Originally posted by Rondec Most people who have used both Fuji and Pentax say that if you shoot RAW, you probably get similar performance with regard to the sensor. X Trans propaganda is a bit of a smoke screen, but the K3 and K-P don't have AA filters (can simulate one with SR if needed) and probably show similar moire to Fuji cameras.
I think the big thing going for Fuji is their jpeg engine, which is really good. If you do a lot of portraiture, it probably is adequate. If on the other hand, you do much landscape, you probably won't be comfortable using jpegs for that, as you can't get as much out of the jpeg when you process it.
I think from biz-engineer's standpoint, the biggest negatives of Fuji are (a) needing a different set of lenses to shoot with and (b) having a different set of ergonomics to get used to. If he is comfortable dealing with both of those things then it is reasonable to move with a second system.
Yes, you are correct. As I have gone through several (dissimilar) system additions, the (a) point is IMHO and experience the relevant one, depending on what you are shooting.
One of the first reasons I bought the X-E1 was the then fairly uncommon lack of a low pass filter (pretty much only Sigma, D800, and K-5IIs). The 16mp sensor performance is pretty similar - only the matrix is different, after all.
I think you might be selling the Fuji RAW performance in a landscape setting a bit short, though. I'm working on the content for another thread where I compared 16MP Fuji X-E1, and GM5 files (with decent semi-wide and short tele lenses). The live view for critical focusing is more responsive, and available magnified from the EVF. Also, either the lenses, or in-body display have DOF/hyperfocal reporting, which is handy.
Given the right converter and settings, the Fuji landscape results can be excellent (I'll respond separately to the processing comments from H. erectus below).
---------- Post added 04-20-2017 at 07:34 PM ----------
Originally posted by Homo_erectus In lightroom, the approach I use is to set the radius to it's lowest setting, .5, detail in the 80-100 range (I usually start with 100 and only lower it if I have to), and the amount to a very low value, around the mid-to-high teens at the highest. Then use the masking slider to make the sharpening only be applied to edges rather than the whole image. Using the masking this way makes sure LR won't sharpen any noise in the image.
In my experience, the "it's full of worms" tipping point is around high 20s to low 30s on the amount slider with radius at .5, and detail at 100. Obviously it changes a bit on an image-to-image basis depending on the ISO, how far the exposure has been adjusted in LR, the lens used, type of scene, etc.
If you hold the alt/option key while moving the sliders, LR changes the preview in a way that makes it a little easier to see what is going on. For Amount, Radius, and Detail it turns the image black and white, for Masking it shows the parts of the image that will be sharpened in White and the parts that will not be sharpened in Black.
My default preset that is applied to all fuji files during import has sharpening set to 15, .5, 100, and 50 top to bottom in the sharpening section. Then I adjust a bit from there.
Also, LR's output sharpening is still garbage and will introduce artifacts in almost every image it's applied to, even on the "low" setting. So, avoid that at all costs :-P
If anyone is a C1 Pro user, I'd be happy to share my approach in that program too.
Hope that's helpful :-)
It is. Just to add, LR is really version dependent in terms of sharpening quality - I am on 5.7 (non-CC)
I read about the above approach in
Pete Bridgewood's post. The premise is that LR changes the deconvolution setting at near 100%, and that helps (it does).
More recently, I've moved to 15-30 amount, 0.7-0.9 radius, 50-80% detail, and no masking. I also start with zero colour NR. Using the clarity can also have a positive impact on distant foliage, without having to sharpen much at all. It's still not perfect, though (read, easy as Bayer).
LR is (still) apparently crappy - since I am not doing 6, or CC, or have a 24mp body, I can't comment, Silkypix is another good option I have some time with, but more recenly, I have found raw therapee to be quite good. Both of these have dedicated deconvolution (versus USM) settings that (IMO) kick the pants out of LR.
Last edited by Clarkey; 04-20-2017 at 06:57 PM.