and then frequently enough along comes a file like the one linked here and LR wets itself. FULL DISCLOSURE: I shot that photo along with a dozen others last Tuesday to illustrate this Adobe processing problem with RAF files. I've learned to create the conditions on demand that best show Adobe's weakness. An LR user might jump at that and say, "well then don't take photos like that." To which I respond, "the other raw converters have no problem with this file so that means Adobe sucks at X-Trans."

So, there's the photo if you're interested in backing up your claim. Don't worry too much about things like white balance -- it's fine detail and sharpness that we're concerned with. Adobe sucks at X-Trans and that photo is hard proof.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Head over to sansmirror.com and read Thom Hogan's articles on the whole Fuji X-trans sensor issue...he's way not happy with Adobe's butchering of the X-trans files...I was a big Fuji fan years ago with their other, earlier "oddball sensor design" in the S1 and S2 Pro bodies...Adobe could not properly process S2 Pro .RAF files to their full potential. Adobe's been wayyy too busy trying to devise new ways to squeeze money out of its user base than it has been to improve RAw conversion on both Nikon .NEFs and apparently, Fuji X-Trans raws. You saw that Adobe tried to pull a "Hey--FIFTY dollars a month for life!" stunt, and millions of people, like ME, said, "Sorry but no effin way!"...and now....it's Lightroom AND Photoshop CC for TEN DOLLARS a month.

He mentions the solid construction and rather high weight of the Fuji X-mount lenses; they are built SOLIDLY....the Fuji X-mount lenses lack that cheap, plastic-y, Sony-like feeling. I have not checked into the Olympus much, but was toying with buying a Sony NEX-5R last week, used, with an 18-55 lens.

You think a company that wanted to try and pull a fast one and charge people 50 a month in perpetuity for a $499 piece of software gives two sh!+s about the smallish Fuji user base? Uhhhhh, NO, they have other priorities than developing better software. Like figuring out how to maximize profits and monopolize an industry. They let the hungry software developers take on the difficult work.

 

[rexbobcat]

Thanks for disclosing that caveat. I have Lightroom and Photoshop....just purchased them! I don't want to have to have a special program to view my files.

Lightroom works fine with Fuji files. When the Fuji X Pro came out LR had really bad issues with the odd raw files, but they've come along way with updating it. The only issues I've seen is that if you over-sharpen the Fuji files in LR it can make them kind of painterly looking. But that's if you do really heavy sharpening. For the most part, the photos look like any other raw photos. Really the only way to see any issues (when they're there) is by pixel peeping.

I've tried the other raw processors mentioned btw.

They might initially interpret the Fuji raws better, but their actual raw processing, from what I've seen, doesn't really come close to Adobe in terms of flexibility and power (IE: color shifts when bringing down highlights, lack of editing options, etc)

LightRoom completely sucks with Fuji X-Trans files. Your history note is correct except the really bad issues weren't with a few odd files and they haven't come a long way with updating. The issue is if you try and even lightly sharpen and add detail to a Fuji X-Trans file in LR it smears your detail away into what is now well-known as the dreaded Adobe "watercolor effect."

When an Adobe fan or user is confronted by this issue (it was a dead horse a long time ago) the first thing they typically do is throw an accusation of pixel peeping; "Stop pixel peeping and take some photos!" The pixel peepers respond with, "Here's some Vaseline for you to smear over the front of your lens. You wouldn't want to let that lens take a sharp photo!"

The truth is likely somewhere between us. I'll start with this blog entry by Mark Soon: Fuji X-Trans RAW...

And then I suggest that the real proof is in the processing. And to that end I propose we rely on a friendly exchange of hard evidence. Here's a Fuji RAF file that I just shot last Tuesday: DSCF3969.RAF (Secure FTP site you'll need Username: Fuji and Password: XF-14mm)

In processing that file, compared with the competition, Adobe just pees it's pants. You are welcome to try and demonstrate otherwise. It is correct that the severity of Adobe's problem with Fuji X-Trans raw files is variable. LR can do "OK" with some X-Trans raw files, but it can't compete with the competition and then frequently enough along comes a file like the one linked here and LR wets itself. FULL DISCLOSURE: I shot that photo along with a dozen others last Tuesday to illustrate this Adobe processing problem with RAF files. I've learned to create the conditions on demand that best show Adobe's weakness. An LR user might jump at that and say, "well then don't take photos like that." To which I respond, "the other raw converters have no problem with this file so that means Adobe sucks at X-Trans."

So, there's the photo if you're interested in backing up your claim. Don't worry too much about things like white balance -- it's fine detail and sharpness that we're concerned with. Adobe sucks at X-Trans and that photo is hard proof.

