Mastering the X-PRO1 and X-E1: book here and Kindle edition (AVAILABLE) here)

Fujifilm X-A1 in stock check

USA: AmazonUS (black in stock)/ eBay / BHphoto (blue in stock)/ Adorama (black in stock)/ Pictureline / DigitalRev EUROPE: AmazonUK (via DR) DigitalRev / eBay

Fujifilm X-M1

USA: AmazonUS (save $72 on the silver version + kit lens) / BHphoto / Adorama / Pictureline / [shoplink 17242 ebay]eBay[/shoplink] ($70 price drop) / DigitalRev EUROPE: eBay / DigitalRev / AmazonDE (via DR) / wexcamerasDE / AmazonUK (via DR) / PCHstore

_ _ _

by Rico Pfirstinger

Talk to Rico (open forum for questions & feedback) – Rico’s Flickr sets – X-A1 sample images set – X-M1 sample images set –  X-M1 vs. X-A1 shooutout set (private Flickr set, MUST use this link!) – Original X-A1 & X-M1 shootout RAW files for download (incl. Lightroom XMP files) – Mastering the Fujifilm X-Pro1 reading samples (65 free pages) – Pre-order my very soon to be released NEW book: Mastering the Fujifilm X-E1 and X-Pro1

Edit: I have updated the shootout with Photo Ninja samples, please read this separate article.

Welcome to this weekend edition of X-Pert Corner! Comparing the X-A1 and X-M1 is pretty popular these days. Since the hardware of both cameras is pretty much identical, such comparisons usually boil down to an X-Trans vs. Bayer color filter array (CFA) pissing contest. Since we are on the Internet, it is a fact of life that much of what has been and will be written on this issue is inaccurate or just plain wrong, mostly due to flawed methodology. For example: Instead of comparing the output of different sensor CFAs, many “reviewers” are simply showing differences between the two cameras’ JPEG engine default settings.

X-M1

There are indeed visible differences between the X-A1’s and X-M1’s default JPEG processing: The X-A1 is targeting entry-level customers who prefer sharp, clean, brilliant, contrasty and noise-free JPEGs straight out of the box (at least that’s what Fuji thinks), and this preference is mirrored by the camera’s default JPEG engine calibration at its factory settings. In other words: With everything set to factory defaults, the X-A1 delivers sharper (aka more sharpened) results with a bit more contrast and stronger noise reduction than the X-M1. It is however possible (and advisable) to change the default JPEG settings in both cameras to achieve different results that are much harder to distinguish. This is where things become more interesting, but this is also where most “expert comparisons” come to a frustrating halt.

X-A1

In any real-world scenario, it is impossible to compare the performance of different sensor CFAs without processing the RAW images on which we want to base such a comparison. The processing can either be performed in-camera or with an external RAW converter. It is very difficult to remove this processing part from any sensor comparison equation, because different CFAs require different processing in order to achieve the same or at least similar results. Using identical RAW converter settings on comparable images from the X-A1 and X-M1 won’t do the job, quite to the contrary. In order to get comparable results, one has to apply different parameter settings that correspond to the unique qualities and properties if each sensor’s CFA.

X-A1

Please forget comparisons that are based on factory default settings of cameras and RAW converters. They are a waste of our time, because they won’t tell us how each camera performs with optimized real-world settings that most of us would choose to achieve specific precessing results, such as revealing “maximum detail”.

The Setup

In order to compare both cameras (and CFAs), I shot several different subjects in manual mode, each with exactly the same exposure settings and the same lens. This setup made sure that each camera’s sensor was exposed with the same amount of light, at least in theory. Practically, there may still be subtle brightness differences due to the fact that corresponding shots had to be taken in sequence (exchanging cameras and the lens on a tripod and reframing the shot could take a minute or two).

by Rico Pfirstinger

Talk to Rico (open forum for questions & feedback) – Rico’s Flickr sets – X-A1 sample images set – Mastering the Fujifilm X-Pro1 reading samples (65 free pages) – Pre-order the new book: Mastering the Fujifilm X-E1 and X-Pro1

Update [17/9/13]: Added several Lightroom 5.2 RAW samples to the image set.

