[Clarkey]

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 ----------

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.

[Driline]

I'm still interested in checking out the xt2 but it is out of stock still.

I have the X-T1. It's a much better fit for larger or longer fingers like I have and will probably fit you better as well too.

---------- Post added 04-20-17 at 07:01 PM ----------

I think the big thing going for Fuji is their jpeg engine, which is really good.

I think you need to pick up a used Fuji X-T1 like I did. Just try it and compare it to the Pentax. If you don't like it you can always get your money back on Ebay.

[Homo_erectus]

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 Bridgewoods 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.

Ha! That's crazy I arrived at what I suggested through trial and error, err, I mean systematic scientific experimentation :-)

My cameras are only supported in LR 6 / CC so I own the most recent CC version. I only said anything because I saw the old "x-trans requires its own special workflow" come out and I thought I'd try to clear that up since it doesn't seem to be true in the Adobe products anymore. It's never been true in Capture One or Silkypix as far as I have seen. I should have also mentioned that while a lot of my work has foliage in it, I am not a landscape photographer.

Both Silkypix and Rawtherapee are capable, I agree, but I find that I am simply unable to do anything good with blown highlights in Silkypix (I'd love to learn an approach that works though, seriously.) and Rawtherapee just seems to crash all the time when I try to run a full shoots worth of images through it. So I handle my personal work in C1 Pro which is a really nice raw developer and handles fuji raws very, very, well. I own LR because I need it for a few specific projects that I do for one client.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts :-)

[Clarkey]

Ha! That's crazy I arrived at what I suggested through trial and error, err, I mean systematic scientific experimentation :-)

My cameras are only supported in LR 6 / CC so I own the most recent CC version. I only said anything because I saw the old "x-trans requires its own special workflow" come out and I thought I'd try to clear that up since it doesn't seem to be true in the Adobe products anymore. It's never been true in Capture One or Silkypix as far as I have seen. I should have also mentioned that while a lot of my work has foliage in it, I am not a landscape photographer.

Both Silkypix and Rawtherapee are capable, I agree, but I find that I am simply unable to do anything good with blown highlights in Silkypix (I'd love to learn an approach that works though, seriously.) and Rawtherapee just seems to crash all the time when I try to run a full shoots worth of images through it. So I handle my personal work in C1 Pro which is a really nice raw developer and handles fuji raws very, very, well. I own LR because I need it for a few specific projects that I do for one client.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts :-)

Well, good for you! Before seeing that post, I wasn't smart enough to move the detail slider all the way to the end.
Like you say, LR is perfectly capable of everything else except good sharpening. Speaking of which, the other thing I have observed that made a difference is to select one of the "Fuji" colour profiles - much less potential for bleed/better edge separation.

Agree Silkypix (in any of the Pentax, Panasonic, or Fuji variants) highlight recovery is poor/hard compared to LR. Using the Highlight Recovery tab, move the slider to the "Luminance" direction, then use the Dynamic Range slider to crush the highlights. Also, use a tone curve to minimise the amp on the highlights. The issue is that the colour accuracy suffers from heading away from "Chroma" on that slider. The "Highlight recovery" setting is pretty minimally useful, in my view. This thread is well worth a read: Trevor G on DPR is well known for Silkypix processing.

I haven't done a big bunch through RT - can't comment on stability. One by one seems all right to me.

Oh, and thanks for sharing your thoughts too! I know we've strayed off the path from battery life, but hey.

[Rondec]

I have the X-T1. It's a much better fit for larger or longer fingers like I have and will probably fit you better as well too.

---------- Post added 04-20-17 at 07:01 PM ----------



I think you need to pick up a used Fuji X-T1 like I did. Just try it and compare it to the Pentax. If you don't like it you can always get your money back on Ebay.

I'm pretty invested in Pentax gear and I shoot mostly full frame now, with a K-1. Shooting landscapes with a K-1 is pretty eye opening, particularly when I can use pixel shift. When I use APS-C now, it is mostly to shoot long lenses, like the DA *50-135 or the DA 55-300 -- places where the Fuji wouldn't give me much benefit.

As I said earlier, I am not a jpeg shooter. I am always doing something to photos -- bumping shadows, cropping a little, trying a black and white preset, whatever -- and once I decide I am going to post process, I might as well have the most data going into it as possible.

This is just an example of what I did with a file from the K-1. My experience, particularly when shooting APS-C, was that it was impossible to get this sort of dynamic range in an out of camera jpeg. Either you blow out the sky or you have a really dark foreground. Take an out of camera jpeg into Lightroom and try to bump shadow levels and you don't get much, maybe a stop leeway in development.





At this point, small for me is a K-01 and a DA 40 limited and that's small enough from my stand point. But our shooting styles differ and that's OK.

[Driline]

As I said earlier, I am not a jpeg shooter.

Thats all I shoot is jpeg. Even when I had the Pentax. Pentax Raw files took too much time to get them to look "right" for me anyway so I always used their jpeg which really wasn't all that bad. The only image software I use is the "Photo" app on my 27" iMac.

[G.E.Zekai]

I'm pretty invested in Pentax gear and I shoot mostly full frame now, with a K-1. Shooting landscapes with a K-1 is pretty eye opening, particularly when I can use pixel shift. When I use APS-C now, it is mostly to shoot long lenses, like the DA *50-135 or the DA 55-300 -- places where the Fuji wouldn't give me much benefit.

As I said earlier, I am not a jpeg shooter. I am always doing something to photos -- bumping shadows, cropping a little, trying a black and white preset, whatever -- and once I decide I am going to post process, I might as well have the most data going into it as possible.

