I have a soft spot in my heart for the Fuji x100s. I absolutely love when pros give it a chance in a working environment rather than confining it to the street like so many do. When Bucharest-based Vali Barbulescu got his hands on one that's exactly what he decided to do. Granted, any camera can shine in a large studio filled with top of the line lighting equipment but that's not really the point I mean to make. Embracing the restrictions of using a 35mm fixed-lens rangefinder when anyone would rather have a 50mm or greater SLR is what I appreciate. Here is what Vali had to say about the experience:
“This camera is normally used for street photography and documentary-styled images due to its fixed 35mm lens, but I organized everything like I do when using medium format or DSLR cameras. The setup included Profoto lights, as I find them to be a very important factor for delivering professional results. I triggered the flashes with a PocketWizard Plus II and I could sync up to 1/500s at f/2 with no problems. The fast aperture was intended to emulate the looks and feel of a full frame system. I wanted the images to look as professional as possible and not just like some random snaps with a retro-looking camera. But I have to say, the Fujinon lens is a very good piece of glass. Pairing it with the X-Trans II sensor and the Profoto lights gave me the freedom to work unconstrained.”
This to me echos what every great photographer has said. It's not about the camera, it's about the eye behind it. Should you use a rangefinder on a studio session? Maybe so maybe not. Can you? Absolutely, so long as you understand and embrace it's purpose. That's another article for another time though. For now enjoy the video and be sure to check out the links to see not only this shoot's images, but the rest of Vali's work as well.
Via ProFoto Blog
See more of Vali's work at valibarbulescu.viewbook.com
Worth giving the x100s a run in the studio for a giggle hey, looks like fun; a nice, freeing way to shoot. Thx for the BTS, but that soundtrack does not work at all, had to mute it.
Cool camera but plagued by the raw processing. I loved the original x100 and it does very well in studio. The 35 mm became very limiting and gave a very odd perspective at times and you can see that partly in the final images from this guy. Street, studio, what ever, it is simply a camera. A fun one to use, if only they didnt mess up and put an xtrans in it.
What is the problem with the raw processing? In my experience, all Apple products (Aperture, iPhoto, Finder, Preview, etc.) and Adobe products (Lightroom, Photoshop, Bridge, etc.) handle the files very well.
I suppose it depends on what one's standard of good is. Myself and many others on the Fuji forum (fujix-forum.com) have talked about this in great extent for a very very long time. I owned the original x100 and shot a lot of commercial work with it (loved the experience and the file quality that much). When the x trans came out I and others immediately noticed the problems with the way companies handled the demosaic algorithms of the camera. To date many are okay but none great enough to get the image quality of the raw files better than the jpegs. A simple Google search will reveal what many experts outside of people that are paid by Fuji say. The Strobist and Zack Arias are paid by Fuji so keep this in mind when doing your research.
I sold my x100 because my commercial career picked up and I needed more versitility and serious image quality. The new xtrans was a step backwards for me, so I left the Fuji brand. I bought into the newer Sigma Merrill cameras and they are leaps and bounds better in the image quality department.
Visit the forum. My name there is Golgo 13. Also look at the work of Damien Lovegrove. Hes also a very well known UK photographer that still shoots Fuji. He too states his distaste for the xtrans in comparision to the old sensor.
The x100s is a fun camera and great for jpeg shooting. I would never consider it for print work like I did the original x100.
Oh, ok, you're trolling. Just checking then.
I've had zero problems with Lightroom 5 and Fuji x100s raws.
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2012/05/demosaicing-fuji-x-pro1-and-its-x...
I hope this makes since. This source is extremely credible. And its not trolling, I know these cameras quite well.
Only good for casual use? non-sense. The images I see out of the XP1 via Iridient Developer are every bit as good as the D600 or a 5d3...minus a *hair* of resolution. Are those cameras only good for casual use? Absurd.
Michael, please give us several examples of "serious tools" in your opinion.
So, my statement stands, the "extrememly credible" source is still using an old version of LR. Quit trolling.
I've been to the fujix forums, and what I've seen are reasonably valid discussions about the "look" and "feel" of output from the X100 and X100s. Some people prefer one over the other, and there is absolutely no disagreement that an old Bayer sensor looks different than a new X-Trans sensor.
What I haven't seen are arguments after about May 2013 about the quality of raw processing in Lightroom (specifically). It was about this time that Fuji and Adobe got together to improve the X-Trans processing in Adobe software.
So to clarify, are you saying that Fuji messed up with the X-Trans sensor because you don't like the way it looks? (I can respect that opinion, and I have no horse in that race as I have never used an X100, nor any Sigma sensor.) Or are you saying that Fuji messed up because it took a while for third party software to catch up to them?