It took a while, but Fujifilm finally decided to officially announce the X-A1, the long-planned sister model of the X-M1. Let’s cut right to the chase: There’s little difference between these cameras. They look very much the same, they offer the same buttons and controls, the same processor, the same operating speed/performance, the same features, the same menus, the same build, material and size, even the same 16 MP Sony sensor. Of course, there’s one minor but important difference to mention in the sensor department: The X-M1 features an X-Trans color filter array (CFA) without an anti-aliasing (AA) filter, while the X-A1 uses a conventional Bayer CFA with an AA filter (to reduce/eliminate unwanted moiré). You can have a look at the full specs by clicking here.

So what’s the deal? Well, the X-A1 is by quite a margin more affordable than the X-M1, and it comes with a different set of color options: red/silver, black, blue, black/silver and brown/silver. However, not all color options will be available in all markets. For example, customers here in Germany can only expect to be offered the X-A1 in black, blue and red/silver.

It has also been mentioned that the X-A1 will be distributed mostly online and through large outlets like Walmart or MediaMarkt instead of specialized camera stores. With the X-A1, Fuji is targeting price-sensitive value customers who are interested in upgrading to a compact camera with a larger DSLR-quality sensor. But that’s just the marketing. For many real-world uses, the differences in image quality between the X-A1 and X-M1 will be perfectly acceptable. If they weren’t, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus and the rest wouldn’t be able to sell any Bayer cameras to anybody. Let’s be smart: X-Trans is great, and it certainly has its advantages, but it’s not a requirement for taking great-looking images.

So if you aren’t married to X-Trans, the X-A1 is a viable and quite attractive option with an interesting value proposition. It’s also an affordable way to expand your existing X-series investment with a compact second generation option. It’s small and lightweight, it features a tiltable high-resolution LCD, it’s faster and more advanced (regarding both hardware and firmware) than the X-E1 or X-Pro1, and its Bayer sensor is comparable to current offerings from Nikon ([shoplink 13071 ebay]Nikon A[/shoplink]) and Ricoh ([shoplink 13349 ebay]Ricoh GR[/shoplink]). Please note that the pros and cons I mentioned in my X-M1 First Look article also apply to the X-A1, so instead of repeating myself all over again, I’d rather move along with new material.

I have been using an X-A1 pre-production sample with early pre-production firmware in the past six weeks along with an X-M1, and I have since silently updated the aforementioned X-M1 First Look article with additional findings regarding the pros and cons against the X-E1. So if you haven’t done so very recently, please consider checking out this article again.

Since both cameras share a common feature set and the same capabilities, I want to fill this column sharing my experiences with the X-A1 and X-M1. I have also prepared an X-A1 sample set with 75 images, and I have expanded my X-M1 sample set to more than 160 pictures, including several external RAW conversions. Unfortunately, there was no external RAW support for the X-A1 available at the time of this writing, but I’m confident this will change soon.

Once external RAW support and production samples of both the X-M1 and X-A1 become equally available, I will revisit the topic with a “shootout” between these sibling cameras, so there will eventually be a third part to this story.

Ready, Set, Go!

by Rico Pfirstinger

Talk to Rico (open forum for questions & feedback) – Rico’s Flickr sets – XF23mmF1.4 samples set – Mastering the Fujifilm X-Pro1 reading samples (65 free pages) – Pre-order the new book: Mastering the Fujifilm X-E1 and X-Pro1

Flickr bravely chose Friday the 13th for a major maintenance downtime, but they were back online with a delay of just one hour. Hoping for the best, I got things  started with this column, but then Flickr  was forced shut down again (well, what did they expect?), causing more delays. And yet, here we finally are, discussing Fuji’s latest XF prime, the fast and quite substantial XF23mmF1.4 R, a much sought-after “35mm equivalent” lens.

If you are interested in this lens, you might also want to have a look at my previous article about using the XF14mmF2.8 R wide-angle lens. Conceptually, both lenses are quite similar:

• they offer premium optics and build quality at a premium price
• they feature a dedicated manual focus mode with analog (engraved) scales indicating distance and depth-of-field
• distortion is fully optically corrected (no additional digital distortion correction necessary)

Size and Specifications

by Rico Pfirstinger

Talk to Rico (open forum for questions & feedback) – Rico’s Flickr sets – RAW converter comparison Flickr set – Mastering the Fujifilm X-Pro1 reading samples (65 free pages) – Pre-order the new book: Mastering the Fujifilm X-E1 and X-Pro1

Hi there!
The jury is in, and the verdict isn’t clear at all.

