Disappointed with X-T30 images in Lightroom

twist said:
Just ask the fuji guys to post some raws for you, if you don't see any issues then great.
Click to expand...

I saw them on my old Fuji X10, but I got the camera at a very cheap price second hand. I was not overly bothered with the wormy , or waxy skin effect at the time, as I was having other problems with the sensor, such as white orbs and over exposing, and other such well known problems owners were having.

Just a case of knowing which models have the effects, if it is just shooting conditions, such as foliage and or indoor lighting, there can always be a work around. I would be prepared to try a fuji body, provided it was a really good price. I would never pay a premium for a camera, if it was shooting iffy images.
 
jonbeeza said:
I saw them on my old Fuji X10, but I got the camera at a very cheap price second hand. I was not overly bothered with the wormy , or waxy skin effect at the time, as I was having other problems with the sensor, such as white orbs and over exposing, and other such well known problems owners were having.

Just a case of knowing which models have the effects, if it is just shooting conditions, such as foliage and or indoor lighting, there can always be a work around. I would be prepared to try a fuji body, provided it was a really good price. I would never pay a premium for a camera, if it was shooting iffy images.
Click to expand...

Fuji are fantastic and have the best apsc glass imo, some of my best shots were with Fuji, but I do prefer Bayer overall. Xt2 are silly money, lenses are expensive but hold value, their cameras don't.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Had both and never noticed it, but there again never saw it from my X-T1 either.
Can sort of see the watercolour effect people speak of, but no idea about the wiggly worms thing.
Click to expand...
IMO worms are definitely a result of of sharpening artefacts.
jonbeeza said:
I thought Bayer was not considered to produce genuine Fuji colours? :thinking:

I was watching a few youtube clips, Fuji owners were giving sample clips of their Bayer sensor fujis, and saying while the colours are OK, they are not the lovely SOOC Fuji colours everyone raves over.
Click to expand...
I actually prefer the colours and rendering from the XT100 (bayer) over all the other Fujis, have a real film like quality imo
twist said:
SOOC Fuji colours a mixed bag ime, skintones are nice, otherwise just okay, colour of blue skies can sometimes look a bit strange.

The XT100 is no X/H/T1/2/3, its a base model, missing a lot of the better features and better AF.

I dont like the non standard ISO and worms in Fuji, lots of people dont mind it. Thats why we all buy different cameras.
Click to expand...
I really like Fuji colours, but of course it does come down to what film emulation you use, and/or if you use Adobe profiles in LR etc.
twist said:
Just ask the fuji guys to post some raws for you, if you don't see any issues then great.
Click to expand...
Plenty of raws out there on the web to download, I've just downloaded some from the XT3, XT20 and XT30 yesterday to have a gander at after the conversations on here saying that the latter Fujis don't suffer the artefacts (y)
 
snerkler said:
IMO worms are definitely a result of of sharpening artefacts.
I actually prefer the colours and rendering from the XT100 (bayer) over all the other Fujis, have a real film like quality imo
I really like Fuji colours, but of course it does come down to what film emulation you use, and/or if you use Adobe profiles in LR etc.
Plenty of raws out there on the web to download, I've just downloaded some from the XT3, XT20 and XT30 yesterday to have a gander at after the conversations on here saying that the latter Fujis don't suffer the artefacts (y)
Click to expand...

And what did you find?
 
Cagey75 said:
Can you post some examples? And maybe what your LR settings re for the images. Probably best to post in the Fuji threads where you might get better advice
Click to expand...


Now this is a good idea too, so why not put some images up for folk to have a look at ? For the OP to put up.
 
twist said:
And what did you find?
Click to expand...
Better than the XT1 I had, but rocks still look a bit plasticky and tree bark can look a bit 'artificial' at times. Foliage was much better and the watercolour effect is only really apparent at 1:1/cropped heavily. Still too much for me to try Fuji again though unfortunately.
 
snerkler said:
I actually prefer the colours and rendering from the XT100 (bayer) over all the other Fujis, have a real film like quality imo
Click to expand...

What, the X-T100 has better Fujifilm film replication?
 
jonbeeza said:
Confusing it with the X100, possibly? There is so many bloomin fuji models, even I forget which model is which. :confused:
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s the X100 I’m thinking of? It’s the fixed lens jobbie with the Bayer sensor.
 
I have been reading up on (X-trans vs Bayer sensor: which one is better?) over on DPreview, and it has been well discussed, going back 2014. Some think Bayer is better. (shrug icon)
 
jonbeeza said:
I have been reading up on (X-trans vs Bayer sensor: which one is better?) over on DPreview, and it has been well discussed, going back 2014. Some think Bayer is better. (shrug icon)
Click to expand...
... Others think xtrans is better. Download files, check, decide. I think you've seen the downsides to xtrans so you'll need to change workflow and hope for the best or change cameras.
 
