What to sell first - 7Dii or 5Diii?

bobbyz wrote in post #18353254
Canon

Fuji

You guys see 1 stop difference? Sorry my eyes are getting bad.

I've personally never seen the difference either, though I hear everyone talk about it. When I shot my X-E1 side by side with my 6D there was never more than a 1/3 stop of exposure difference between them, which I contributed to just being the way the camera/LR processed the RAWs. It was the same story when I compared my a7S and X-E2/X-Pro2 shots side by side.

Jeff Hanson wrote in post #18353287
Looks spot on to me, but why post these real world examples when arguing a hypothetical is so much more fun?

On another note, I think the Fuji shot is out of focus.

I see what you did there

Sure no defaults of any kind enabled in LR for your two cameras? I did side by side testing using light meter upto ISO1600 and difference is 1/3 stop or less.

I have also done side by side with Sony A7rII and XT1 and there is no difference there either. So how can Fuji be faking unless Sony also fakes. If you test Nikon and Canon you will see 1/3 stop difference also.

bobbyz wrote in post #18353319
Sure no defaults of any kind enabled in LR for your two cameras? I did side by side testing using light meter upto ISO1600 and difference is 1/3 stop or less.

I have also done side by side with Sony A7rII and XT1 and there is no difference there either. So how can Fuji be faking unless Sony also fakes. If you test Nikon and Canon you will see 1/3 stop difference also.

As you can see there is no manipulation on my part. I've seen this and it's been proven by many people on the internet/youtube.

It's a known fact....c'mon it's fact not fiction about bogus ISO from Fuji.


Canon 5d3

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=iYf7t9lzslQ

watch 22:33 and his claims are 1/3 to 1/2 under exposed vs Nikon. Not sure about Canon.

OP, if your actually following your thread LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! You may not be concerned about this iso comparison.

Time and time again I've noticed this difference in the ISO. At the end of the day you just shoot away and get the best results you can with the gear you own.

My style of shooting vs Jeff's vs Bobbyz etc is all different. As individuals we can all select gear that works with your personal style.

If your a casual shooter or you find you can manually adjust focus the Fuji "NO AF" will not bother you.

My "snipping tool" screenshots shows the difference I get with my Canon vs fuji. During that test my 55-200 gave me "NO AF" alot even when I had about 1/4 power modeling light ON my Einstein strobe. Some shooters are OK with that and that is fine....... I'm just still adapting to the "NO AF" I get even when shooting with a fast prime like the 16mm f/1.4.

OK, I will do more tests when I am back home. There could be something going as I have heard the same thing but didn't observer myself.

bobbyz wrote in post #18353344
OK, I will do more tests when I am back home. There could be something going as I have heard the same thing but didn't observer myself.

No manipulation on my part. When I was in studio I was shocked to see such a difference. When I used my X-T20 previously I found the same exact differences in exposure.

I'll have to say I "feel" that the Fuji forum is loyal to their brand. I get it......... I use what works and this is why I own both still.

Personally if I was completely casual I'd be a dedicated fuji shooter. Huge variety of excellent glass and image quality to be proud of. For fast paced events I virtually miss shots with my X-T2 with EF-X500 flash. The heavier Canon gear I find I seldom ever miss a shot unless it's my fault in missing the focus point.

At the end of the day the difference in ISO from Fuji is not a big deal. My gut feel is that when you say iso 6400.....it's not. However as long as the shot is relatively clean...that's all that counts.

Alan, one thing, what is your DR setting on Fuji. Should be 100.

bobbyz wrote in post #18353388
Alan, one thing, what is your DR setting on Fuji. Should be 100.

I just checked what I had......

AlanU wrote in post #18353353
No manipulation on my part. When I was in studio I was shocked to see such a difference. When I used my X-T20 previously I found the same exact differences in exposure.

I'll have to say I "feel" that the Fuji forum is loyal to their brand. I get it......... I use what works and this is why I own both still.

Personally if I was completely casual I'd be a dedicated fuji shooter. Huge variety of excellent glass and image quality to be proud of. For fast paced events I virtually miss shots with my X-T2 with EF-X500 flash. The heavier Canon gear I find I seldom ever miss a shot unless it's my fault in missing the focus point.

At the end of the day the difference in ISO from Fuji is not a big deal. My gut feel is that when you say iso 6400.....it's not. However as long as the shot is relatively clean...that's all that counts.

I don't have any brand loyalty, period. I've jumped ship so many times at this point I'm an avid swimmer. If Canon/Sony/Nikon/whoev​er comes out with a camera with similar controls to my Fuji at a similar price point but is in some way significantly better for my needs I'll probably jump ship again... but I haven't seen it happen yet.

I just don't blindly follow the word of others... ever. If I don't observe something to be true first hand, I don't assume that it is, I want verified and cross referenced proof, any claims I've seen about Fuji "fudging the numbers" on their ISO settings has had an equal number of people with posts like Bobby's which show no difference what-so-ever. In my own experience I've witnessed no difference either... ever, and when I did it came down to either differences in how the shot metered or how the RAWs were converted. I see a big difference in exposure just from switching the camera color presets in LR, especially when going from Adobe RGB to any of the Fuji Film Simulations.

As for AF...

