Fuji XE2 and XT1 - image quality

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>I bought these recently, and have the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses. They are capable of producing images of very high quality. Yet, on occasions, they do not seem to deliver those results, ie noticeable softness, even when shutter speed, aperture and iso settings should be providing top quality images.</p>

<p>I recall a reference - but can't now find it - that this 'problem' can be caused by the image stabilisation function. Before I start experimenting, eg shooting with the ois off, I'd be grateful to hear of other members' experiences.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I only have a lesser set of fujis and didn't shoot enough to notice your problem.<br>

If your OIS is under suspicion: maybe try tripleshooting stuff? That way you should get an OIS failure among successes.</p>

[andylynn]

I've taken a lot of shots with an X-E2 and those two lenses, and never had soft shots for no reason. Can you post or link

some examples, and their exposure settings?

[lex_jenkins]

Check the EXIF data for focal length too. I

haven't tried those lenses but the 16-50 kit zoom

with my X-A1 has soft edges and corners at 16mm.

It's nearly a fisheye at the widest end, in the

uncorrected raw files. The extreme correction

needed for rectilinear results in JPEGs produces

some unavoidable softness, even stopped down. But it's sharp in the center, even wide open.

 

And in some cases any stabilization, lens or

sensor, may produce odd results when trying to

offset shaky hands. The Fuji kit zoom is

generally very good, though.

 

But it's easy to test. Just reproduce the same

test photo handheld in both hands, one hand, from

a tripod or support, with and without the two

stabilisation modes activated (continuous and

shutter release activated), as well as action

detection on and off. Compare results.

 

There are also autofocus variables. Fuji

generally seems accurate, but not always as quick

as I'd like to lock on in dim light. Again, test

the various options and see which appears to work

best for you. Often I'll use manual focus with

auto assigned to the Fn button to minimize

hunting in dim light.

[curt wiler]

<p>Image stabilization can cause image softness at higher shutter speeds because of the sampling frequency mis-match. With the Fuji sensor I make sure OIS is off when shutter speed is above 1/250. With Nikon FX the speed is higher, about 1/500.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>need to see some examples here of softness. IME the 18-55 is as sharp or sharper than the nikon 24-70 af-s. </p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Many thanks for the advice and comments.</p>

<p>Before I upload anything, I'm inclined to try a few 'experiments'. However, I bought my first 'proper' camera in 1958, and I've looked at many thousands of images - sharp and otherwise - since then.</p>

<p>In relation to Curt's comments, what he says is, as I now recall, what I had read previously. I was out walking yesterday, and when returning I noticed a parked white van about 100 yards away. It had lettering down the side. I had the camera/lens set at aperture (I usually do) f8. The iso was 800. The lens was at 200mm. There was strong but slightly hazy sunshine falling on the van.</p>

<p>I took one shot with ois, immediately followed by one without. I can see no difference in image quality. However, the data recorded the first at 1/4000, and the second at 1/3500th. Slightly odd?</p>

<p>With regard to Eric's comments, I have been a long term Nikon user, and I agree about the quality of the 18-55. I think that the 55-200 is also remarkably good. It is what seems to be a lack of consistency that has concerned me, but optics themselves cannot be first rate one minute, and not the next?</p>

[curt wiler]

<p>I agree about the quality of the 18-55. It is remarkable.<br>

"optics themselves cannot be first rate one minute, and not the next?" --- yes, they can because it is not just optics we are observing here. It is also an electro-mechanical system that is measuring the motion and reacting to it. It is not a steady-state process. If it gets an erroneous measurement at just the wrong instant, it may make an improper adjustment. If by chance everything is optimum, you may not see an effect. My observation of the effect in real-world use stems from the 70-200 and longer Nikkors, and the 18-55 Fuji. I find it is better to leave stabilization off unless I know I need it.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Curt - thanks for your further comments, but I think we are saying the same thing. I referred to the optics THEMSELVES. </p>

<p>I have just found the set-up suggestions by John Caz. They look interesting</p>

[peter_gilbert4]

<p>I have the 55-200 and my experience matches Curt's as well. Also, I think the zoom is not so sharp at 200mm regardless. I had the 18-55, sold that over a year ago, and I plan to sell the 55-200 when the 90mm prime is released. I just prefer primes I guess.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Peter - thank you for your contribution.</p>

<p>I am struggling with a really bad attack of bronchitis at the moment, and it is going to be a few days before I can take up the cameras again. However, I think I am going to have to learn to use them better. Let me expand.</p>

