Slowly moving from Canon to Fuji and liking it so far

I've also had no problems with RAW handling via LR. Once I stopped trying to treat the files the same way as Canon RAWs, and just relied on what looked best on the screen, everything came out fine. Certainly some differences in the whole sharpening panel from Canon files, and I feel like the color channels respond differently too.

raptor3x wrote in post #17314802
My wife has an X-T1 with the 18-55 and I've found the files coming out of LR, even the latest version, to be disappointing at best.

No offense, but then you're doing something wrong. I use the Fuji preset for "Velvia" and apply mild masked sharpening then make some basic exposure tweaks, I find the IQ to be outstanding... especially with B&W's

XF 18-55mm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pqrJ​Tt

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oDg9​EB

bobbyz wrote in post #17314959
Strange. I did few files and they looked same once I used the adobe profiles which mimic Fuji profiles. I just finished a shoot in studio using XT-1 and will provide more details tomorrow.

This.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17315004
No offense, but then you're doing something wrong. I use the Fuji preset for "Velvia" and apply mild masked sharpening then make some basic exposure tweaks, I find the IQ to be outstanding... especially with B&W's

XF 18-55mm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pqrJ​Tt DSCF5757.jpg by EverydayGetaway, on Flickr

Minolta MD 58/1.4

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oDg9​EB DSCF5375.jpg by EverydayGetaway, on Flickr

This.

No offense, but I think we have different expectations as I'd call both of those shots fairly soft and nothing to brag about in the IQ department although they're both very nice from a compositional perspective. They are consistent with what I'm seeing though, maybe I'm just expecting too much.

raptor3x wrote in post #17315031
No offense, but I think we have different expectations as I'd call both of those shots fairly soft and nothing to brag about in the IQ department although they're both very nice from a compositional perspective. They are consistent with what I'm seeing though, maybe I'm just expecting too much.

If you're seeing that as "soft", then I'm not sure what you're seeing. Generally shots from my Fuji are/were as sharp or sharper than those from my 6D.

5D3 + 24-105L

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nTeP​rh

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nAPS​TW

Pretty much any modern digital camera can appear sharp with web sized shots, but if you zoom in on your shots they seem quite soft.

I don't know. I just opened a Fuji XT-1 RAW file in LR5.5 and I am not seeing the mushy ness being talked. It is too late but I will try to put some side by side with 5dmk3 & 85L vs XT-1 & 56mm. Weather turned for the bad so we couldn't shoot outdoors, only inside studio. And right now I don't even have the proper sharpness values for XT-1, which BTW from what I understand are different from Canon. Here is a nice article:

http://petebridgwood.c​om …14/10/x-trans-sharpening/

bobbyz wrote in post #17315400
I don't know. I just opened a Fuji XT-1 RAW file in LR5.5 and I am not seeing the mushy ness being talked. It is too late but I will try to put some side by side with 5dmk3 & 85L vs XT-1 & 56mm. Weather turned for the bad so we couldn't shoot outdoors, only inside studio. And right now I don't even have the proper sharpness values for XT-1, which BTW from what I understand are different from Canon.

I got the best results by using the settings here but I still have never been able to get anything that impressed me. I'm definitely interested to see what kind of results you're getting and what settings you use.

I thought you were saying that LR conversion is not good. I am no expert, just shot maybe 10 shots in RAW before today. Here is my quick edit in LR, just 40, 1, 100, 10 for amount, radius, detail, mask.

That looks very nice. Is that the 56 1.2?

raptor3x wrote in post #17315257
Pretty much any modern digital camera can appear sharp with web sized shots, but if you zoom in on your shots they seem quite soft.

On the cat the fur is all blended into mush and on the portrait there's no skin texture left. The car shots tell the exact same story (although I'm not sure this is a fair comparison for the Fuji); and while I wouldn't expect the Fuji to match the 5D, the difference is much larger than I would expect. My suspicion is that there's still something wrong with LR that's causing the excessive softness as I wouldn't expect that large of a difference between FF and APS-C.

As I said, looking on my monitor in LR5 viewed at 1:2 they look just as sharp as most of what I'd get from my 6D below ISO800. I have a Fuji shot on the background of my computer right now and it looks great at 24" and 1920x1200, that's good enough for me. I'll post my comparison/thoughts after I get my a7R.

Yes, 56mm f1.2.

I think the question is whether LR can produce as good a jpeg as in camera jpegs. I am still new to RAW shooting but the jpegs out of the camera are as good as I get from my 6d/5dmk3 with L glass.

bobbyz wrote in post #17315968
I think the question is whether LR can produce as good a jpeg as in camera jpegs. I am still new to RAW shooting but the jpegs out of the camera are as good as I get from my 6d/5dmk3 with L glass.

So I actually checked the JPGs from the Fuji which I had never bothered to look at before and it looks like they're very similar to what LR is exporting after applying the Fuji specific sharpening values. I just took the sample below as a sanity check. It seems like no matter what I do the Fuji with the 18-55 will just not produce a sharp picture. I checked both AF and MF and the shot is definitely "in focus" but it's just a blurry mess, even at f/8.0 on a tripod. I'd say the lens is defective but the 50-230 produces almost identical results. Honestly I'm not really sure what else can be done to coax more out of the camera.

EDIT: Oops, forgot the photo. Full res version here.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/jpeg'

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17315475
As I said, looking on my monitor in LR5 viewed at 1:2 they look just as sharp as most of what I'd get from my 6D below ISO800.

I'm honestly a little confused here. I looked through your Flickr page and I thought the 6D shots were very obviously sharper than the XE-1 shots. Also, although it shouldn't make much difference at lower ISOs, don't forget to take into account that ISO 800 on a Fuji camera is equivalent to ISO 400 on any other camera.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17315475
I have a Fuji shot on the background of my computer right now and it looks great at 24" and 1920x1200, that's good enough for me.

I can totally believe that the Fuji shots look great when downsized to 2MP.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17315475
I'll post my comparison/thoughts after I get my a7R.

I enjoy the A7R/35 2.8 combo quite a bit. I still think the ergonomics are godawful on the A7 bodies (not including the A7ii) but the image quality is undeniable.

To me it is very bad light and under-exposed. Could be wrong.

I have 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2 and they are super sharp wide open. I would say same as any L lens I have used. You must bad camera, bad lens or something else going on.