Cite :" It’s not about the camera, it’s about the eye behind it."
From that I conclude that almost ALL (!) professional photographers are complete morons since most of them own gear worth tens of thousands of $. If it's all about the eye a nifty $500 entry level DSLR + kit lens should be good enough.
Honestly, I don't get it why people stoop to such inane utterance.
Liken it to a Japanese sushi (!) chef purporting that sharp knifes are redundant because it's all about the cook. Or a painter purporting that canvas and colors don't matter because it's all about the painters skills.
I don't see why a 500 dollar camera couldn't do as well as this camera or any other..
Cameras of today have surpassed the film once used.
I'd dare say even the lowest cameras in the food chain can do amazing work, in the right hands.
As to why do people spend tens of thousands of dollars on other equipment?
That's for them to say not me.I cannot afford that equipment. :) This is just a hobby for me.
when doing a ad campaign it may require the photos to be blown up to bill board size and a D5200 can't handle that. I hope this helps you understand why professionals spend more on their cameras.
Actually, no. It's called 'viewing distance'. Most billboards usually only required 10 ppi or greater. A throwaway camera would provide more than sufficient resolution for a viewing distance of 100 yards. I shot many, many billboards with an 6 mp camera back when and they looked great.
There's many factors that contribute to choosing a camera for a particular job. For example, I can't shoot sports with a D5200 and a kit lens. Or get the colors I'm looking for with that kind of sensor (for example skin tones). Also the flash sync matters a lot, I can't get a certain picture at 1/200 (or 1/250 can't remember) on a D5200. I can name many more examples why that money is spent, and spent well.
currently using it for my hobby~ really loving its color and sharpness :D
My girlfriend has been trying to get one for weeks now. It's out of stock everywhere due to a water damaged shipment. The only option is paying $200 more to a Chinese eBay dealer.
Wouldn't trust it. One, if something is out of place, the return policy may not be the best. Second, if you live in the U.S. you should find out if you have to pay a fine or import tax upon arrival. Third, you might not get warranty since it might be classified as Grey Market.
I should have said, "the only options", the other being to wait for an official shipment to hit Adorama or B&H (which she is doing). I warned her not to trust them either precisely because of the support we would be missing should any thing be wrong.
Why doesn't she pre-order it now so that she'll be in line when it reaches the store. I have ordered from Adorama many times before and have gotten items that were out of stock online because it wasn't updated immediately. Call them and ask if they have any, and when are they expecting. And ask if you can preorder it online to save time.
yeah I've suggested it to her, not sure why she hasn't pulled the trigger on that. Adorama had no expected shipment date when I called a couple weeks ago. I'll have to give the a call again and see what the story is.
Good luck with it, and also reply here later so I can know of things went smoothly and if the camera is as good as they say it it.
The X100S is a great camera but jeez what a boring video. There's only so many Glidetrack and pulled focus shots of a camera (and a model getting ready) that I can take. Should this serve any other purpose than to show the photographer using a certain brand's gear? If so, could someone point that purpose out please? I'm struggling.
Can't see why it wouldn't work if the focal length suits your needs - but that the color grading on the video - yuck!
Brought to you by excessive Glidetrack.
Figured as much because the RAW file support has upset a lot of people and given the knowledge these two men have, Im sure they see it.
the xtrans just made all the X cameras more hobby than pro even though pros use them, they dont produce pro raw files anymore.
Still a fun camera.
I've never run into an issue with raw processing on this camera and I use it every day.
Its been documented heavily. I shot the original for years. Theres a noticable difference. so much so even Adobe issued statements in the past. Its widely known. Its the main reason I wont return to Fuji.
As I said...I've never run into an issue with raw processing on this camera and I use it every day. Your link that you keep posting is from back in March. I would imagine that technology has changed a bit since I'm pretty sure Adobe has released ACR patches pretty regularly.
Since you apparently used an X-trans equipped camera in recent months maybe it's time to test drive one again instead of holding to the past.
Fortunate for me I used an xtrans a month ago when I almost bought one. the files still suffered the same issues as before when I used Lightroom 5. LR 4.4 and 5.2 use the same demosaicing engine. Nothing has changed. I try to stay pretty current with Fuji news even though I dont shoot it currently.
A lot of people say they have no issues, a lot say they do. Again nice camera for fun and jpegs. Many simply dont value the RAW files. Nothing against current owners but its still documented.
You can get around the demosaic processing and avoid the problem entirely, and it's fairly easy. If you would like more information please feel free to contact me.
I was simply making a statement about my experiences then various people began addressing me personally so I elaborated. I recently ruled out Fuji due to my very recent experiences and have moved on to another system namely Sigma.
I think regardless people will always find ways to create amazing images no matter the tool.