Joe

lol You obviously didn't use Fujifilm X Pro files back when the camera first came out and Lightroom began supporting it. I have a friend who's a street photographer and she was always bellyaching about Lightroom. It has gotten better. And yeah, to me it is about pixel peeping. If you have to zoom in 100% to proclaim "Look at how this file is slightly sharper in this editor" then yup, for me the point is kind of moot. Now, if you have a photo that is slightly OOF and you try to sharpen it to make it "acceptable" in LR, you can forget it. It will turn out so watercolory and hideous that it will make you never want to pick up a Fuji cam ever again. But if you nail the focus, it's good enough (for me).

I'm not saying Lightroom does an AMAZING job, but when you factor in editing power, flexibility and workflow, then I can deal with the ****ty demosaicing. Plus Iridient is - as far as I know - only for Mac. Yeah, no. I use both Macs and PCs for editing photos at work and I don't have time to fumble around between LR and Iridient just so I can have optimally sharp photos that will only end up being used online and in small print runs.

Most of my photos show up in standard size print publications, which don't really show the most detail anyway, so I'm not really looking for digital medium format sharpness anyways. I've always thought that a long, arduous workflow is much more stressful than worrying about the generally unnoticeable nuances in my photos.

Maybe I just have low standards.

 

[rexbobcat]

I've also tried Silkypix and it was...disappointing. That's all I'm going to say about that.

 

[Ysarex]

I've also tried Silkypix and it was...disappointing. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Yep, I don't care for Suckypix either. A lot of folks rank Irridient as best for X-Trans but I likewise don't have a MAC at home -- only at work. But here at home I can use Capture One, PhotoNnja, and even the free raw converter LIghtZone to whoop Adobe's butt. On the MAC Aperture likewise outperforms Adobe. In fact everything whoops Adobe's butt.

But you're not interested in hard evidence huh? That's too bad. Derrel's right of course this is a very well-known issue. As for history, Adobe only made one correction to improve X-Trans processing and that was back with the release of ACR 7.4 -- nothing has changed since then. So give me a couple minutes and I'll go ahead and do a fair comparison of that linked file and post it here just for the record and for the sake of the OP and so I can end this confirming that Adobe sucks at X-Trans. Back in 30 minutes.

Joe

 

[pixmedic]

well, I don't know anything about this ex-tranny issue...whatever it is...
but i will say that i am really loving LR 5 for my Nikon and Olympus raw files.

 

[rexbobcat]

I've also tried Silkypix and it was...disappointing. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Yep, I don't care for Suckypix either. A lot of folks rank Irridient as best for X-Trans but I likewise don't have a MAC at home -- only at work. But here at home I can use Capture One, PhotoNnja, and even the free raw converter LIghtZone to whoop Adobe's butt. On the MAC Aperture likewise outperforms Adobe. In fact everything whoops Adobe's butt.

But you're not interested in hard evidence huh? That's too bad. Derrel's right of course this is a very well-known issue. As for history, Adobe only made one correction to improve X-Trans processing and that was back with the release of ACR 7.4 -- nothing has changed since then. So give me a couple minutes and I'll go ahead and do a fair comparison of that linked file and post it here just for the record and for the sake of the OP and so I can end this confirming that Adobe sucks at X-Trans. Back in 30 minutes.

Joe

Have fun measurebating! I shall go back to editing, in Lightroom, the project that I shot on the X100s this weekend.

 

[usayit]

I'm in agreement with PixMedic and Ron. If you want the larger sensor, go with a system that offers a FF sensor. If you want to place premium with packaging (size/weight), the micro 4/3rds system has a lot to offer; a nice blend between size/performance and an unusually large choice of bodies and lenses to choose from. When I say "unusually" large choice, I'm not talking iterations of similar design as with the consumer, prosumer, and professional level bodies of Canon/Nikon, but completely different feel, layout, and operation. There is absolutely something for everyone. From the minuscule bodies of the GM1, and EPM2 to the larger more substantial GH4 and EM1. Lenses offerings are the same nice range of choices spreading across, Olympus, Panasonic, Sigma, Voigtlander. From fast (3 lenses in f/0.95 and a f/1.2), to premium (fast zooms and quality primes), to great bang for buck (Panasonic 14mm, Olympus 45mm, Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and sigma art primes).

One thing I am not totally in agreement is the AF performance. Olympus EM5 in my case. For static subjects, it is extremely fast at acquiring focus. I've never had a problem in almost any light condition. The issue comes with moving subjects. For that, I have settings on my camera that maximizes the speed of single-af and I pump the focus on the subject or just in front. Its simply a limitation of contrast AF versus phase AF. Similar issues reside with other mirrorless cameras such as the Fujifilm and Sony. Olympus has addressed this issue in their EM1 by adding phase detect AF which also improves performance for those that use those excellent standard 4/3rds lenses via adapter. Lenses that were originally design to work with contrast AF. In the EM10, I believe it still relies on contrast AF but they improved it with a faster processor w/ a faster sampling rate.

