Shot a gig with both A7M2 and XT-1

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Cameras' started by dmward, Apr 13, 2015.

  1. dmward

    dmward TalkEmount Veteran

    200
    Mar 21, 2015
    Metro Chicago
    David
    Here is an A72 shot. Its got quite a bit of processing. Heavy clarity, steep tone curve, some Kodachrome preset and more.

    [​IMG]

    Here is an XT-1 shot. It too has quite a bit of processing. Not as much Clarity but the rest is similar. Classic Chrome camera profile rather and Kodachrome preset.
    [​IMG]

    I shot a concert Saturday night that gave me a chance to do a comparison between my Fuji X and Sony A7 kits.

    Background Fuji:

    I used a Fuji XT-1 with 10-24, 16-55, and 50-140 lenses.

    Most of the night I shot M including set ISO speeds. Later in the evening I switched to Auto ISO but kept the shutter and F stops set.

    I have the picture style set to Classic Chrome with highlight and shadow tone set to minus 2.

    Background Sony:

    I used an A7M2 with 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 FE lenses. All F4.

    Most of the night I shot M including ISO speed. Later I switched to Auto ISO but kept the shutter speed and F stop set to same value.

    Some observations:

    The images on the LCDs were quite different. The Fuji images showed little “grain” while those on the Sony looked quite “grainy”.

    I created a gallery of images for the band, all with quite a bit of processing.
    http://davidmward.photography/galleries/Traveling-Wilbillies/wbrockhouse/
    I’ve also created a hidden gallery ( http://davidmward.photography/galleries/Traveling-Wilbillies/wrhooc/ ) which is straight from camera JPGs for comparison.

    The images are reduced the same amount in both galleries.

    One thing I noticed with the Fuji files that seems odd, is that the raw images, when imported into Lightroom with my standard import preset were at least 1EV darker than the JPGs. Pulling the exposure up in Lightroom had no detrimental impact on the images put still kind of weird. Especially since the same is not true when importing images shot outside at lower ISO settings.

    The DR feature is set to 100 so that shouldn’t be causing the reduced exposure.

    Anyway, it was an interesting way to compare camera systems. I did a similar shoot with Canon kit awhile back. That included some speedlites. This was all available light.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    Dave
    Definitely have a "look" to them, but very nice.
     
  3. DigitalD

    DigitalD TalkEmount Veteran

    352
    Mar 2, 2014
    Miami
    David K Fonseca
    Which camera did you prefer in the end? From handling to image quality.
     
  4. dmward

    dmward TalkEmount Veteran

    200
    Mar 21, 2015
    Metro Chicago
    David
    David,
    That's a good question. I've thought about it while processing the images.
    In the end, if someone stole one kit, I'd be upset but could get things done with the other.

    I originally bought the A7R and Metabones adapter to use with my TSE lenses for architecture. I sold my Canon bodies and am still selling off the lenses after getting the Fuji kit.

    Now that I have native lenses for both I've thought a couple of times that maybe I should sell off the Fuji kit and go to a single system.

    But, I really like the Fuji kit. The new F2.8 zooms are very nice, as you can see here they work for low light. That said, the F4 FE zooms held their own. The OSS covered the slower shutter speed. Both cameras, having the CDAF require some care with spot selection.

    Overall, I like the feel of the Fuji XT-1 a little better. And the primes are so very nice. (23, 56)

    In terms of processing the images, its just starting at one place and getting to where one wants to be. The raw files are definitely two different starting points. I have an Epson 3880 printer and have printed files from both on 17x22 paper without a problem. I expect I could make 24x36 prints easily. I've done it with Canon files that were smaller than the Fuji files.
     
  5. tomO2013

    tomO2013 TalkEmount Veteran

    375
    Dec 11, 2014
    2 obvervations from my end...
    1. The reason the Fuji shots came in darker is likely because FUJI inflates it's ISO values by as much as half a stop.

    2. Regarding noise and noise handling at higher ISO's. Files typically look slightly cleaner from the XTrans systems compared to most every other manufacturer at higher ISO's. The reason for this is that Fuji bakes in NR into the RAW files themselves - at lower ISO's it not so much a big deal, at higher ISO's 800 and upwards this is done at the expense of detail and colour detail. It's hard to tell a difference between formats at web size prints, but doing similar comparisons at larger 1:1 and large print sizes I expect that you would find that the A7 system holds significantly more color (and overall) detail and with similar noise characteristics to the out of camera NR Xtrans files. I find that at higher ISO's XE1 and XTrans files look much softer and colours can become flat fast.
    Down sizing to match the XTrans 16mp from the A7/ii 24mp or A7r 36mp would also yield even better results for the A7 if matching output resolution to the XTrans.