Thank you everybody for reading and voting in last week’s little RAW Converter Shootout. About 7,000 readers looked at the comparison set on Flickr, and almost 1,000 made up their minds and cast their vote. In this X-Pert Corner special edition, I am going to present the results of our polling.

Let’s start with the first sample: And the winner is…

by Rico Pfirstinger

Talk to Rico (open forum for questions & feedback) – Rico’s Flickr sets – RAW converter comparison Flickr set (private set, must use this link) – Mastering the Fujifilm X-Pro1 reading samples (65 free pages)

Hello, again! Remember me?

It’s been a while, but to my defense, I have been busy finishing my new book Mastering the Fujifilm X-E1 and X-Pro1. It went to the printer yesterday (it will be printed in the U.S.A), and it’s expected to hit the stores by the end of October. You can preorder it by clicking here (currently with a 30% discount).

Of course, there’ll also be an eBook version for Kindle, iBooks and the likes. I’ll try to prepare a new set of reading samples for one of the next editions of this column. One will feature a first look at Fuji’s new X-A1 entry-level system camera (I have been testing a pre-production camera for several weeks), another one a look at the XF23mmF1.4 R lens that has just been officially announced (I am currently testing a pre-production sample).

As for this X-Pert Corner edition, it appears like I am promising you an “ultimate” RAW converter shootout, but of course, that’s just stupid marketing blah to lure you in. I was told that this kind of language attracts readers (hey, it worked on you, didn’t it?), and by the way, did I mention that the DSLR is dead and that Fuji is the new Leica?

Relax! Just kidding! ;)

What I am really going to do in this column is offering you a humble comparison of eight different X-Trans compatible RAW converters with respect to critical detail rendering at higher sharpening levels. My goal was to use AccuRaw 1.1.1, Aperture 3.4.5 with Apple Camera Raw 4.0.8, Capture One Pro 7.1.3, Iridient Developer 2.2, Lightroom 5.2RC, RPP 64 4.7.1, Silkypix 5.0.45 and the internal RAW converter of an X-Pro1 to extract as much detail as possible from two proven RAW sample files, then presenting the results without telling you which sample was made with which converter. This means that you’ll have to drop your preconceptions. Just look at the files without a safety net of hearsay! Spooky, huh?

Let flowers speak!

Enough introductory talk, let’s have a look at the first demo file:

By clicking here, you will get to a private Flickr set showing you eight different renderings of this image, labeled DSCF0544-1 to DSCF0544-8, displaying the results from RAW converters 1 to 8, respectively. I didn’t care about matching colors, contrast and the likes (you can change those anytime and anywhere to your personal taste). Instead, I focused on revealing as much sharp detail as possible, so for some of you, the results may look a tad too sharp. That’s intentional, as weaknesses tend to reveal themselves at critical sharpening levels (think “watercolor effect”).

Here’s how it goes: Look at the samples 1 to 8, then vote in the poll below for the one you like the most. I did my best to set each RAW converter to maximum effect with respect to revealing as much detail as possible, but hey, I’m only human (aka not Ken Rockwell). That’s why you’ll also find links to the original RAW files in Flickr’s image descriptions. Go ahead, knock yourselves out and do a better job with the RAW converter of your choosing!

Poll for DSCF0544-1 to DSCF0544-8:

 Loading ...

Personally, I think it’s interesting to not only see how differently the RAW converters are rendering the overall image, but also how different parts of the image reveal quite different levels of fine detail depending on which converter the file was processed with. If you click on the “original size” versions of the samples in Flickr, you will get 100% magnification views in lossless JPEG format, so prepare yourself for extended loading times. Many files are 20 MB+ in size. Yay!

Green is mean!

Our second sample is a particularly tough one, as it contains foliage and grass in all shapes and sizes. It’s a genuine X-Trans nightmare. I love it!