How mature is mirrorless technology?

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>will defend their investment to the hilt as far as going blind to many realities</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First, cameras aren't investments; they are tools. Second, I am not defending anything. Third, at least for myself, I don't believe I am blind to realities, which is exactly why I don't jump onto the mirrorless bandwagon if it clearly means stepping backwards and getting less than what I have now. You might be hard pressed to find a list of reasons not to go mirrorless; I don't have that problem at all. My evaluation came to the conclusion that mirrorless is not the right tool for my job, not yet anyway. For some aspects, it's a draw, for some that are important to me, mirrorless just doesn't cut it. Splitting between the two systems might be an option, but at least for me, I am not ready for that yet either.</p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>The DSLR will take a long time to die because it is well proven and it is currently unmatched for shooting fast moving objects, particularly in low light. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That was the case up until the new X-T2. In my Nikon/Fuji world, there's only one Nikon DSLR that is slightly better than the Fuji X-T2 for low-light auto-focus and it costs $6500. I didn't upgrade from the D4s to D5 because the X-T2 was a better camera with better IQ. Certainly, the Nikon D5 has great high iso images, it's King, but they achieve this at the expense of low iso dynamic range. The D5 is a decade behind in DR at 200iso and looks like my old D300. In broad day light, the slight edge that the AF on the Nikon D5 may have, is of no consequence for the shooting I do. At the next Olympics, I'm certain we will see Fuji nestled in there along with Nikon and Sony. The straight-out-of-camera jpgs and film simulation settings on Fuji are miles ahead of Nikon, Canon, and Sony and has been enough for many jpg shooters to switch.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Totally unacceptable AF and EVF performance for anything that moves and that one needs to pan with. The fact that most (all?) EVFs still resort to displaying a still image (the last one taken) when the fps rate goes up makes it hard to follow a moving subject when panning; one simply doesn't get to view where the subject really is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It is different and takes some getting used to and would agree with the X-T1. But try the X-T2 with the grip and on boost, I think it would surprise you as leaps and bounds were made in the AF and EVF dept. Also, the predictive focus for subject movement with Fuji is fantastic. As is the image stabilization. At first when shooting, I kept thinking I missed the shots and the camera is bunk, but when you open up the files on the LCD to check, you're surprised to see that they are all in focus. One thing I have noticed with the Fuji is that you get more shots in focus when you are on CH shooting as opposed to CL or S. It seems that 11 or 14 fps is really beneficial to getting positive results from the AF system. This makes post production a pain, of course.</p>

[tholte]

<p>"Looking at sample shots online the A7Rii produces clearly superior image quality to any of Fuji's APS offerings." I have never bought a camera by looking at sample images on a computer screen. You seem sold on the Sony so you should get one. </p>

[rossb]

<p>Every week I hike up the High Peaks Trail at Pinnacles National Park. It's my Wednesday outing. From the parking lot the shortest route to the High Peaks is 3mi and 2000 feet up fairly steep hiking. When you are up there if you sit down for a little and have a snack and water you will see Condors putting on a show. They have 10 ft wingspans and they glide, land on the rocks, jump off the rocks and it's just grand.</p>

<p>The weird thing is the Photographers stay in the parking lot with jumbo Nikons and wait for the Condors to fly overhead 2000 or 3000 feet up and then snap away. I have taken calling them parking lot camera's. The reason they sit down there for boring shots with no background is because they cannot carry the camera's to where they should be. </p>

<p>My longest lens is a 50mm so it's useless for that type of shot. Last Wednesday I was up there and met 4 other retired persons and the five of us watched the show for quite some time. We all had binoculars. My FM2n was the only camera among us. I am not a landscape or wildlife photographer myself. I am more about family photogrphy and I burn a lot of film doing that. I do carry my camera hiking as I am staying in shape to hike Half Dome this year and will want my FM2 with me. You also have to carry enough water for an entire day when you hike Half Dome.</p>

