• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

fuji xt2 seems amazing


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 17 September 2016 - 12:44 AM

Reading reviews Sony xt2 seems amazing, in terms of sharpness it seems at least as good as Canon 5Dsr
http://petapixel.com...ide-comparison/
The x trans sensor seems to do a great job

#2 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 17 September 2016 - 12:49 AM

And here's x-t2 vs D5 on portraits
http://petapixel.com...files-included/
Although D810 might have been a better choice here x-t2 is doing amazingly well versus the best available on the market.

#3 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,290 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 17 September 2016 - 06:13 AM

Fuji is generally quite amazing if you ask me.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#4 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts

Posted 17 September 2016 - 08:30 AM

For anyone who hasn't a serious investment in other gear, I see no reason not to get the X-T2!

 

 And what's more you know that it will get better with the updates that will inevitably follow, Fuji is one of the few manufacturers that are committed to their users, unlike Canon, Nikon and Pentax who just want you to buy the next model, Fuji improves your camera with time...fine wine cameras!



#5 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,273 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 17 September 2016 - 09:25 AM

I do hope on some minuscule improvements, but so far I'm very happy with body and grip. Very responsive. USB charging is nice, too, finder has a lag in "normal" power setting which disappears when switching that setting to "high". I love the shutter sound and miss the touchscreen less than expected. Some might find it too big with booster grip, to me it's the right size.

To the RAW quality I remain silent until one software manufacturer brings an update to the products I bought. AF is extremely promising, but I have to try more and take more pictures.

#6 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,562 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 17 September 2016 - 09:28 AM

Tony often says things that are wrong, and often claims strange stuff.

 

TheX-T2 has the same sensor as the XPro 2. Nothing magical about it. A quick check on dpreview clearly shows the X-T2 has no magical resolution properties.

https://www.dpreview...os-5d-mark-iv/9

 

Silly stuff: Tony's images are not shot with the same DOF (no equivalent settings). And why is the 5DSR crop uncharacteristic for this camera (softer than one expects).

 

The X-T2 is a great little camera, but why fall for outlandish claims without a critical eye?



#7 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 17 September 2016 - 10:28 AM

Tony often says things that are wrong, and often claims strange stuff.

 

TheX-T2 has the same sensor as the XPro 2. Nothing magical about it. A quick check on dpreview clearly shows the X-T2 has no magical resolution properties.

https://www.dpreview...os-5d-mark-iv/9

 

Silly stuff: Tony's images are not shot with the same DOF (no equivalent settings). And why is the 5DSR crop uncharacteristic for this camera (softer than one expects).

 

The X-T2 is a great little camera, but why fall for outlandish claims without a critical eye?

 

I don't know this guy, however for an APS-C camera,  to be able to be compared to a full frame competitor  having twice the resolution, even if it is not better that's something, X trans sensors seem to be better than their standard bayer pattern competitors for the time being 



#8 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,562 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 17 September 2016 - 11:26 AM

I don't know this guy, however for an APS-C camera,  to be able to be compared to a full frame competitor  having twice the resolution, even if it is not better that's something, X trans sensors seem to be better than their standard bayer pattern competitors for the time being 

No, it does not. Look at the dpreview comparison scenes and you can see it is not comparable to the 36mp Sony, 42mp Sony and 50mp Canon sensor, resolution-wise. It is comparable to the Nikkor D7200 which also has an AA-filter-less 24mp sensor.



#9 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 17 September 2016 - 12:52 PM

No, it does not. Look at the dpreview comparison scenes and you can see it is not comparable to the 36mp Sony, 42mp Sony and 50mp Canon sensor, resolution-wise. It is comparable to the Nikkor D7200 which also has an AA-filter-less 24mp sensor.

If you say so, it's ok.

During training a professor used to tell me when something looks too good to be true, usually it is.

For me the megapixel thing isn't very important, I am still using 5D along with  750D that has more than twice the resolution, and both are doing an excellent job, On A4 prints I  can't tell which camera took which picture.