Last edited:
jonbeeza said:
I have been reading up on (X-trans vs Bayer sensor: which one is better?) over on DPreview, and it has been well discussed, going back 2014. Some think Bayer is better. (shrug icon)
Click to expand...
Like a lot of things it comes down to preference. I personally don't understand fuji's stubbornness with the X-trans, I've never heard anyone complain about their bayer sensor cameras yet there is a percentage of people that complain about the X-trans, even to the point that they sell or won't buy fuji cameras. Why would you risk losing even 1% of potential buyers (although it might be higher than that) over a sensor that offers no benefits (that I'm aware of).

It's a real shame for me as I like the Fuji cameras and lenses but the risk of artefacts is just not worth it. If they went back to bayer I could see Fuji being a one system do it all for me.
 
snerkler said:
Like a lot of things it comes down to preference. I personally don't understand fuji's stubbornness with the X-trans, I've never heard anyone complain about their bayer sensor cameras yet there is a percentage of people that complain about the X-trans, even to the point that they sell or won't buy fuji cameras. Why would you risk losing even 1% of potential buyers (although it might be higher than that) over a sensor that offers no benefits (that I'm aware of).

It's a real shame for me as I like the Fuji cameras and lenses but the risk of artefacts is just not worth it. If they went back to bayer I could see Fuji being a one system do it all for me.
Click to expand...

A lot think it's better because of the non standard iso, thinking the fuji has a stop better low light but that's not the case. Fuji has got people that believe xtrans is better, they sell well, so they'll keep doing what they know.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Like a lot of things it comes down to preference. I personally don't understand fuji's stubbornness with the X-trans, I've never heard anyone complain about their bayer sensor cameras yet there is a percentage of people that complain about the X-trans, even to the point that they sell or won't buy fuji cameras. Why would you risk losing even 1% of potential buyers (although it might be higher than that) over a sensor that offers no benefits (that I'm aware of).

It's a real shame for me as I like the Fuji cameras and lenses but the risk of artefacts is just not worth it. If they went back to bayer I could see Fuji being a one system do it all for me.
Click to expand...

Next camera I get might be Fuji, but a pre owned one. With my limited meagre funds, I will be buying a much older camera. So possibly an older one, that does have a Bayer sensor. At the moment I am still reading up on them, a lot of stuff to digest.
 
jonbeeza said:
Next camera I get might be Fuji, but a pre owned one. With my limited meagre funds, I will be buying a much older camera. So possibly an older one, that does have a Bayer sensor. At the moment I am still reading up on them, a lot of stuff to digest.
Click to expand...

I’d suggest that you make the following decisions

x-Trans or Bayer

Viewfinder or Rear Screen Only

that will sort out the camera ranges, then just look at those within budget
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I’d suggest that you make the following decisions

x-Trans or Bayer

Viewfinder or Rear Screen Only

that will sort out the camera ranges, then just look at those within budget
Click to expand...


I do prefer a viewfinder as I am struggling looking at lcd screens now, and Bayer if that negates the dreaded watercolour, wormy, plasticky effects.
 
twist said:
A lot think it's better because of the non standard iso, thinking the fuji has a stop better low light but that's not the case. Fuji has got people that believe xtrans is better, they sell well, so they'll keep doing what they know.
Click to expand...
But would said people not buy Fuji because it went back to Bayer? I don’t think it would affect Fuji sales tbh, as long as they kept the film emulations I’m sure die hard Fuji folk would be happy (y)
 
Ok so after my confusion calling the X100 XT100, and hence being made aware there is an XT100 camera I thought I’d have a gander. Looks very interesting as a travel/day out camera. I always liked the 18-55mm f2.8-4 and I think this combo could be good. Seems cheap as well, £350 with kit lens :eek:
 
snerkler said:
Ok so after my confusion calling the X100 XT100, and hence being made aware there is an XT100 camera I thought I’d have a gander. Looks very interesting as a travel/day out camera. I always liked the 18-55mm f2.8-4 and I think this combo could be good. Seems cheap as well, £350 with kit lens :eek:
Click to expand...
Unlike you! :LOL:

Yeah, its a nice little camera if you dont need fast AF, best thing is its bayer.

Key takeaways:

  • The X-T100 performs poorly at subject and depth tracking, with hit rates well below its peers
  • The X-T100 has a 91-point autofocus system, with 35 phase-detect points in and around the center of the frame
  • Face detection is laggy, and we recommend placing a single autofocus point manually over your subject for faster and more accurate operation
  • The phase-detect coverage of 40% is on the small size compared to mirrorless competition from Canon and Sony.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Ok so after my confusion calling the X100 XT100, and hence being made aware there is an XT100 camera I thought I’d have a gander. Looks very interesting as a travel/day out camera. I always liked the 18-55mm f2.8-4 and I think this combo could be good. Seems cheap as well, £350 with kit lens :eek:
Click to expand...

Isn't the 'kit' lens the 15-45mm not the 18-55mm ?????
 