    Fuji do have some amazing and lovely primes though with the XF35mm 1.4, XF23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2.
    Comparatively Sony's new Zeiss 35mm 1.4 looks to be the best 35mm lens available. The 55mm Zeiss is a mini Otus. So the FE system does not stack up badly at all. The only thing missing is a stellar 85mm equivalent to Fuji's 56mm.

    Just my 0.02.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. dmward

    dmward TalkEmount Veteran

    200
    Mar 21, 2015
    Metro Chicago
    David
    Tom, Even if Fuji inflates their ISO setting, that does not account for the difference between the JPG and the raw file with a camera profile applied.

    I've read a lot of forum posts about the problems with Fuji files relative to baked in NR etc. Until I see something definitive from Fuji I'm going to continue to discount the allegation. Raw file, by definition is the data collected by the photo site. There is no way, that I know of or can conjure, for a camera to apply ISO noise reduction to raw photo site data. Noise reduction is applied to the RGB data of a processed file. That's not to say that there isn't a NR algorithm embedded in the raw file metadata. Applying that is controlled by the processing software. I expect that Adobe would not blindly apply such an algorithm.

    I am thinking about the 55 and 35, just to have a native fast lens.
     
  7. tomO2013

    tomO2013 TalkEmount Veteran

    375
    Dec 11, 2014
    David, RAW files are just files written in 1's and 0's. It does not necessarily hold true that there is a direct path without modification from sensor photo-site to your memory card. Is RAW 'raw' is a very popular debate and you can happily Google many articles on this very topic with much tangible/repeatable evidence to back this position up; simply put, manufacturers can and do modify the crude 1's and 0's captured at the photosite before writing them to your memory card (Sony does this too with their compressed raw!). There are some nice articles from rawdigger on this very topic. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate. It doesn't really bother me, just I think it makes it easier for the photographer to be aware of it to help avoid issues in development upstream. :)

    Regarding your dark and light image. Do you have DR enabled 100%, 200% or 400% on your Fuji?? The effect applies to jpeg but effectively in many situations it underexposes the image and then pushes before writing the jpeg http://www.fujixseries.com/discussion/214/raw-exposure/p1

    What I would expect to have heard is that the Fuji file at the same exposure settings as the Sony was a half stop or darker for both jpeg and raw. Since this is not the case and it is darker only for the RAW file itself, then my guess is that you have DR enabled on the jpeg :)

    Nice images by the way - really lovely :D
     
  8. dmward

    dmward TalkEmount Veteran

    200
    Mar 21, 2015
    Metro Chicago
    David
    Tom, The DR on the Fuji is set to 100% which, should mean that JPG and raw have same exposure applied.
    I probably should spend some time reading about raw files and how camera manufacturers create them.
    Historically, raw means direct photo site luminous data recorded along with the camera manufacturer's meta data.
    Lossless compression is not a problem. Anything else, in my view becomes a problem.

    Thanks for the suggested research sites.

    And, thanks for your kind comments about my editing and shooting style.
     
  9. Lisandra

    Lisandra TalkEmount Veteran

    216
    Jan 28, 2015

    Great coverage, period. About the fuji files, i noticed the same and published it over at e-p1.net and the fuji forum, i got torn to shit over at the fuji place...
    Here:

    http://www.e-p1.net/forum/topic/9063-does-fuji-cook-the-iso-ratings/

    14259310041_ae154696de_k.

    Do read the findings if you can, it iant reeeeally a problem, but its real
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. dmward

    dmward TalkEmount Veteran

    200
    Mar 21, 2015
    Metro Chicago
    David
    Lisandra,
    I've read these ISO discussions before, not that exact one, but others on Fuji fora.
    That is not what I'm commenting on here. What I'm commenting on is that the JPG created by the camera and the raw file saved for the same image, when imported into Lightroom is one EV darker. This has nothing to do with the relationship between the Fuji and the Sony. I am concerned only with the Fuji camera processed JPG and the raw file in Lightroom.

    Incidentally, the JPGs from the two cameras, seem to be similar in exposure. Which suggests that Fuji, knowing that they have a very clean high ISO sensor are adding 1 EV to the JPG and using that as the nominal exposure setting. Doing that, along with the DR options, creates significant headroom for raw files to protect highlights.