#10 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 17 September 2016 - 01:28 PM

Ok on prints that's the same however looking on the screen at very crisp and sharp pictures taken with a sharp lens on the 5D  is anther story



#11 chlky0001

chlky0001

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 17 September 2016 - 03:00 PM

No, it does not. Look at the dpreview comparison scenes and you can see it is not comparable to the 36mp Sony, 42mp Sony and 50mp Canon sensor, resolution-wise. It is comparable to the Nikkor D7200 which also has an AA-filter-less 24mp sensor.


Sometimes I feel people make outlandish statement just to attract attention to their website.
  • Brightcolours likes this

#12 borisbg

borisbg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 05 October 2016 - 06:16 AM

At Cameralabs it is compared to 5D IV. Both cameras look pretty close.
It will be good to see the shadows after 3 stops pull for both.
In any case the price/performance ratio is in Fuji's favor.

#13 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,273 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 05 October 2016 - 07:09 AM

At Cameralabs it is compared to 5D IV. Both cameras look pretty close.
It will be good to see the shadows after 3 stops pull for both.
In any case the price/performance ratio is in Fuji's favor.

 

It's the price/performance/space/weight relation, which makes it at first a bit silly to go for the FF camera  ;) But to go for that one or a D810 still can have some reasons the Fuji can't offer now. Some are upgradeable just by firmware updates (like some menu points which are stupid if you know it can be done differently and better).

 

Both cameras have their own target groups.

 

And Toni-A, instead of posting more links of Leica-straps or whatever, you could ask once Wikipedia for "resolution". It is a ratio of how many points to get on the same distance. 300 dots per inch. It is not a comparison of Megapixels because their resolution value can be the same - just one camera doesn't show the same field of view than the one with the smaller or bigger sensor.

 

Posting something like

"I don't know this guy, however for an APS-C camera, to be able to be compared to a full frame competitor having twice the resolution," is plain wrong and only left remained by BC because it fits well in his reasoning, otherwise he had pulled out his calculator like he did when someone dares to compare different, DoF which never will make it into solid math. Airy discs are hard to measure and soft to compare.

 

5D IV has 36 mm and 6720 pixel on that distance. 6720 ÷ 36 mm = 186.66 pixel per mm or 4741 ppi (pixel per inch)

Any 24 MP APS-C camera has on 23.6 mm 6000 pixel. 6000 ÷ 23.6 = 254.24 pixel per mm or 6457 ppi 

 

Now decide for yourself which one has the higher resolution. And try to find out the 5D R's resolution ^_^ 

 

Sony α7R II 35.9 mm, 7974 pixel 7974 ÷ 35.9 mm = 222.11 p/mm

 

Phase One IQ3 100 MP: 53.7 mm 11608 pixels: 11608 ÷ 53.7 = 216 p/mm

 

I would never be so stupid to say the Fuji is the best of this choice because her resolution (and all other 24 MP APS-C models as well) is higher than even a super expensive MF. Would be wrong conclusion, but the fact remains, these days standard APS-C have a bloody high resolution.



#14 chrismiller

chrismiller

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • LocationCambridge, UK

Posted 05 October 2016 - 09:58 AM

Fuji seem to have really upped the game with regards to video: https://www.cinema5d...-video-camera/ 



#15 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 966 posts

Posted 05 October 2016 - 12:54 PM

Bit confused JoJu why are you computing p/mm of the sensor ? What is important is the quality of the pixel and p/mm of the final print NOT p/mm of the sensor. In fact a high p/mm on the sensor has the disadvantage that it puts more stress on the lens optical performance.



#16 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,273 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 05 October 2016 - 01:35 PM

you2, it was about Toni-A's "having twice the resolution (FF vs APS-C)" without knowing what resolution means.

 

Since when can a sensor put stress on a lens?  :rolleyes: The problem is, pixels have a limit for downscaling and lenses have limits of tolerances at reasonable production costs.



#17 borisbg

borisbg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 05 October 2016 - 04:15 PM

JoJu, I agree on "every camera has buyer". What I find interesting in Gordon's experiment is how close the crop sensors are in performance to full frame. Keep in mind that both cameras are with new developed sensors.
I don't think D810 is good candidate to go against XT2, because it has more resolution and it's quite old.

