This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

I hate the x-pro2

Discussion in 'X-Pro2 and X-Pro1' started by kofa, Jun 26, 2017.

  1. AdrianG

    AdrianG Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    761
    Location:
    CH, UK, GHA

    -Return to Top-

    Lenses make so much more of a difference than cameras, don't they? I never used a Helios lens, but I immediately thought this was looking like an old LTM lens when I saw the shot the first time. It's a bit hazy and I'm sure it no longer works against bright light (if it ever did), but this type of lenses have very signature colours and somehow make stuff look incredibly real. I like the shot a lot.
    Cheers!
     
  2. boulevardier

    boulevardier Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2015
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    176
    Location:
    UK

    -Return to Top-

    Just read the whole thread and what comes across is just how subjective colour rendering can be. I liked the first image of the sleeping boy because the cool rendering of the pillow and the warm skin complemented each other perfectly. Empirically speaking the pillow may have been "too" blue, but photography is a subjective and emotive medium, not an objective one - medical and astronomical photography notwithstanding.

    As has been said, changing the lens can alter the colour balance dramatically as well as the appearance of a shot. Not everyone wants inscrutable sharpness anymore than they want totally authentic colour reproduction or completely noiseless images. Just how much grit people like in their ointment is a personal thing, and manufacturer's aims and individual vision don't always match up.
     
    imagesfromobjects likes this.
  3. gyoung

    gyoung Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Nottingham

    -Return to Top-

    Something I found when I bought my Sony A7, I still had (and have) a Nikon D7000, 16mp with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 gave much sharper pics than the 24mp Sony full frame with its 28-70.
    It convinced me that a good little 'un can beat a mediocre big 'un. So I got the Xpro2, with good lenses it's a match for a full frame camera at 'normal' print sizes (up to A2 at least)

    Gerry
     
  4. dko22

    dko22 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    112
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany

    -Return to Top-

    Unfortunately I spotted this too late and the OP has already got rid of his X-Pro2. I do find a magenta tinge on many of my X-Pro2 photos. I have found the same magenta tinge -- and often much worse on some previous cameras. Moving the magenta slider slightly to green fixes virtually all the photos with virtually all RAW developers. I prefer on the whole a slight green bias to a slight magenta one but then we're all different. On the other hand, Fuji tends to make landscape greens somewhat bluish (very obvious if you compare the real scene through the OVF with what the EVF is seeing). Perhaps I missed something but I didn't see any evidence in this thread that the issue was anything other than white balance and/or film simulation processing defaults. Clearly the Pro1 has different defaults and the OP prefers them. Fair enough!

    I spent several months comparing the output between the Nikon D600 and the Pro2. Nikon tends more to yellow in landscape shots and I often tended to prefer the Nikon colours. Until I realised that in a few seconds pushing a couple of sliders, I could make both photos pretty well identical. Which is one reason why I recently sold the Nikon. Astia is more yellow than Provia which is maybe why I sometimes prefer it particularly for skin tones when the general colour is not too strong though of course the likes of LR and C1 raw developers allow you to modify only the skin tone colour.

    Cut to the chase, yes I believe that the Pro1 has more pleasing colours for skin tone at any rate out of the box. Sure I notice with my X-Pro2 that it more often has a slight magenta tinge at default settings than I personally care for. But adjusting the defaults is what raw developers are for.....
     
  5. AdrianG

    AdrianG Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    761
    Location:
    CH, UK, GHA

    -Return to Top-

    He wants to shoot JPEG though...
    The XP2 didn't work for him, there was no better option than to move on.
     
  6. dko22

    dko22 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    112
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany

    -Return to Top-

    well, exactly. If you only want to use JPEG and don't want to do PP then you are quite right to choose a camera based on its JPEG output. What we really need is concrete examples of the same shot with default settings with both cameras. I don't know if anyone has both and could do a few portraits to test?
     
  7. gyoung

    gyoung Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Nottingham

    -Return to Top-

    Using jpegs straight out of the camera is like sending your films to the chemist for automatic 6x4s.
    Might be ok for snapshots but a complete waste of anythinhg 'better' than a point and shoot.

    Gerry
     
  8. Brian1940

    Brian1940 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    472
    Location:
    Leeds, West Yorkshire

    -Return to Top-

    I think many raw/ PP experts might be surprised if they set their camera up properly and sent the SOOC JPEG unedited to the printer, caveat being printer properly hard copy profiled.

    So many photographs are ruined by the monkey between the camera and the printer playing with sliders.

    P. S. I use raw exclusively but for other reasons.
     
  9. AdrianG

    AdrianG Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    761
    Location:
    CH, UK, GHA

    -Return to Top-

    Nope, absolutely not. Not if you know what you're doing.
     
    Brian1940 and boulevardier like this.
  10. GregWard

    GregWard Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Location:
    London

    -Return to Top-

    Sorry but I think that's "yesteryear thinking". I pretty much exclusively use RAW - because I enjoy the post-processing part of image making - and I think RAW does allow you to squeeze the very best out of many images. But modern day cameras - especially Fuji - do produce great SOOC JPEG's. These days I think you'll find many Pro Photogs use JPEG pretty much exclusively.
     
    leoda1945, boulevardier and Brian1940 like this.
  11. gyoung

    gyoung Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Nottingham

    -Return to Top-

    Yes Fuji jpegs are great, (but large files)but even with them there is a benefit in doing a little post processing. I set the camera on jpeg only for family snapshots but always end up doing a bit of tweaking. Otherwise I set it to RAW plus jpegs, and treat the jpegs as a backup, don't even download them.
    Quite often if you expose to get the best out of RAW you won't get the best jpeg (or even useable SOOC).
    It's not so bad with Fuji, but looking back at my Nikon and Sony stuff the RAWS need to be a bit underexposed to stop highlights blowing, particularly with Sony A7. The jpegs were then much too dark for SOOC use.