<p>Anyway a person can buy a jumbo parking lot camera or something else. My advice is to buy something that you can carry so that your photography is not limited to a few feet from your car. . If your interested in the Fuji check out the Ted Vieira you-tube channel as he is a Las Vegas Professional and he shoots Fuji and is a former Canon shooter. He also shoots film for his personal work which is what brought me to his channel.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>The weird thing is the Photographers stay in the parking lot with jumbo Nikons and wait for the Condors to fly overhead 2000 or 3000 feet up and then snap away. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>So basically these lenses are effectively shelf queens that get to play outside a little bit. But these people would never trade across to a mirrorless system, anyway, and it's not a conversation they would entertain. Having such huge lenses and cameras is a kind of social signalling. Their satisfaction comes from the fact that they can afford that stuff - and show it off.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Their satisfaction comes from the fact that they can afford that stuff - and show it off.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And here I thought that applies to Leica users only. Even without flaunting huge lenses.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Well people buy camera's for all sorts of reason I suppose. Big camera's, little camera's, old camera's etc and it's should be fun for whatever it is you wish to do. The mirrorless is just a different style and probably a lot depends on what you actually take photos of and what appeals to you.<br>

From my standpoint being someone that is out and about a lot, spends a great deal of time hiking or cycling I want a camera that I can carry along with food and water for the trip. Well actually I do not carry a camera when cycling as I do not stop. I just roll out the driveway for 2 to 4 hrs and ride the bike. I have my cell and posted up a photo of the hills on my Strava account yesterday. Others have different needs and interests. </p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>There is nothing "random" about an X-Trans filter. It consists of a 3x3 array with green cells in the center and four corners, with red and blue in the center of each side. Alternate arrays are rotated 90 degrees, which provides some distribution of R and B cells. However G cells are lumped into 2x2 squares, the antithesis of randomization if it is intended to reduce color aliasing. </p>

<p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter</p>

<p>A Bayer filter consists of 2x2 cells with G on opposing corners, R and B on the remaining corners. The R and B orientation is consistent throughout the array. Unlike the X-Trans arrangements, no colors ever share a common side</p>

<p>In both examples, there are two G cells and one B and one R cell in each array.</p>

<p>Only Foveon sensors have coincident color filters, but have little market penetration. Whether that is due to licensing restrictions or other factors is hard to determine.</p>

[EricM]

<p>Any uncomfortable adjustment period I've had to make with the EVF on the Fuji was quickly over-shadowed by the joy of keeping ones eye to the viewfinder and still being able to adjust my shutter speed, iso, f stop, and exp comp with with three large physical dials and and an aperture ring. What a freeing feeling it is to adjust ones settings while still paying attention to the scene in the viewfinder. My instincts and muscle memory with film slr bodies quickly returned. The EVF also brightens and darkens in relation to over and under exposure. It's also 1005 silent and therefore unobtrusive. This new environment is an entirely different approach to shooting, for me. These "mirrorless" attributes make it very difficult to return back to my dslrs. </p>

 

[rossb]

<p>Just going along with what I see on the net, you-tube and such I think the Fuji is very popular. It has that Across 100 simulation that appeals to me. Street shooters buy the X-Pro 2 because it is like a rangefinder. Optical or Sci Fi, take your pick. </p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>So basically these lenses are effectively shelf queens that get to play outside a little bit. But these people would never trade across to a mirrorless system, anyway, and it's not a conversation they would entertain. Having such huge lenses and cameras is a kind of social signalling. Their satisfaction comes from the fact that they can afford that stuff - and show it off.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, are you sure you're not projecting all this onto them?</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

I'm with you Edward. I can't see how the X-trans

sensor works the way Fuji claim. In fact their

publicity blurb makes out the pixel sampling is

done over a 6x6 photosite area, not 3x3.

<p>

Now if Fuji had come up with some really clever geometry, like triangular photosites, and sampled them in true RGB triads, then I'd applaud them for doing away with the 50% redundant green sensors. However, that doesn't appear to be the case. It seems more like they're selling a new regal wardrobe malfunction to me.

<p>

As for a little X-trans sensor delivering better IQ than a full-frame one; I see absolutely no evidence of that. Quite the reverse. And how much "dynamic range" can you get, use or see in an actual picture, as opposed to lab measurements? Are we talking about Subject Brightness Range, Smax/Noise-floor, Image Brightness Range or something else? Because no slide film could show much over 7 stops of SBR and it never seemed to prevent anyone taking perfectly useable pictures with it.

<p>

As for not using any tool available, such as web sample images, to research a camera before purchase. I see that as blind buying and not at all sensible.

