Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-12-2014, 02:59 PM   #1
Senior Member
clostoyo's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: kissimmee
Posts: 131
Fuji x-a1 vs k3, what's your opinion?

From the looks of this article it looks like the $500 X-A1 blows the K3 out the water im high ISO shooting. Fujifilm X-A1 - Is this the best low light camera for under $1500? (even though it only costs $499?)

03-12-2014, 03:33 PM   #2
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,951
Tough to compare the two, since they show 100 percent crops and the 24 megapixel images are enlarged more than the 16 megapixel images. Probably end up looking the same at similar print sizes, for what it is worth.

Edit: I don't think DXO Mark tests Fuji sensors since they don't use a Bayer pattern.
03-12-2014, 03:44 PM   #3
Veteran Member
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 541
Can you stick Pentax K-mount and M42 glass on this wee thing with an adapter?

Cos' I'm finding these things used for around £200 body only. Might be worth a punt if I can stick the K 50/1.2 and some old Communists on the thing.

EDIT: I really do want something that's smaller than the K-3 and great in low light.
03-12-2014, 04:09 PM   #4
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,958
QuoteOriginally posted by clostoyo Quote
From the looks of this article it looks like the $500 X-A1 blows the K3 out the water im high ISO shooting. Fujifilm X-A1 - Is this the best low light camera for under $1500? (even though it only costs $499?)
Same gen, same sensor size, the results will be comparable. You still get more resolution with the K-3, so low-iso files will be "better" no matter how you look at it.


Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

03-12-2014, 05:24 PM   #5
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 27
The fuji sensor handles high iso very nearly or equal to that of the Canon 6d and 5d Mark III, at least as far as jpegs go. The issues with fuji that I'm reading is that it's sluggish when taking pictures and focusing. I think I may have to go to a camera store and test one out.
03-12-2014, 06:06 PM - 1 Like   #6
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by Flinn Quote
The fuji sensor handles high iso very nearly or equal to that of the Canon 6d and 5d Mark III, at least as far as jpegs go.
It's only visible with jpegs because it's a trick. They lie about ISO and smooth detail out with the noise to manipulate jpegs and unsuspecting buyers. Shabby company IMO. Pentax results are honest.

From the DPReview preview of the X-E2:
However, a significant part of this (ISO) advantage stems from the camera's need for longer exposures to achieve the same JPEG brightness level as its rivals. This is the way the ISO standard is measured, and the basis on which we conduct this test. However the X-E2's need for unusually long exposures explains much of the difference we see between it and the Sony NEX-6; in fact it's probably better compared to the performance of its peers set 1EV lower (i.e. ISO 400 on the Fujifilm compared to ISO 200 on its rivals).

The dramatic advantage the X-E2 showed in the previous test is also apparent if processed with Adobe Camera Raw. The results are almost implausibly good, even taking into account the camera's additional exposure. This suggests that some non-optional noise reduction is creeping into the process somewhere.

Fujifilm X-E2 Review: Digital Photography Review

Underneath the cloak and dagger, the Fuji sensor is a massaged 16mp Sony. The K-3 sensor has higher resolution and equal raw noise at high ISO, but you need to add NR to K-3 files to compare. Dynamic range of the Fuji is definitely inferior because the ISO 200 minimum. They sacrifice ISO 100 so they can manipulate the tone curve.
03-12-2014, 10:06 PM   #7
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Alberta, central
Posts: 98
X-A1 and other Fujis are useful tools.

QuoteOriginally posted by Parry Quote
Can you stick Pentax K-mount and M42 glass on this wee thing with an adapter?
Yes, you can put all kinds of lenses onto Fuji's X-mount using inexpensive adapters. It's one of the reasons I purchased an X-A1 to start with.
However, I much prefer the upscale model X-E1 or X-E2 with the EVF which makes them much easier to use in sunlight instead of composing on the X-A1's rear display.
The X-A1 is a surprisingly good camera for the price, as is the 16-50mm kit lens it ships with.
I've got Nikon F, Pentax K and M42 adapters for my Fuji X-mount. (and I haven't had the chance to use any of them nearly enough yet)

QuoteQuote:
EDIT: I really do want something that's smaller than the K-3 and great in low light.
While their hi ISO performance is comparable to Pentax' best, focusing the X-A1 in low light is a challenge. As it was in the days of film too...

I'm hoping Ricoh-Pentax engineers will play with Fuji's X-T1 and then make a superior version with SR and better controls, but a new short register distance version of the K-mount that'll allow K-mount and other lenses to be used with adapters and a new compact lens system to be used natively.
03-12-2014, 11:06 PM   #8
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Melbourne,Australia
Posts: 67
Ive had a brief play with the XT-1 in store, to see what all the hyper was about.. Yes, the EVF is amazing. Bright, huge and crisp with very little if any lag when panning. The lenses have a feel and appearance of quality which backs up what I have been reading online and I have no reason to doubt their image quality either...
I hate the small buttons on the back of the camera (i.e 4 way controller, Q button, FA..etc), even with small thin fingers that are awkward to use.
The use of the stacked control wheels as its fiddly trying to actuate the bottom dial.. (just like the d7100 which is one of the reasons I went for the k3).. Also, after a shot has been taken there what appears to be a processing delay. The EVF is blank whilst the shot is take which is fine but it stays blank for much longer than the shutter is open so you can be missing changes in the scene or a further photo opportunity. I will acknowledge that this may well be due to a setting in the camera but the store person seemed to acknowledge that was his findings too..