This is just an example of what I did with a file from the K-1. My experience, particularly when shooting APS-C, was that it was impossible to get this sort of dynamic range in an out of camera jpeg. Either you blow out the sky or you have a really dark foreground. Take an out of camera jpeg into Lightroom and try to bump shadow levels and you don't get much, maybe a stop leeway in development.





At this point, small for me is a K-01 and a DA 40 limited and that's small enough from my stand point. But our shooting styles differ and that's OK.

Nice photos and impressive DR !! But, for landscapes, we can always shoot in bracketing and it only takes seconds to hdr them in Lr.

I love Pentax to my heart. Best ergonomics i had in a camera brand so far, easy to read menus, niche features, well prices bodies. BUT

Releasing rebadged Tamron lenses with a higher price tag and lesser features was an INSULT
Not updating their cameras with newer features after the release, considering we are a very loyal customer base, is an INSULT,
Not having tethering options in older cameras, heck there is not even a barebones app that can tether my K-3, is an INSULT,
Flagship K-1 having worse AF tracking, and overall performance than some newer Canon REBELS is an INSULT,
In 2017 giving us 1080p 30p with a crappy codec, while having Theta line, and not using SR in video is an INSULT.

I came to believe Pentax was the light-weight feature packed cameras, reasonable prices and tight community. Please takes notes from Fuji and Get your shite together Pentax!

[Rondec]

Nice photos and impressive DR !! But, for landscapes, we can always shoot in bracketing and it only takes seconds to hdr them in Lr.

I love Pentax to my heart. Best ergonomics i had in a camera brand so far, easy to read menus, niche features, well prices bodies. BUT

Releasing rebadged Tamron lenses with a higher price tag and lesser features was an INSULT
Not updating their cameras with newer features after the release, considering we are a very loyal customer base, is an INSULT,
Not having tethering options in older cameras, heck there is not even a barebones app that can tether my K-3, is an INSULT,
Flagship K-1 having worse AF tracking, and overall performance than some newer Canon REBELS is an INSULT,
In 2017 giving us 1080p 30p with a crappy codec, while having Theta line, and not using SR in video is an INSULT.

I came to believe Pentax was the light-weight feature packed cameras, reasonable prices and tight community. Please takes notes from Fuji and Get your shite together Pentax!

I sense a lot of anger. I don't personally find Pentax's way of doing things insulting, even when they release cameras I'm not interested in.

Clearly to the OP, the K-1 is going to be his baseline camera, the question is one of a smaller, portable camera to supplement that.

With regard to your other statements, they have updated the K-1 firmware significantly since release -- improving a number of features and adding a longer bulb mode. They are apparently working on improving the video mode somewhat by offering mechanical SR for both the K-1 and KP cameras. As for the focus tracking, the K-1 is fine. Not sure which Rebels focus better and what test you looked at that showed they do so, but I haven't seen it.

Currently the price for the Tamron 15-30 is 1200 and the 24-70 is 1300 on B and H photo. The price for the Pentax versions is 1445 and 1229 respectively, meaning that the Pentax version of the 24-70 is actually currently a little cheaper than the Tamron version, while the 15-30 is a couple hundred more. At the same time, it isn't as though Canon and Nikon brand 24-70 f2.8 or 14-24 f2.8/16-35 f2.8 are cheap and in fact, they are quite a bit more expensive than the Pentax offerings.

If Pentax doesn't offer cameras that you want, that's completely fine, but they aren't as bad or as lousy as you make them out to be. Although I do agree with you that if video is your main squeeze then Pentax probably isn't going to be the best option for you.

Edit: I would say that the lack of full frame support from Fuji would be a main reason that I wouldn't go with them (I can't really afford to run two systems). This has been beaten to death, but full frame does offer better high iso performance, better dynamic range, and a little better ability to shoot with narrow depth of field. Even if Fuji would release a full frame camera, they would need a whole new mount a new lenses to use with it.

[wed7]

To TS,

Fuji has the T1/2 + F2 primes which are WR (Pentax does not have these wide, fast and WR primes)

Or a Fuji X-100 series + their 2 converters (18 and 35) for a more compact kit, heck it even use power banks as alternative power source.

Great for pack light and travel.

These can tick all the boxes, like Rondec said, we do not need to wait for Ricoh as it is so busy in their pro line up. ��

If I could, I would.

My K-30 is even smaller than the KP and I have some DA Limiteds, but Fuji's offering are smaller, faster and lighter.

[Sinister]

To TS,

Fuji has the T1/2 + F2 primes which are WR (Pentax does not have these wide, fast and WR primes)

Or a Fuji X-100 series + their 2 converters (18 and 35) for a more compact kit, heck it even use power banks as alternative power source.

Great for pack light and travel.

These can tick all the boxes, like Rondec said, we do not need to wait for Ricoh as it is so busy in their pro line up. ��

If I could, I would.

My K-30 is even smaller than the KP and I have some DA Limiteds, but Fuji's offering are smaller, faster and lighter.

Second the bold part. Got an X-T10 with 12/35/56 plus the 18-55/55-200 and an old X100. The 35 is stellar, the 12 very small and fast. The zooms are very well build. IQ is much better than with my MFT kit (which I probably will sell). So there all the choices out there, though it definitely took some time and courage for me to part with Pentax...

[Driline]

Second the bold part. Got an X-T10 with 12/35/56 plus the 18-55/55-200 and an old X100. The 35 is stellar, the 12 very small and fast. The zooms are very well build. IQ is much better than with my MFT kit (which I probably will sell). So there all the choices out there, though it definitely took some time and courage for me to part with Pentax...

Which 35mm do you have? The 1.4 or 2.0? My decision to switch from Pentax to Fuji took minutes not days. And I
Had 2 Pentax bodies and about $3,000 worth of glass.

[Sinister]

F 1.4 is the one I have.