    Gerry
     
    YogiMik likes this.
  12. boulevardier

    boulevardier Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2015
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    176
    Location:
    UK

    -Return to Top-

    That's completely untrue of Fuji jpegs. If you want a completely unnatural effect, like ultra-high contrast or extremely vivid colours there may be an argument for Raw, but for naturalistic photography most preferences can be dialled into the camera. Files end up as jpegs or tiffs in the end anyway. People who adopt the Raw-only approach are too lazy to experiment with settings, or enjoy tweaking in post for fun. That's their prerogative but terms like "unusable" for jpegs is fifteen years out of date.
     
    leoda1945 likes this.
  13. AdrianG

    AdrianG Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    761
    Location:
    CH, UK, GHA

    -Return to Top-

    Either way is equally valid and justifiable. I think many don't realise just how much headroom for PP there is in the JPEGs of cameras like the XP2 and I think many don't realise just how much you can tweak the cameras JPEG profiles. However, shooting JPEG successfully requires a different approach. I shoot both but I find myself rarely resorting to raw.
     
  14. gyoung

    gyoung Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Nottingham

    -Return to Top-

    I know you can do lots with Fuji jpegs, but what's the point? You can do the same things in post processing on the RAF files without worrying about compression effects. You dont even save so much space as the Fuji jpegs are 'only' half the size of tbe RAFs. Then you can export the whole lot to a jpg of the right spec for what you want, in seconds.
    I am not lazy if I dont want to faff around in menus on the camera, just do what I have always done, concentrate on the picture making and leave the processing till later, when I have better software and more possibilities to achieve what I envisioned when I took the picture.
    And I dont insult people who simply have a different way of working to me.

    Gerry
     
    YogiMik likes this.
  15. johant

    johant Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,796
    Likes Received:
    815
    Location:
    Netherlands

    -Return to Top-

    That sounds pretty harsh towards people who like the Fujifilm JPEGs and towards the company itself, especially given how Fujifilm positions the built-in JPEG engine and film simulations.
     
  16. boulevardier

    boulevardier Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2015
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    176
    Location:
    UK

    -Return to Top-

    But you are prepared to faff around on the computer.

    You can work however you like, there are no rules. My complaint is using terms like "unusable" for jpegs out the camera. The jpegs from my Canon aren't as good as my Fuji's, but they aren't unusable by any stretch of the imagination. There are good reasons to keep Raw files, like the possibilities for future post-processing software, but somewhere along the line you're going to have to turn your files into a readable format, and Fuji cut out the middle man as successfully as anyone.
     
  17. gyoung

    gyoung Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Nottingham

    -Return to Top-

    Well, even with Fuji I think that if you expose for the best RAW file to process after, then you will get a less than perfect jpeg, and that was certainly the case with Sony A7 and Nikon (too dark), which WERE unuseable SOOC, if you exposed for a good jpeg then you risked blown highlights, so limiting your choices.
    At least a bit of sharpening is required even with Fuji, and tweaks to the shadows or highlights to get what I want.
    Fuji, and other camera manufacturers, give people the bells and whistles they think will sell the camera, sure they can be used on the camera, but there is a better way of doing the processing in my opinion.
    I didn't say people who couldn't be bothered with computers were 'lazy', or that people just 'play about in the camera menus for fun', your welcome to do that if you want, 'its a free country', but my contention is that this is not the way to the best possible ouput from your expensive camera.
    I know someone who is a keen photographer (35mm SLR in film days), doesn't 'do' computers, he keeps buying SD cards and keeps his images (from a point and shoot) on them, puts them in the camera to view them. You can't really escape computers in digital photography, so you might as well make use of what they do better than the camera can do.

    Gerry
     
    Blaine and YogiMik like this.
  18. boulevardier

    boulevardier Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2015
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    176
    Location:
    UK

    -Return to Top-

    You said using jpegs out the camera is:
    That is factually incorrect and everything you subsequently say about the issue must be framed in that context. I've printed camera jpegs from various models, including Fuji X cameras up to 36 x 24" and they are sharp, contrasty, offer good colour rendition and shadow detail. So the 6 x 4 snapshot claim is clearly nonsensical. Opinions and working methods are an individual's choice but technical fallacies are worth drawing attention to. People who may know no better might believe them.
     
    johant likes this.
  19. YogiMik

    YogiMik Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,239
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Location:
    Norway

    -Return to Top-

    As I'm looking for the ways, to spend much less time on the computer, but my usual way is like Gerry describes. Set up a camera for the best possible RAW output for the maximum flexibility. Although, very often, I prefer the way the light is being rendered in camera, than in RAW converter, there is the way of converting jpeg in to TIFF for further tweaking. Different converters render differently. In some scenarios SOOC is as good as it is, and I love what I see, but then, I tweak it a little, and I love it even more. So, I shoot both, with quality emphasis set on RAW output.
    But, I see the bright future for Fuji with perfect SOOC based on organic sensor. It's going to be the camera ever :)
     
  20. AdrianG

    AdrianG Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    761
    Location:
    CH, UK, GHA

    -Return to Top-

    Just because one lacks the knowledge why or how to shoot JPEG doesn't mean it can't be done. The same is true for RAW. Achieving the best possible IQ may be related to achieving the best possible photograph, but usually isn't. A commercial photographer sells a product to certain specs, for which RAW is required. I only have to meet my own specs, for which RAW isn't required. That's why we have a choice.

    However, the OP solved his problem and it's pointless to kick off another pointless JPEG/RAW discussion.
    Cheers
     
    Topsy likes this.

Share This Page