<p>For thirty years I have been using 'big' Nikons: digital ones for about the last twelve. I tended to use the latter very much like film cameras. Aperture priority with spot metering and spot exposure. I almost always obtained first class images with a variety of lenses and circumstances. I'm not sure the Fuji X series altogether lends itself to that approach?</p>

<p>Increasing age and health problems caused me to conclude that I could not hump big cameras and lenses any longer. They have almost all gone, although I have kept a near mint F4: it is too beautiful to let go!</p>

<p>After a good deal of thought, etc, I chose the X series as a replacement. I need to learn and understand more about use, I think?</p>

 

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>My last posting should have referred to spot metering and spot focus. Put it down to the drugs I'm taking!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>im not sure i would rely on spot metering in a digital age unless i had a specific reason to. you can get very different exposures with spot than with evaluative, and in most normal situations, the evaluative meter will be the better choice as it will expose for the entire scene. 'spot focus' on the fujis is even better than on the nikons because the focus point can be moved almost anywhere. the close array of focus points on my nikon DX and especially FX cameras means i have to focus-and-recompose sometimes when i dont want to and makes shooting with fast lenses at open apertures more problematic. so mirrorless is an improvement in this respect, although my DSLRs have better focus tracking and accuracy, especially in low light.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I took one shot with ois, immediately followed by one without. I can see no difference in image quality. However, the data recorded the first at 1/4000, and the second at 1/3500th. Slightly odd?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At shutter speeds faster than 1/250th image stabilization begins to become superfluous. At 1/3000-1/4000, image stabilization may not be working at all since it's unnecessary (although I'm not sure whether the Fuji X-series actually shut off OIS above certain fast shutter speeds). For me the sweet spot for effective image stabilization is around 1/4-1/60th, where it offers a noticeable improvement in handheld use. If I crouch, kneel or sit I can manage even slower shutter speeds, although it may take a couple of tries and careful breath control.<br>

<br>

And the difference between 1/3500 and 1/4000 is so tiny it would be imperceptible to most human eyes, although it would register on a histogram. That sort of difference can be accounted for by natural variations in daylight, reflections, etc.<br>

<br>

Also, your camera probably has four image stabilization modes, although some of those modes may be inaccessible with certain settings for metering, exposure and in-camera JPEG choices:</p>

<ol>

<li>Continuous = OIS is on continuously, so there's no delay in engagement - but at the cost of higher battery drain.</li>

<li>Continuous & motion = If subject motion is detected the camera forces a faster shutter speed.</li>

<li>Shooting (or shutter release button activated) = OIS engages only when shutter release is partially depressed. Lower battery drain but be sure to estimate an engagement time of around 1/2 second or so when photographing active candid scenes such as people or pets moving.</li>

<li>Shooting & motion = Same as #2, accounts for detection of moving subjects to force faster shutter speed in addition to OIS.</li>

</ol>

<p>I've tried these modes and they do seem to work as described. I've used option #2 when photographing from moving vehicles. It does indeed force faster shutter speeds compared with #1. But in bright daylight with very fast shutter speeds it's difficult to determine whether the OIS is effective. #1 and #2 are effective in dimmer light.<br>

<br>

I mostly use #3, for lowest battery drain, because I mainly use the X-A1 for stationary subjects. I prefer my Nikon V1 for active subjects, and in daylight with ISO 100 or 200 the image quality is still very good from the smaller CX/one-inch sensor, reasonably comparable to an APS sensor model. Above ISO 400 the Fuji X-A1 IQ far surpasses the Nikon 1 System.</p>

[gregory_fischer]

Mervyn, I use both a Nikon D800 and a Fuji XE-2. Apart from size, I find accuracy of auto focus

one of the greatest advantages of Fuji. It should be even better on an XT1. In my experience, focus accuracy with static

objects is more precise and consistent with the Fuji. For things that are

moving, though, the Nikon autofocus is much better. But from what I have read, the new autofocus systems on the XT1

and XT10 are a

lot better than my XE2 for things that are moving.

 

Three thoughts about possible issues. First, Fuji autofocus seems much better in the S mode than the C mode. I

sometimes knock the dial into C mode by accident. Second, the size of the

adjustable autofocus area zone matters a lot. With a big zone, my camera sometimes focuses on foreground or

background objects. So I

always keeps the zone very tight, which works fine with static objects. Finally, I sometimes get out of focus shots when I

try to focus on

low contrast areas, especially in low light. In these cases, I either try to include some sort of high contrast edge in the

focus area, or

switch to manual focus mode which is surprisingly easy on the Fuji body.