#18 chlky0001

chlky0001

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 05 October 2016 - 04:17 PM

It's the price/performance/space/weight relation, which makes it at first a bit silly to go for the FF camera ;) But to go for that one or a D810 still can have some reasons the Fuji can't offer now. Some are upgradeable just by firmware updates (like some menu points which are stupid if you know it can be done differently and better).

Both cameras have their own target groups.

And Toni-A, instead of posting more links of Leica-straps or whatever, you could ask once Wikipedia for "resolution". It is a ratio of how many points to get on the same distance. 300 dots per inch. It is not a comparison of Megapixels because their resolution value can be the same - just one camera doesn't show the same field of view than the one with the smaller or bigger sensor.

Posting something like
"I don't know this guy, however for an APS-C camera, to be able to be compared to a full frame competitor having twice the resolution," is plain wrong and only left remained by BC because it fits well in his reasoning, otherwise he had pulled out his calculator like he did when someone dares to compare different, DoF which never will make it into solid math. Airy discs are hard to measure and soft to compare.

5D IV has 36 mm and 6720 pixel on that distance. 6720 ÷ 36 mm = 186.66 pixel per mm or 4741 ppi (pixel per inch)
Any 24 MP APS-C camera has on 23.6 mm 6000 pixel. 6000 ÷ 23.6 = 254.24 pixel per mm or 6457 ppi

Now decide for yourself which one has the higher resolution. And try to find out the 5D R's resolution ^_^

Sony α7R II 35.9 mm, 7974 pixel 7974 ÷ 35.9 mm = 222.11 p/mm

Phase One IQ3 100 MP: 53.7 mm 11608 pixels: 11608 ÷ 53.7 = 216 p/mm

I would never be so stupid to say the Fuji is the best of this choice because her resolution (and all other 24 MP APS-C models as well) is higher than even a super expensive MF. Would be wrong conclusion, but the fact remains, these days standard APS-C have a bloody high resolution.

I guess you may have this reslotion thing mixed up. To put it simply, given the same angle of view and the same final output size, what matters is the total pixel count, if all lenses are perfect.

Take 24 mp APSC camera for example, at any given fov, the sensor can only have 6000 different values along it's longer edge,compared to 7900 for A7R II

If lenses are not perfect, with the same total pixel count, smaller format will need lenses with better point spread function to suit their smaller pixel pitch

#19 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,273 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 05 October 2016 - 05:07 PM

JoJu, I agree on "every camera has buyer". What I find interesting in Gordon's experiment is how close the crop sensors are in performance to full frame. Keep in mind that both cameras are with new developed sensors.
I don't think D810 is good candidate to go against XT2, because it has more resolution and it's quite old.

 

The D810 has more MP, not more resolution of the sensor.  ;)



#20 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,273 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 05 October 2016 - 05:22 PM

I guess you may have this reslotion thing mixed up. To put it simply, given the same angle of view and the same final output size, what matters is the total pixel count, if all lenses are perfect.

Take 24 mp APSC camera for example, at any given fov, the sensor can only have 6000 different values along it's longer edge,compared to 7900 for A7R II

If lenses are not perfect, with the same total pixel count, smaller format will need lenses with better point spread function to suit their smaller pixel pitch

 

I think you bring in a new variable which is output size. But this we don't know when we compare sensors and pixel densities. In my comparison I talk about sensor sizes. If you target the same output size for each sensor, the resolution of the final picture changes.

 

If you use the same enlarging value, it remains with pixel count, you just get smaller output sizes from APS-C - but the resolution comparison remains the same. But the bigger you get, the more distance you need to see the whole picture. And since our eyes also have resolution limits, you will not see  bigger benefit for a certain enlargement, because you are too far away to resolve 300 dpi on 100 inch  ;)

 

What you don't look at, is the loss of Aliasing filters and different color depth of the sensors. This matters as much as resolution, because our eyes can't tell the absolute difference, but the relative difference is visible. So, the 50 MP Sensors of Sony in Pentax, Hasselblad, Fuji, PhaseOne will show more colors than the one from a Canon 5DRS, just because the absolute pixel density of the sensor is lower - and each pixel bigger. Therefore more sensitive and bigger color scale. This is for me the reason to get bored about equivalencing calculations. It's more variables involved in this game.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de