They will claim a difference in colour depth because they saw some silly RAW measurement on DXO.
Well, I can spot a dramatic difference in the 2nd image - the high skyscraper - the brighter side to the top.
The Fuji image is showing structures there, the Nikon isn't.
Generally, these two sample images aren't suitable for a comparison IMHO.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
I suppose it's a life's dream...... to shoot full format.........many just want that large sensor experience.......
..........however, full frame has the wider aperture lenses and where it should lose , it wins........ with DOF!
........which leaves landscapes as Fuji's forté...........and with Panasonic asking big bucks for their new creation, the Fuji looks a bargain!
I see some differences, but I cannot say where and how do they come – lens. camera sensor, demosaic or image processing engine.
Yes, the differences are minor but the same could be said for 24MP FF vs 24MP APS-C.
BTW: If I have to start from the scratch now, I will go with Fuji.
1. Format - APS-C and cropped MF makes more sense for me now. It is my personal choice. I use to shot MF in film days because the small format /today called Full format/ was crap, like smartphones now/. Later on, I moved to APS-C digital
2. Fuji XT2,3 – offer almost everything what I want /photography and video/ + great lens lineup.
- I still hope that canon will make the camera that I want ?. Expected delivery time 3 ..10years from now , but at that time the smartphone will be the logical choise
(02-07-2019, 07:02 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: (02-07-2019, 04:38 AM)Klaus Wrote: Well, I can spot a dramatic difference in the 2nd image - the high skyscraper - the brighter side to the top.
The Fuji image is showing structures there, the Nikon isn't.
Generally, these two sample images aren't suitable for a comparison IMHO.
What dramatic difference do you see? Besides a warmer color cast on the Fuji (might have been the lighting at that time or simply the camera profile) I don't see anything noticeable.
Well. move the cursor to the top of the biggest skyscraper on the 2nd image.
You will notice that the window frames are visible in the Fuji image whereas in the Nikon variant it's all blurred.
The problem with these sample images is that they seem to be meant for comparing DR - but not resolution or if you prefer - micro-contrast. The difference between the two cameras should be more obvious with a forest or garden scene.
Of course, you can debate what "dramatic" means. Personally, I'm not hysterical about the difference in IQ between FF and MFT. It's always the question of whether you need that extra bit in quality (I don't).
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Are you saying/claiming that a slightly bigger sensor improves... micro contrast? Really?
I think that is a function of optics, and processing.
Microcontrast is the slider in Photoshop, right? :-)
Now serious. I really Impressed how some people judge IQ based on sample images. I feel myself as disabled in this forum. . Can you share the secret please!
For me image IQ is complex function. Just to name few parameters – Whether condition. distance, camera sensor dimension, sensor thechnology, sensor mosaic , image proceesing. Publishing software, viewer screen/final print, ambient light by the image viewer. O yes I forget the lens.