I've just watched a video by photographer Thomas Heaton on his YT channel on the issues he has found with with his XT-3 images in LightRoom, and what he has decided to do going forward. Seems a bit of a faff to potentially change the way you work to accommodate a camera, but whatever if people like the cameras.
View: https://youtu.be/lPtPxH4IpsM
 
twist said:
Unlike you! :LOL:

Yeah, its a nice little camera if you dont need fast AF, best thing is its bayer.

Key takeaways:

  • The X-T100 performs poorly at subject and depth tracking, with hit rates well below its peers
  • The X-T100 has a 91-point autofocus system, with 35 phase-detect points in and around the center of the frame
  • Face detection is laggy, and we recommend placing a single autofocus point manually over your subject for faster and more accurate operation
  • The phase-detect coverage of 40% is on the small size compared to mirrorless competition from Canon and Sony.
Click to expand...
He’ll will freeze over the day Im not confused :LOL: The Bayer sensor is what appeals, I think the X-T100 and 18-55mm f2.8-4 would be great for travel and days out. The question is whether I’d prefer the compactness of a 1” compact ;)
Mr Perceptive said:
Isn't the 'kit' lens the 15-45mm not the 18-55mm ?????
Click to expand...
Yeah it is, I wasn’t saying that’s the kit lens, just that I liked the 18-55mm and as it’s also light and small it would go well.
twist said:
It is. He's losing it :p
Click to expand...
Lost it not losing it ;)
Mr Perceptive said:
There is always a GAS rush, especially if you don't actually need to buy any kit, this one has buyers remorse written all over it...........
Click to expand...
Yeah but GAS is fun ;) Talking of kit I’ve not seen where you can buy the XT 100 body only which seems odd
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
He’ll will freeze over the day Im not confused :LOL: The Bayer sensor is what appeals, I think the X-T100 and 18-55mm f2.8-4 would be great for travel and days out. The question is whether I’d prefer the compactness of a 1” compact ;)
Yeah it is, I wasn’t saying that’s the kit lens, just that I liked the 18-55mm and as it’s also light and small it would go well.
Lost it not losing it ;)
Yeah but GAS is fun ;) Talking of kit I’ve not seen where you can buy the XT 100 body only which seems odd
Click to expand...

You’ll only get the body only if you buy used. In the UK it’s always sold as a kit.
 
Just start fancying the X-T100 and they go and announce the X-T200 :facepalm:
 
Just downloaded some sample files for the X-T100 and was disappointed to see that the jpeg files still have the plasticky rocks and trees and watercolour effect even though it's bayer sensor. The raw file of the same shot doesn't so god knows what Fuji are doing with their jpeg engine :eek:

Here's the full image
Screenshot 2020-01-23 at 14.43.27 by TDG-77, on Flickr

And then a crop to show the plasticky looking rocks
Screenshot jpeg2 by TDG-77, on Flickr

And plasticky looking tree and leaves
Screenshot jpeg3 by TDG-77, on Flickr


Clearly not as bad as the XT1 files but I was surprised to see it at all. And before I get accused of being a pixel peeper I thought the rocks looked funny at full screen which is why I zoomed in ;)

Edit, doesn't show as well/look as extreme on here so here's a link to the screenshots
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0ayarq7i6oz9gnc/AAAuVGPSejBhisegqADCAtpQa?dl=0
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Just downloaded some sample files for the X-T100 and was disappointed to see that the jpeg files still have the plasticky rocks and trees and watercolour effect even though it's bayer sensor. The raw file of the same shot doesn't so god knows what Fuji are doing with their jpeg engine :eek:

Here's the full image
Screenshot 2020-01-23 at 14.43.27 by TDG-77, on Flickr

And then a crop to show the plasticky looking rocks
Screenshot jpeg2 by TDG-77, on Flickr

And plasticky looking tree and leaves
Screenshot jpeg3 by TDG-77, on Flickr


Clearly not as bad as the XT1 files but I was surprised to see it at all. And before I get accused of being a pixel peeper I thought the rocks looked funny at full screen which is why I zoomed in ;)
Click to expand...

Theres a really simple answer to your comment, SHOOT RAW. So basically fuji are either baking their raws big time for X trans or just mimicking the awesome effects in their jpg engine.
 
twist said:
Theres a really simple answer to your comment, SHOOT RAW. So basically fuji are either baking their raws big time for X trans or just mimicking the awesome effects in their jpg engine.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, just surprised that they managed to get the effect using a bayer sensor :eek:
 
rkavli said:
Hey, I was really struggling to get my Photography game to the next level until i came across this 100% free ebook that i am more then willing to share with you.


If you want me to send you it for absolutely free, just email me at

r3kavli@gmail.com
Click to expand...


Think you got the wrong thread.
 
snerkler said:
Better than the XT1 I had, but rocks still look a bit plasticky and tree bark can look a bit 'artificial' at times. Foliage was much better and the watercolour effect is only really apparent at 1:1/cropped heavily. Still too much for me to try Fuji again though unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Had another go with the raws and tbh I can't really see any of the old artefacts (unlike the jpegs) so I might have to eat humble pie :coat: Strangely I've found that they now need some sharpening rather than none, but still need the detail slider quite high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top