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>As for a little X-trans sensor delivering better IQ than a full-frame one; I see absolutely no evidence of that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Hi Joe, if this is in response to something I stated, I said the Nikon D5 and not full frame cameras. There's plenty in Google to explore in regards to the crummy DR of the Nikon D5. The D4s is still my first choice for all around shooting. An internet friend in Australia just did 10,000 raw images on a single D5 battery charge. That's a big deal for some.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And how much "dynamic range" can you get, use or see in an actual picture, as opposed to lab measurements?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That answer depends entirely on how much one appreciates using the highlights/shadows/whites/black sliders in Adobe ACR. You can pull some amazing details out of the blacks on x-trans III sensors </p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>While the D5 has indeed relatively modest base ISO DR, the XT2 exceeds it at only ISO 100 and 200 (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm), whereas the D5's DR is greater than that of the XT2 from ISO 1200 to 25600. The D5 base ISO DR is about 0.5 stops greater than the D300's, and 2.8 stops greater than the D300's at 2500 ISO and above. So I would say the D5's dynamic range is excellent in its typical ISOs of expected use; it is optimized for high ISO, high fps photography, not landscape. The images in press photography are are typically not extensively edited to lift shadows like landscape photographs often are, and the dynamic range does exceed that of the output media. Fuji ISO settings seem to not be comparable to other manufacturers settings and lead to increased headroom in the highlights but a darker picture than others so in real world when you actually want an image of a similar brightness in the final screen display, with the same shutter speed, youmay need to use a higher ISO on the Fuji to get similar luminosity to other brands' products. In dpreview.com reviews, they seem to always use a slower shutter speed on Fujis to get comparable brightness in the images at equal ISO and aperture, suggesting that the Fuji ISO settings aren't quite what one would expect. Furthermore what I found with the X-Trans sensor is that high ISO images tend to be smeared showing people like they were made of wax, this actually lead me to sell my Fuji X100s; it just wasn't suitable for what I do, the focusing was extremely erratic in tracking in low light, and image quality wasn't what the hype would have me expect. However, I would expect some improvement in the performance by then, but people still write articles about the waxy skin at high ISO.</p>

<p>https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/</p>

<p>The D5 does excel in the consistency of colour across the ISO range and in the broad range of color temperatures in daylight, the colours at ISO 25600 look similar to 3200 etc. and even when photographing outdoors in the arctic summer midnight skylight light, there is no blue cast. This has led me to successfully use ISO 102400 for wildlife (with DXO PRIME). What's more, the autofocus of the camera produces a remarkable consistency of in-focus pics even with fast lenses (f/1.4 and f/2) in dim light. I normally seem to get about 3% out of focus pics when photographing approaching people in daylight at f/1.4 (usually 105/1.4, but with other lenses as well), with the D5, and this increases to about 10% in dim light (at ISO 25600, f/2.8, 1/500s is I run into the first episodes of hunting but mostly it was still working with high consistency). The D5's AF performance in low light is quite something to experience; often getting single digit reject percentages in situations where the D810 may have produced 30-70% rejects (in difficult, dim, backlight). These have been mostly in single shot mode with continuous focusing. High speed bursts at 12fps may reduce the keeper percentange a bit but not as much as with some other tech. Overall, DSLR technology isn't mature but experiences some major developments from time to time though perhaps not in each iteration.</p>

<p>I tried the X-T2 actually. The EVF is nice, for an EVF, and AF seemed to work decently in the store lighting but when I tried autofocus in high speed bursts, the focus was all over the place and nothing seemed to come out quite right. Perhaps it just doesn't cope with low light situations well, or I wasn't using optimal settings for the situation. If Eric has some comparison image sets or data with the D5 and XT2, with approaching people in indoor lighting with lens wide open, I would like to see that because to me it seemed like it wasn't working well for that kind of a situation. Otherwise nice camera. If you can try a church middle corridor lit at approximately exposure levels of ISO 12800, f/2.8, 1/250 with backlighting on the couple, it would be interesting to hear what kind of keeper percentages you get without distracting everyone with an autofocus assist light, and how the skin compares to D5. If you can get 10fps sets in focus with Fuji, that's quite an accomplishment in those conditions.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>@Rodeo joe<br>