If I were reaching for a second thing to complain about, it would be the menu system. It is absolutely usable but its obvious it was designed by engineers rather than someone with a background in usability/human computer interaction (UX/UI). Something that is also common in many cameras today.

Third minor would be faster telephoto primes. Much of this is solved with the EM1 w/ phase AF + adapter + any number of fast telephotos in standard 4/3rds mount. I on the other hand, am pretty happy with the 100-300mm (for now) and will wait for faster telephoto primes. It seems that both Olympus and Panasonic are headed in that direction.. its just a matter of time. There is a rumor Olympus 300mm f/4 in the works.


Other than that, I've been shooting with micro 4/3rds since purchasing a G1 and then the EPL1 in 2010. Now shooting with an EM5, two E-PL1, 12 f/2, 25, f/1.8, 45 f/1.8, 9-18mm, 12-35 f/2.8, 35-100 f/2.8 and 100-300mm I'm having a difficult time finding any real show stopper faults with the system. The 12, 25, and 45 are absolutely small.. smaller than any Leica M glass I own. All are a joy to use. The 100-300mm which gets you out to a 600mm FOV is about the size of a typical 32 ounce water bottle or beer can. I know of no other way to get a 600mm FOV in that size natively sans cropping. Certainly a lot easier to manage than what I had previously 100-400L or 300mm f/4L on a Canon 1dMark1n. About less than half the weight and size in all dimensions.

My most used is the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 (E-PL1)

As for the 100-300mm, (E-M5)

I just recently replaced the 14mm with the 12mm (I'm more used to the 24mm FOV) but its certainly a good lens too (E-M5)

 

[Ysarex]

I've also tried Silkypix and it was...disappointing. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Yep, I don't care for Suckypix either. A lot of folks rank Irridient as best for X-Trans but I likewise don't have a MAC at home -- only at work. But here at home I can use Capture One, PhotoNnja, and even the free raw converter LIghtZone to whoop Adobe's butt. On the MAC Aperture likewise outperforms Adobe. In fact everything whoops Adobe's butt.

But you're not interested in hard evidence huh? That's too bad. Derrel's right of course this is a very well-known issue. As for history, Adobe only made one correction to improve X-Trans processing and that was back with the release of ACR 7.4 -- nothing has changed since then. So give me a couple minutes and I'll go ahead and do a fair comparison of that linked file and post it here just for the record and for the sake of the OP and so I can end this confirming that Adobe sucks at X-Trans. Back in 30 minutes.

Joe

Have fun measurebating! I shall go back to editing, in Lightroom, the project that I shot on the X100s this weekend.

Hey, you're the one using the Vaseline on the lens.

I've been through this before and it always ends the same way. When you actually call out someone suffering Adobe X-Trans denial you get flipped off and they turn tail. Simple reason of course is that they can't put up.

Here's that photo linked above and in all cases like this I offer hard evidence. I've put up a raw file. Don't believe any of the claims made just download the file and find out for yourself.

OP: The Fuji X-Trans cameras are great. If you're going to shoot raw, Adobe turns in the weakest performance demosaicing the Fuji X-Trans files -- not recommended.

Just for the satisfaction I chose to whoop Adobe's butt with the free open source converter LightZone.

First the two versions side by side to show the entire photo and to show that there's no huge difference in the overall processing:




Now a 100% view of the section above the roofs on the left:

The first thing you want to see is the Adobe halo around the utility wire and along the roof edge. There are only two things you can do in ACR/LR to avoid that halo: Detail to zero and/or Masking to 100%. Either option leaves you a very unsharp and mushy photo. Real critical: If you simply don't sharpen or add detail in ACR/LR and instead try to sharpen latter using something like Nik or just Photoshop you find the halo is really still there and it jumps right out.

Notice no halo in the LightZone version. By now scores of Adobe users are looking at the LZ version and screaming, "Oh Gawd! I hate over-sharpened photos." Yes, I leaned on the LZ sharpening to make a point: I could. ....and there's still no halo.

The watercolor effect: Adobe can't handle adding clean detail into a Fuji X-Trans raw conversion. It's most obvious in things like this distant foliage but if you read Mark Soon's blog that I linked earlier Mark demonstrates the problem in all Adobe X-Trans processing. Adobe's demosaicing algorithm for Fuji X-Trans sucks. Anybody wanting to disagree with that: put up and process this file.

Pixmedic: This is a unique ACR/LR and specific Fuji X series camera problem. Doesn't concern your Nikon, Olympus, Canon etc. and for those LR is great.

Joe

 

[rexbobcat]

Yep, I don't care for Suckypix either. A lot of folks rank Irridient as best for X-Trans but I likewise don't have a MAC at home -- only at work. But here at home I can use Capture One, PhotoNnja, and even the free raw converter LIghtZone to whoop Adobe's butt. On the MAC Aperture likewise outperforms Adobe. In fact everything whoops Adobe's butt.

