Comparing my X-Pro1 and X-T1 RAF images

Discussion in 'Fuji X-Mount Cameras' started by Stephen S, Mar 28, 2014.

  1. Stephen S

    Stephen S FujiXspot Veteran

    351
    Feb 14, 2014
    East Bay, Northern California
    Stephen Scharf
    Thought I would run a "controlled" comparison between the X-Pro1 and X-T1. Both shots were taken using the same 18-55 lens and camera settings (RAW, ISO, DR, aperture, etc.) from the same tripod position a few minutes apart, so lighting differences should be minimal. Both were converted from .RAF to TIFF with the same conversion settings in Iridient Developer as neither Capture One or Lightroom presently support Fuji RAW (.RAF) file conversion. Same sharpening preset from Thomas Fitzgerald was used on both images in LR 5.1, and Clarity set to 10 on both images. Both images exported as 100% JPEGs in sRGB. Viewing the original TIFF on a proper monitor like an NEC PA241/271W-BK-SVII-series display in ProPhotoRGB gamut may well display greater differences as both the monitor and the ProPhotoRGB gamut have a considerably larger gamut than sRGB (as of course, you all know! :D)

    The X-Pro1
    [​IMG]

    The X-T1. This shot had a mild curve adjustment to bring up the quarter-tones to match the X-P1 as closely as possible.
    [​IMG]

    All in all, they are quite similar given the X-T1 uses a newer Fujifilm X-Trans II sensor and the X-Pro1 uses the original design sensor.

    Differences I see are that X-T1 images appear a bit contrastier and slightly more saturated than the X-Pro1.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  2. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs FujiXspot Veteran

    485
    Feb 1, 2013
    Near Philadephila
    I would think they should be pretty much identical. The only change to the sensor between the first gen x-trans (X-Pro, XE1, XM1) and second (X100s, XE2, XT1) is the addition of PDAF pixels in the center portion of the sensor and the commensurate reduction in light capturing pixels. But that's gotta be so small as to be unseeable to the human eye. Other than that, the processing may have changed a bit for jpegs, but I can't imagine the raw has really changed...

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. SnapDawg

    SnapDawg FujiXspot Veteran

    276
    Dec 30, 2013
    behind an [X°]
    Ken
    Thanks for your efforts Stephen. I'm still on my work laptop with less than 50% RGB coverage -yuk- but my trusty monitor might show up any day now and I'll revisit your thread later. What I'm most interested in would be the difference between the 12 and 14bit RAWs in different situations (dynamic range, noise, ...) and what different converters, Adobe et al. make out of it.
     
  4. Stephen S

    Stephen S FujiXspot Veteran

    351
    Feb 14, 2014
    East Bay, Northern California
    Stephen Scharf
    That would be interesting to look into. The larger displays with the larger gamuts (e.g. the NEC I referenced, or the Eizo ColorEdge displays) can make a big difference, especially when prepping an image for print (I'm one of those photographers who believes its all about the print at the end of the day.)
     
  5. SnapDawg

    SnapDawg FujiXspot Veteran

    276
    Dec 30, 2013
    behind an [X°]
    Ken
    Me too, Stephen. For me that's the climax of the whole process, a well done print on first class paper framed with a self-made passe-partout and frame. I recently moved but already found a carpenter who will provide me with all the woodworks I need.
    As to the monitor I'm still pretty happy with my Dell U2410, no need to look further ... most of the time it's B&W anyway. I get the willies when I look back at some of the color images I PPed on my PC tablet and posted here or elsewhere during the last 4 months.