Michael, try Iridient Developer ($75) or C1P7 *if* you want to see what x trans files can do. I find the results to be fantastic. I can't say that at all about ACR / LR5 results. What is my reference? D800, D600, RZ67proII and top of the line glass (Zeiss and Mamiya). Lloyd Chambers is making the same mistake.
I currently shoot the Sigma Merrill cameras. Their detail is almost unmatched by anything outside of a medium format camera. Fuji is still cool but even if they had perfect raw file conversion across the board, they still could not touch the Sigmas. I hear Irident works decent too. Im PC only though.
Curious, which Sigma..the DP3?! I LOVE the IQ out of that camera, but talk about a niche camera that requires a massive number of compromises !!...and limited raw conversion software..Sigma Photo Pro...period. This really undermines your argument against Fuji imo. Let me guess, you read Diglloyd and / or Steve Huff...? Sigma is their religion. Too much koolaid for me. If you shoot the same stuff Lloyd does, then I "get it", the Sigma DP3 rocks.... but that's far too limiting of photography subjects for *me*. DP3 makes the Fuji AF look like a Nikon D4 :)
Here is my work. Evaluate yourself. I own two of the three Merrill cameras. They beat most everything by a long shot. As niche as a Hasselblad.
http://www.m-squared2.com
Michael, I apologize if I offended you, but I don't see any personal attacks in my response to you. I am challenging your overall perspective on the Sigma cameras. I have nothing against "niche", quite the opposite. I own a RZ67 ProII and Fuji X Pro 1, neither of which are "jack of all trades cameras" by a long shot vs my D800. I use primarily specialized primes lenses, etc. The Sigma DPs though, they take niche to a whole other level. Certainly nothing wrong with that. I simply object to you not acknowledging this and more importantly, criticizing the Fuji X trans for something the Sigma DPs are 10x more "guilty" of. Viewing your work, it reflects a lot of compositing and post processing. Cool. I'd love to see the EXIF data on your images sometime. Is all of the work on your site shot with your DPs?
Most is with the Fuji x100. The Sigma is niche but very needed for my work. Not good for all. Image quality wise its beyond most cameras outside of MF. The xtrans is guilty of poor raw files in my opinion, not guilty of being niche. Again its good enough for some, and thats cool with me.
This has gone on too long if you ask me.
No worries. Enjoy your cameras. I'd love to own one of the DPs. Peace.
They are not that fun to use but the image quality will make you question a lot of other cameras. If you would like I can send you files of all three sigma dp merrill cameras.
Michael...you're judging the x trans based on Adobe ACR (LR5). You're PC based, so Iridient Developer isn't available to you. If you're curious to see what the current state of raw conversion is for x trans, please try a trial of Capture 1 Pro 7. In regards to judging X trans via Adobe ACR, should I do the same for your Sigma Merrill raw files? As I looked into this, I see Adobe doesn't even support Sigma Merrill Foveon raw files AT ALL. I only have ONE choice in raw conversion if I buy the Sigma Merrill cameras...Sigma Photo Pro??? How does this limitation, slower AF than Fuji X, far slower write speeds, etc equate to greater "versatility" for you? As good as the foveon based Sigma DPs are, their handling is equally abysmal imo. If I were purely a "static subject", then the IQ benefits might outweigh the drawbacks. I'm not however.
I have used Capture 1 also. Im very familiar with the results. Again this may meet your standards but they didnt meet mine. Now that I shoot Sigma I can see a large difference in what I consider sharp files. SPP is fine and excels in black and white actually.
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2012/05/demosaicing-fuji-x-pro1-and-its-x...
400% crops.. ?
Huh?!! Sure, Adobe ACR / LR still isn't very good with raw conversion, BUT Iridient Developer is stellar. Capture One Pro 7 and Aperture are quite good as well. As impressive as the jpegs are, raw still rules in my book.
From yours and others comments, it seems you're judging X trans based on the status quo of the initial x100. A LOT has changed and for the better!
this is like a bad ad for a camera... sexy girls, hipsters and big studio equipment... no way this makes me wanna get this camera!!!
David, mine will be in my hands by Friday!
Right...so, where are the resulting pictures?
On the original article at ProPhoto's Blog. Via the link I provided...
A closer reading of (several) articles and comments by Arias and Hobby reveal a few things.
First, Arias does very little raw editing with any camera he uses, so the jpegs were fine for him (when he first posted his "Camera Walks Into a Bar" article). His follow-up article, "Life without DSLRs," indicates that he shoots both raw and jpeg now.
Similarly, Hobby does minimal editing and said that "the jpegs are good enough" the he hasn't been tempted to shoot raw. He didn't say they were better, but that they were good enough for his workflow.