Bunching green cells together may reduce the amount of color aliasing when de-mosaicing the image. However software other than native to Fuji may not take full advantage of the X-Trans features. Kodak hyped a similar "improvement" which went nowhere. Maybe we're waiting for variations on the Phase One pixel-shifting approach, which eliminates aliasing at the expense of time exposures for everything. What's the catch ;)</p>

<p>The only time color aliasing is visible is for repetitive patterns at the limit of resolution, like ironwork railings in the distance. Any slip up in focusing, or lens limitations, and it's a non-issue. Not many lenses perform at that level for a non-AA, 42 MP sensor.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

@ Edward. There's a simple answer to improving

Bayer's Green-redundant and wasteful filter layout. That's to substitute Cyan and Yellow filters for the two Greens. I suggested this a couple of years ago or more.

 

The Green signal is extrapolated by subtracting the Red signal from Yellow, and the Blue signal from Cyan. You actually end up with 2 sets of data for all three Red, Green and Blue channels; since G1 (Y - R) can be further subtracted from Cyan to give Blue2, while G2 (C - B) is subtracted from Yellow to give Red2. This system is 250% more light efficient than the crazy Green-heavy Bayer scheme.

 

It requires more processing, but most of that could be done at the analogue stage using adding and subtracting op-amps.

 

Introduce a log amplifier stage before A/D conversion and I believe such a scheme would easily beat anything currently on the market.

 

I'll charge just a small royalty per sensor from the first manufacturer to take the idea up, thanks!

[donbright]

<p>Wow! What a compliment to the XT-2 to be aligned in the same league as the D5! Didn't think we would get into this realm, but a compliment non the less. We fuji X-Owners found a proud little camera that for the money punches above its weight and I think that point in itself is where the perspective to take account. I don't think anyone to my recollection said the X-trans is the best solution in the market place to date, but here's my take. Fuji answered the call to create a camera that it light, built well, small enough in stature to travel with, deliver enough flexibility to be used in a studio setting, provide superior optics and more and do all this at a price point that is approachable. Having a solid camera to travel with is what got my attention. Street work, having it over my shoulder out and about, and convenient. People are attracted to this and it adding to sales success for Fuji. It's also the ease of use. The ability for the novice to see the exposure in the screen light to dark with the ease of a histogram check, gets the shot! I'm impressed at the stream of Photographs made by novices throughout the world that has delivered some good stuff. These cameras are making the average person look good, because the struggle to nail the exposure, the ability to edit in camera delivers making people feel good about their Photographic endeavors, its that simple. Simple is simple a nurture to mature mirrorless technology.</p>

[EricM]

<p>Ilkka, in that Petapixel link, those are the worst pictures I've seen come out of any camera in a long time. I'd take that article with a huge grain of salt.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While the D5 has indeed relatively modest base ISO DR, the XT2 exceeds it at only ISO 100 and 200 (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm)</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Great link, Ilkka. But not so quick. When I enter the camera bodies on the right hand panel, my results are entirely different. My chart shows the x-t2 has greater DR over the D5 up until 1200iso, not 200. The x-t2 then drops slightly behind the D5 for a bit, but when we get to 32180 iso, the x-t2 once again surpasses the D5 and has greater DR. Do we not see the same results? I then select the D300. It's not news, but the D300 at one point has higher DR than the D5.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> <br />I tried the X-T2 actually. The EVF is nice, for an EVF, and AF seemed to work decently in the store lighting but when I tried autofocus in high speed bursts, the focus was all over the place and nothing seemed to come out quite right. Perhaps it just doesn't cope with low light situations well, or I wasn't using optimal settings for the situation. If Eric has some comparison image sets or data with the D5 and XT2, with approaching people in indoor lighting with lens wide open, I would like to see that because to me it seemed like it wasn't working well for that kind of a situation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Our time is best spent with you exploring the internet as it is filled with accolades over the auto focus on the X-T2. You could take note of some optimal settings and return to the store and try it again and see what all the fuss is about because yes, your unsatisfactory experience suggests you weren't using it right. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Wow! What a compliment to the XT-2 to be aligned in the same league as the D5! </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I know. I still have a hard time believing it myself, Don. It was less than a year ago a colleague suggested I try a used x-t1 off of Craigslist to get my feet wet. It was a new world to me and seems like I was the last to know that Fuji is leading the market in optics and image stabilization. I can't believe how soft my 24-70 and 70-200 Nikons are compared to the Fuji equivalents. And they're half the cost. </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>All this goes to show that reputation does not easily give way to reality. Sometimes, though, reputation gets blown to bits by new realities that cannot be resisted.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Thanks for adding a little perspective to this conversation. Edward and Rodeo Joe's conversation almost makes one believe they know what they're talking about. How many sensors have they designed that are in production? </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

In production - none, but designed, as opposed to

simply copied ad infinitum from a flawed concept -

one.