Genuinely; please do us a favor and keep some of these missed shots next time to share with us and try to remember what your in camera settings were. I'm genuinely shocked at how often you state the Fuji's AF is under-performing when I myself seldom ever have issues and I use some of their slowest and oldest lenses (18, 35/1.4, 18-55 and 55-200).

I concede that I'm very used to using single point AF and manual focus (I shot for over a year with nothing but MF lenses on my 6D) and also usually shoot slower moving subjects so my needs may very well be less demanding than yours, but I haven't heard literally anyone else on this forum or others complain about the X-T2's AF to the extent that you do, so I'm genuinely curious. Heck, I never even complained when using my CDAF only a7S, in fact I found it's AF to be pretty darn decent most of the time and flat out awesome in the dark (something I do occasionally miss with my X-Pro2, but I'm talking f1.8, 1/60s ISO25,600+ dark).

I'll try to keep the photo's of the blurry shots. I immediately delete blurry shots in camera when I'm shooting. I'll need to buy the new gen fuji lenses to meet my demands in AF speed. I find it hard to believe people do not often experience "NO AF" indicator while shooting AF. I've seen that indicator on my X-E2 w/ firmware 4, X-T10 and X-T2. I guess if your an outdoors shooter with ample light you'll have seldom see this "NO AF" indicator.

In my computer screen shot's I've provided I simply put the RAW files in lightroom. No presets are performed and they are exported as "ADOBE Standard". However in my case I instantly see the difference on my camera's LCD when I chimp.

The youtube link I provided the person noticed that every photo taken with fuji was also underexposed. If you watch all of this guy's youtube reviews he's extremely spot on. I also trust the reviews "The camera store" in Calagary but I don't recall them doing a comparison video.

I think you should try this test in a pitch black room with NO available light. Use only one light source and compare the exposure of the fuji vs different brand camera. I've clearly done this test so I've proven to myself that I was not imagining things. My "test" would probably be more accurate in determining the difference in exposure. However if you do not see a difference in your "natural light shooting" you're fortunate.

Since I own both systems I can pick and choose my camera system that will give me the best performance. When I shoot available light I can use both systems easily with little effort. Any advanced lighting with speedlites I fully trust Canon as it's without a doubt superior in reliability and performance (I'll include Nikon too as fact and not hearsay regarding speedlite performance).

The OP, clearly sounds like Fuji's system easily matches their techniques and style of photography. I guess the OP should sell all of the Canon gear. That'll be the OP's decision

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18353399
I don't have any brand loyalty, period. I've jumped ship so many times at this point I'm an avid swimmer. If Canon/Sony/Nikon/whoev​er comes out with a camera with similar controls to my Fuji at a similar price point but is in some way significantly better for my needs I'll probably jump ship again... but I haven't seen it happen yet.

I just don't blindly follow the word of others... ever. If I don't observe something to be true first hand, I don't assume that it is, I want verified and cross referenced proof, any claims I've seen about Fuji "fudging the numbers" on their ISO settings has had an equal number of people with posts like Bobby's which show no difference what-so-ever. In my own experience I've witnessed no difference either... ever, and when I did it came down to either differences in how the shot metered or how the RAWs were converted. I see a big difference in exposure just from switching the camera color presets in LR, especially when going from Adobe RGB to any of the Fuji Film Simulations.

As for AF...

Genuinely; please do us a favor and keep some of these missed shots next time to share with us and try to remember what your in camera settings were. I'm genuinely shocked at how often you state the Fuji's AF is under-performing when I myself seldom ever have issues and I use some of their slowest and oldest lenses (18, 35/1.4, 18-55 and 55-200).

I concede that I'm very used to using single point AF and manual focus (I shot for over a year with nothing but MF lenses on my 6D) and also usually shoot slower moving subjects so my needs may very well be less demanding than yours, but I haven't heard literally anyone else on this forum or others complain about the X-T2's AF to the extent that you do, so I'm genuinely curious. Heck, I never even complained when using my CDAF only a7S, in fact I found it's AF to be pretty darn decent most of the time and flat out awesome in the dark (something I do occasionally miss with my X-Pro2, but I'm talking f1.8, 1/60s ISO25,600+ dark).

This thread is great, thanks! I just finished up a commitment that took me away for the last few days but am too tired to delve into this now.

I love Fuji because all the controls I need are at my fingertips! Oh how I love the tactility of the Fuji and why I struggle with the idea to slough off the Canons - I love what it provides, too. The X-T1 was gently forced upon me by a good friend who was able to work with me on the terms. Haven't looked back, and boy when I do have the Canon on all day does my back hurt.

(Don't mind me, keep this convo going...) Be back soon.

Was just editing some shots from my X-Pro2 and remembered why I think this conception comes into play.

Has anyone else noticed that when you quickly scroll through your shots that when you stop on a picture the exposure will change a bit once the shot has fully loaded? To me, that difference in what I see when it's first on the shot and when it's fully loaded can be as much as half a stop. I'm thinking this has to be something to do with how LR is converting that RAW data... I don't remember this happening with my Canon or Sony shots, but could certainly be mistaken (my PC is fairly quick).

I see it as well, I believe this is Lightroom's rendition of the raw file.
I had the same issue with my 6D, I think we see the RAW file first then it switches to how a jpeg would render.

starlights wrote in post #18350314
I concur.

Same here. Keep a FF