Fuji XT-1 sensor sample images compared to other APSC cameras (high ISO performance)

[erotavlas]

After reviewing the sample images compared to other cameras on the Dpreview site (camera comparison tool) I noticed that the images from the Fuji XT-1 camera really look different than other camera images. Even some of the newer full frame cameras I can see the noise at ISO levels 3200 and 6400, but on the Fuji sample images the areas in the image look very clean. Is this too good to be true? Is there something else going on with the image that causes this, or does the sensor really have good higher ISO performance (i.e low noise)

 

[Ysarex]

If you're looking at camera-generated JPEGs, the Fuji cameras have pretty aggressive noise filtering at higher ISO. If you compare raw file performance I think you'll find the Fuji sensors are comparable to other APS class cameras when it comes to high ISO.

The XT-1 has a Fuij X-Trans sensor. Fuji X-Trans cameras do not use a conventional Bayer filter array over the sensor. The X-Trans filter array is more complex and requires special handling when demosaicing. This doesn't effect JPEG shooters but it has a big effect on raw users.

Joe

 

[erotavlas]

I was comparing only the RAW. The RAW looks totally different to me from the other APSC camera samples. (unless they are RAW samples that have had noise reduction applied)

Also what do you mean by this "This doesn't effect JPEG shooters but it has a big effect on raw users."
What effect and is it a big effect in a positive or negative way?

 

[Ysarex]

I was comparing only the RAW. The RAW looks totally different to me from the other APSC camera samples. (unless they are RAW samples that have had noise reduction applied)

Also what do you mean by this "This doesn't effect JPEG shooters but it has a big effect on raw users."
What effect and is it a big effect in a positive or negative way?

Are you actually downloading and processing raw sample files? If not then you're looking at JPEGs that somebody processed from a raw file.

I have an X-E2 which has the same sensor and electronics as the X-T1 -- I'd be happy to get you some raw samples.

The EXR processor in the X-T1 takes care of demosaicing the X-Trans array and creating camera JEPGs so JPEG-only shooters don't have to concern themselves with raw conversion issues. Since the X-Trans array is not a standard Bayer array it requires special demosaicing algorithms and not all raw converters will process it or handle it well. I'm a big fan of DX0 for example but I can't use DX0 to process my X-E2 raw files because they don't support the X-Trans array. Lightroom, Capture 1, PhotoNinja, Irridient do support the X-Trans array but with some considerable variation in output performance -- kinda of a special care handling situation.

If you're going to commit to an X-Trans camera you need to be sure you're happy with the raw conversion options and/or camera JPEGs. I first took an interest in the Fujis when the X-Pro was released. I got a lot more serious with the introduction of the X-E1 but would not make the purchase because of the raw conversion issue. It took an announcement from Phase One (Capture One) that they would provide full support for the X-Trans sensor to push me over and at that point I bought an X-E2. Since then PhotoNinja has come out with X-Trans support and I'm happy but I do miss not having DX0 as an option still.

Joe

 

[sashbar]

Some say FUJI ISO are a bit inflated.