advertisement


Fuji X-E3 first images

JemHayward

JemHayward

pfm Member
X-E3 arrived yesterday, spent some time setting it up, but managed to set it to JPG (fine) only so when I went I went out for a walk this morning, I was shooting in JPG. I usually find my Fuji JPGs quite useable, as long as I don't want to crop heavily or recover highlights etc. My shots were mainly winter trees against the cloudy sky, but when I zoom in to 100% the JPG artefacts are very obvious. A similar shot with my X-E2 is much less obviously 'jpg'.

Has anyone else noticed this? I will go out tomorrow with both X-E2 and X-E3 and will test with the same lens etc. I'll also shoot some RAWs to see what the 3 can really do.

Lots to like about the 3 but what I'd like to do is put Format into the My Menu, but can't find a way to do that. I use Format from the menus more than anything else and it seems to be more awkward to get to. I'm sure I will adapt.
 
I've set the sharpening to -3 and taking pictures of my fireplace seems to be somewhat better - will do some 'proper' tests tomorrow.
 
For a quick card format> turn camera on> 3 second press on the delete button >hold delete button down and then press rear wheel. This works on my X-T2 and is worth a go on your new camera.
 
It was a pure fluke. It took me ages to repeat what I'd done, and I was beginning to think that I'd imagined it. The button press is key to it working :)
 
Tried to do it on my X-E2 - doesn't have a delete button, except when displaying images on the screen! I never delete images on the camera, so I'd not used it, and it doesn't work in this way anyway.
 
I've only got the X-T2, Jem. So no idea about the other models in the range. My X-T2 has the battery grip which occasionally disappears from the viewfinder (grip battery symbols) and the only way to get it back is to remove the battery tray from the grip. A work around I've discovered is to leave the grip in boost mode all the time, which kind of alleviates this issue. It's very random!
 
I've been out with X-E2, and X-E3 using the same lens, same settings, taking more images of the winter trees on the horizon. The X-E2 was set with sharpening at 0, the X-E3, I tried -3,-2,-1 and 0. Both were JPG and RAW, so I could compare.
At 100% crop the JPGs from the X-E3, are noticeably higher resolution than the X-E2, so the extra 6 million pixels are worth having, but the EXIF doesn't seem to have the JPG sharpening applied recorded, and I can't really see any difference between the different sharpening values and none have the artefacts I was experiencing yesterday, in fact they are all excellent. What is also remarkable is the noise reduction at ISO 3200 - the JPGs are as clean if not cleaner than my attempts processing the raw files with Lightroom, ON1, Iridient and Dfine 2. For those occasions where very high ISO is the only option, I may well be using the JPGs.

So, quite what I was noticing yesterday I really don't know.
 
I found that some of the film simulations gave different results too, especially when showing skin tones (with an X-T1 &2). Did you adjust settings for each film type? Another setting to try is reducing NR as some artifacts come from this.
 
JemHayward said:
I've been out with X-E2, and X-E3 using the same lens, same settings, taking more images of the winter trees on the horizon. The X-E2 was set with sharpening at 0, the X-E3, I tried -3,-2,-1 and 0. Both were JPG and RAW, so I could compare.
At 100% crop the JPGs from the X-E3, are noticeably higher resolution than the X-E2, so the extra 6 million pixels are worth having, but the EXIF doesn't seem to have the JPG sharpening applied recorded, and I can't really see any difference between the different sharpening values and none have the artefacts I was experiencing yesterday, in fact they are all excellent. What is also remarkable is the noise reduction at ISO 3200 - the JPGs are as clean if not cleaner than my attempts processing the raw files with Lightroom, ON1, Iridient and Dfine 2. For those occasions where very high ISO is the only option, I may well be using the JPGs.

So, quite what I was noticing yesterday I really don't know.
Click to expand...
I don't use Fuji so my guesses are very general, but anyway ( because I'm bored) I'd suggest that the out of box cam, at factory defaults and in the mode you chose may well have been using either some high ISO or default sharpening that you didn't notice? The ISO would show in the EXIF but the sharpening or etc might not?

Anyway glad to read it's settled down. I'm interested because yesterday I was one button press from a XT-3, but need to put a 50-200 on one to see if the lack of large grip upsets handling such a lens, so yet another dither.
 
Jem, where was your focus point? It looks like the left hand upright is the sharpest point - is that what you were aiming for? Focussing accurately is the biggest change I'm finding having recently moved to an X-T30, particularly with shallower depth of field
 
Rockmeister said:
I'm interested because yesterday I was one button press from a XT-3, but need to put a 50-200 on one to see if the lack of large grip upsets handling such a lens, so yet another dither.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the MHG-XT Large grip can be used with the X-T3. I use one on my X-T1 and it's quite helpful with the Contax 135mm.

5-19.jpg


not my photo, source -> http://www.ouradventureblog.com/blog/review-mhg-xt-large-hand-grip-for-fuji-xt-1
 
Looks like it might work well. I do miss my Contax RTS2.
My prob is now resolved by keeping the Nikon 610 for critical duties and the recent addition of a Canon G5 X mark 2 for everything else.
 
John Barry said:
Jem, where was your focus point? It looks like the left hand upright is the sharpest point - is that what you were aiming for? Focussing accurately is the biggest change I'm finding having recently moved to an X-T30, particularly with shallower depth of field
Click to expand...
The actual leaves are the absolute focus point, and are critically sharp on the original file (this one is reduced to 800x800) - the angle I was at means the left part of the fence is (almost) in the same focus plane. Being old I have a tendency to manual focus If I'm being fussy, but the rest of the time I leave the focus point in the centre of the frame, and use a very small area, and spot metering too. I usually point the camera at 'the subject' and meter and focus lock by half pressing the shutter, then compose, and shoot. Works most of the time. I don't bother with tracking, continuous or zone focus, mainly because I use primes and wide apertures (this was the 35mm at f3.2) so there is negligible depth of field.
 
Rockmeister said:
Looks like it might work well. I do miss my Contax RTS2.
My prob is now resolved by keeping the Nikon 610 for critical duties and the recent addition of a Canon G5 X mark 2 for everything else.
Click to expand...

I had an RX for many years.
I've never come across a DSLR body that had identical level of ergonomics or viewfinder and the lenses were a joy to use too. Firmly believe that these things matter for street-style photography. If you have to think about what you are doing with the camera then something's not quite right.

The X-T(-) series is a reasonable compromise thanks to it's dials, large viewfinder and the metering mode switch (the Contax's thumb operation was better) but I don't like the fly-by-wire manual focus and the camera is slow to respond even in manual-focus and zone focusing (missed more than a few shots).
I find Fuji's grips a bit awkward, except for that of the X-H1's which felt comfortable.

I've grown tired of EVFs and am now considering a return to OVF.
 
Im in full agreement with both posts above. I've had to write to Canon helpdesk since there is no apparent way of having a simple, unmoving, central focus target on the G5, so that I can just focus, half press and recompose. If i move, the focus point tries to stay on my target but slides here and there, meaning missed focus shots.
We had almost decided to go Fuji, when a more detailed try out suggested that I just prefer the Nikon ergonomics and shooting experience. If I had to have just one camera, I think something like Nikon's 7500 would be quite fine in every way. Things got better in some ways, but just went pointlessly sideways in others IMO. (Grumpy old man admitted) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top