Its certainly not a camera for me but I am excited by the improvement in EVF technology compared to the 2 other EVF camera ive tried i.e. OMD 1 and Sony SLT-77..

03-13-2014, 12:09 AM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,702
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote

Underneath the cloak and dagger, the Fuji sensor is a massaged 16mp Sony.
What's the source for your assertion, Audiobomber?

AFAIK, not only is it a Fuji design but it's not even a Bayer.
03-13-2014, 06:41 AM   #10
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
What's the source for your assertion, Audiobomber?

AFAIK, not only is it a Fuji design but it's not even a Bayer.
I can't prove that it is a Sony, but you can't prove it is not. There are lots of people who think that it is beyond coincidence that Fuji suddenly has a world class sensor with the exact same number of pixels as Sony's. We shall soon know what Fuji has done, because DXOMark will test a non X-trans model pretty soon. I predict it will be virtually indistinguishable vs. Sony-sensored models, except a lower DR score because of ISO 200 minimum, and the graph will show non-deafeatable NR.

Fuji's X-Trans technological innovation is ahead of the sensor, not part of the sensor. There are three basic components that capture the light, the Low Pass Filter, which blurs the signal to avoid aliasing, the Bayer filter which filters the colours, and the sensor itself, which captures the photons.

The Bayer filter is not part of the sensor, it sits in front of the sensor. The blur filter is needed because the Bayer colour pattern is very regular, causing false readings (e.g. moiré), near the limits of its resolution.


Because the Fuji sensor is irregular, it doesn't need the blur filter.



Of course there is always a tradeoff, the Fuji solution introduces its own set of problems. The Bayer pattern has achieved market dominance because it is a great solution. I think the K-3, with its Bayer filter, higher resolution and switchable blur filter is a significantly better implementation than X-Trans.
03-13-2014, 07:08 AM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,951
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I can't prove that it is a Sony, but you can't prove it is not. There are lots of people who think that it is beyond coincidence that Fuji suddenly has a world class sensor with the exact same number of pixels as Sony's. We shall soon know what Fuji has done, because DXOMark will test a non X-trans model pretty soon. I predict it will be virtually indistinguishable vs. Sony-sensored models, except a lower DR score because of ISO 200 minimum, and the graph will show non-deafeatable NR.

Fuji's X-Trans technological innovation is ahead of the sensor, not part of the sensor. There are three basic components that capture the light, the Low Pass Filter, which blurs the signal to avoid aliasing, the Bayer filter which filters the colours, and the sensor itself, which captures the photons.

The Bayer filter is not part of the sensor, it sits in front of the sensor. The blur filter is needed because the Bayer colour pattern is very regular, causing false readings (e.g. moiré), near the limits of its resolution.


Because the Fuji sensor is irregular, it doesn't need the blur filter.



Of course there is always a tradeoff, the Fuji solution introduces its own set of problems. The Bayer pattern has achieved market dominance because it is a great solution. I think the K-3, with its Bayer filter, higher resolution and switchable blur filter is a significantly better implementation than X-Trans.
Exactly. The X Trans is not necessarily better, just different. And if you take a K5 IIs or K3, which don't have AA filters there isn't that much moire seen in practice. What I do think Fuji has going for it has more to do with an excellent jpeg engine and for folks who don't like doing a lot of post processing, straight out of camera jpegs with these cameras are pretty good (but obviously there is a lot of pre-cooking going on).
03-13-2014, 08:52 AM   #12
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
What I do think Fuji has going for it has more to do with an excellent jpeg engine and for folks who don't like doing a lot of post processing, straight out of camera jpegs with these cameras are pretty good (but obviously there is a lot of pre-cooking going on).
I agree. Unfortunately Pentax doesn't seem to put much effort into jpeg processing. OTOH, there are innumerable ways for a sophisticated jpeg shooter to set their own preferences for contrast, saturation, sharpness, NR, WB, etc, in the camera menu.

The closest comparator to an X-Trans is a K-5 IIs; neither has an AA filter, same resolution, both use raw NR. To make the comparison equal, turn on Highlight Protection on the Pentax. Shoot in the same low light, using lenses with the same aperture and shutter speed, and ignore the ISO number. You may have to adjust noise reduction to equalize noise and detail between the two. This would be a level playing field and provide virtually identical dynamic range, noise and resolution.

DPReview and Imaging Resource are responsible for a lot of this consumer confusion. Their comparators use ISO numbers which are easily manipulated by manufacturers. If the comparators used set lighting levels, with same apertures and shutter speeds, results would be much more honest.

Last edited by audiobomber; 03-14-2014 at 06:28 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
dslr, fuji x-a1 vs, k-3, k3, pentax k-3
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-01 vs Fuji X-Pro 1 vs Olympus OM-D Winder Pentax K-01 749 06-14-2014 03:42 PM
K3 vs Fuji X-E2 on Photography Blog? jhux1972 Pentax K-3 58 02-03-2014 08:27 PM
K-5 vs Fuji X-Pro 1 Qwntm Pentax K-5 17 04-16-2012 08:12 AM
Camera comparison: One X vs Galaxy S II vs Nexus vs N8 vs iPhone 4S jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 04-12-2012 07:41 AM
In-Camera vs Software, what's your preference? jwiles Photographic Technique 70 09-01-2010 10:14 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:37 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top