But you're not interested in hard evidence huh? That's too bad. Derrel's right of course this is a very well-known issue. As for history, Adobe only made one correction to improve X-Trans processing and that was back with the release of ACR 7.4 -- nothing has changed since then. So give me a couple minutes and I'll go ahead and do a fair comparison of that linked file and post it here just for the record and for the sake of the OP and so I can end this confirming that Adobe sucks at X-Trans. Back in 30 minutes.

Joe

Have fun measurebating! I shall go back to editing, in Lightroom, the project that I shot on the X100s this weekend.

Hey, you're the one using the Vaseline on the lens.

I've been through this before and it always ends the same way. When you actually call out someone suffering Adobe X-Trans denial you get flipped off and they turn tail. Simple reason of course is that they can't put up.

Here's that photo linked above and in all cases like this I offer hard evidence. I've put up a raw file. Don't believe any of the claims made just download the file and find out for yourself.

OP: The Fuji X-Trans cameras are great. If you're going to shoot raw, Adobe turns in the weakest performance demosaicing the Fuji X-Trans files -- not recommended.

Just for the satisfaction I chose to whoop Adobe's butt with the free open source converter LightZone.

First the two versions side by side to show the entire photo and to show that there's no huge difference in the overall processing:


View attachment 78142

Now a 100% view of the section above the roofs on the left:

The first thing you want to see is the Adobe halo around the utility wire and along the roof edge. There are only two things you can do in ACR/LR to avoid that halo: Detail to zero and/or Masking to 100%. Either option leaves you a very unsharp and mushy photo. Real critical: If you simply don't sharpen or add detail in ACR/LR and instead try to sharpen latter using something like Nik or just Photoshop you find the halo is really still there and it jumps right out.

Notice no halo in the LightZone version. By now scores of Adobe users are looking at the LZ version and screaming, "Oh Gawd! I hate over-sharpened photos." Yes, I leaned on the LZ sharpening to make a point: I could. ....and there's still no halo.

The watercolor effect: Adobe can't handle adding clean detail into a Fuji X-Trans raw conversion. It's most obvious in things like this distant foliage but if you read Mark Soon's blog that I linked earlier Mark demonstrates the problem in all Adobe X-Trans processing. Adobe's demosaicing algorithm for Fuji X-Trans sucks. Anybody wanting to disagree with that: put up and process this file.

Pixmedic: This is a unique ACR/LR and specific Fuji X series camera problem. Doesn't concern your Nikon, Olympus, Canon etc. and for those LR is great.

Joe

Here's the thing. I don't disagree with you. I literally, LITERALLY, just do not care just like some photographers might shoot Canon, not because they have better IQ and Nikon (they have worse at this point) but because they already have the lens lineup. I also don't take photos where it matters enough to make a difference. I've never had a friend or an editor, say "Wow look at that bad haloing and detail loss." And with the raw files I can just import them into other programs if I feel the need so it's w/e. I don't know who you're trying to convince, because I'm sure the OP got the hint from the first few posts, and I'm probably not gonna switch to clunky freeware (that doesn't have a cataloging function) to edit my photos. Don't let facts get in the way of a person's ability to compromise and be apathetic.

 

[Ysarex]

Here's the thing. I don't disagree with you. I literally, LITERALLY, just do not care just like some photographers might shoot Canon, not because they have better IQ and Nikon (they have worse at this point) but because they already have the lens lineup. I also don't take photos where it matters enough to make a difference. I've never had a friend or an editor, say "Wow look at that bad haloing and detail loss." And with the raw files I can just import them into other programs if I feel the need so it's w/e. I don't know who you're trying to convince, because I'm sure the OP got the hint from the first few posts, and I'm probably not gonna switch to clunky freeware (that doesn't have a cataloging function) to edit my photos. Don't let facts get in the way of a person's ability to compromise and be apathetic.

That's perfectly OK. You don't have to care and you can go right on using LR with Fuji X-Trans files -- a lot of people do. That's just not what you first said. The OP asked a question. My interest is to make sure the OP has good information. Now the OP knows Adobe's demosaicing problem with Fuji X-Trans files is real. I initially noted the problem and I know a lot of people who literally do care enough to find alternatives. You tried to dismiss the problem suggesting it was due to over-sharpening. That's not so, but it's fine for you to not care.

Sorry if I seem over zealous to you. This is a naked Emperor situation. When you shout out the Emperor's naked you get hauled off to the stocks and pilloried. I learned about Adobe's problem with Fuji X-Trans demosiacing on frame # 15 of my new X-E2. I discovered the problem on my own and when I first went looking for answers I got assaulted -- lot of denial out there. I've since figured it out and I'm conditioned now to expect an attack whenever I bring it up.

Joe