[Uhooru]

<p>Interesting. Can I ask who for? I understand if you can't say. What's your background? EE? </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>My chart shows the x-t2 has greater DR over the D5 up until 1200iso, not 200. The x-t2 then drops slightly behind the D5 for a bit, but when we get to 32180 iso, the x-t2 once again surpasses the D5 and has greater DR. Do we not see the same results?</em></p>

<p>Judging from the chart at ISO 400 and 640 the DR of the two cameras is approximately equal and at some between values the Fuji does appear ahead (but the user can usually choose to use those settings which give optimal results on their camera) which in this case would be 400, 640 or 1200 for the D5. However, you are correct that the X-T2 is head in the chart at certain values such as 500, 800 and 1000.</p>

<p>Especially at 51200 I have to wonder about the result since it is much better than the maximum theoretically possible value ("Ideal DX" in the right tab) and also approximately the same as ISO 25600 which leads me to question the validity of the chart's data for the Fuji. Thus it may be that we have to disregard the results presented as simply not possible. It's simply not possible that the DR would not drop by increasing the ISO from 25600 to 51200 unless there is heavy noise reduction (smearing detail) being applied to the files. </p>

<p>In dpreview.com's X-T2 review, one can check the noise and detail at ISO 51200 (RAW) and there appears to be a lot more chroma noise in the X-T2 images compared to the D5. Also there is considerable false colour in the text in the Fuji and the text is more clearly delineated in the D5 image. Thus to suggest the Fuji image is better here would require quite a stretch of the imagination. </p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If JPGs are used, unfortunately dpreview.com's site doesn't allow noise reduction to be turned off, so we cannot do a valid comparison for in-camera JPGs. Anyway, it is difficult to compare these cameras because of the different CFA used and many sites such as DXO do not test X-Trans for this reason.</p>

<p><em>Our time is best spent with you exploring the internet as it is filled with accolades over the auto focus on the X-T2.</em></p>

<p>Well, dpreview.com does comment the following on the AF of the X-T2: "</p>

<ul>

<li>Camera's full AF capability only available with a subset of lenses</li>

<li>Subject tracking, while good, is not dependable enough for professional use</li>

<li>AF performance drops significantly in low light"</li>

</ul>

<p>It's also easy to find user comments not recommending the X-T2 for tracking moving subjects in low light because of the AF, and this is from owner-users of the camera. E.g.</p>

<p>https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4033413?page=3</p>

<p>"In good light and where the contrast was good, there were no issues but going into poorer illuminated areas, not even as bad as that of the wedding reception pictured above, AF became an issue as was tracking."</p>

<p>When I searched for review on the topic I was only able to find videos demonstrating the X-T2's AF tracking in sunlight, not in a dimly lit medieval church which is what my concern is about (to justify spending money, I expect better performance in difficult conditions than what I have available now). Don't get me wrong - I would be happy to get the X-T2 for its silent shutter for example, to use for moments where silence is critical, but it would have to be able to handle the most difficult AF tracking in a dim chuch center corridor, using fast lenses such as 56/1.2 and from what I've read, that lens isn't the fastest focusing in low light. If I cannot use a fast lens to compensate for the smaller sensor then I'm not that interested. And no, I don't buy into the X-Trans hype, from what I've seen it performs fine at mid ISO such as 400 but the waxy skin effect on the X100s at ISO 6400 was a total show-stopper for me. </p>

[Nick D.]

<p>Fuji XE-1 dynamic range :)<br>

<img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sSyxwvzGssM/WJiKEkdlyVI/AAAAAAAAB3I/73EnGks-Q4o_CuyEmoWVx1NQVGFC16-lgCLcB/s1600/Cartagena.jpg" alt="" /></p>