Jump to content

Anyone tempted to move to Fuji for JPEG’s?


LondonL
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A bit of background, I shoot with a Q-P, M10 and occasionally M6, but recently I’ve discovered the magic of Fuji ‘recipes’ on their X system cameras. The quality and rendering of the JPEG files is the best I’ve seen, in that it really does eliminate the need to shoot and post process a RAW file for everyday family photography. Simply pick a recipe you like for that day, shoot and you have some fantastic quality JPEG’s. 

Compare this with the Q-P, the quality of the JPEG images are just not comparable, but like many on here, we love the Leica for the simplicity, the lenses and the experience of making images which cannot be replicated by other brands. 

Has anyone used the Fuji’s with the jpeg recipes? What are your thoughts? Has it made you consider switching systems or adding a Fuji to the kit list?

Perhaps an X-100 would be a better compliment to the M10, ahead of the Q-P?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love FUJI JPG.  In addition to the simulation, the in camera tone curve in Fuiji cameras makes even bigger difference for JPG files.  Some people love the unique Leica JPG look, but they rarely work for for me. 

As good as FUJI JPGs are, they are no where as versatile as RAW files.  If you don't mind a little processing, DXO filmpack offers "better" Fuji simulation from RAW files than JPGs out of FUJI camera.  Q-P RAW file quality is much better than FUJI compacts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I went the other way. I still use my Fujis, but I really prefer the colours generated by Leica. Obviously, it's a personal choice, but I found that there was too much magenta in my images shot with a Fuji -especially those taken in the early morning, and later evening. The so-called 'blue,' and 'golden' hours.

Can be corrected, to a certain extent, but then often times the image can have too much green in it for my liking.

To my eye, Leica colours are more akin to Kodak colours, while Fuji digital images are similar to Fuji film and transparency colours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how the Q-P renders differently than the Q2, but my experience is that the Q2 and M10R (as opposed to M9 or even M240) have much better colors that the Fuji X-Pro2 and X-T3. That said, the Fuji GFX 100S is a significant enough bump up in resolution that I'm doing most of my photography with it. As for jpeg, I do produce jpegs as sidecars, but I can't imagine limiting myself to out of the camera shots, RAW forever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I succumbed to this temptation I was quickly reminded of the limitations of JPGs. It's good if the straight OOC image is fine, but it quickly falls apart if adjustments are needed.

I find my Q2 with a standard preset in post processing applied via batch mode is just as quick as shooting JPG. That covers 90%+ of my images and leaves me plenty of flexibility for editing if necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I came to Leica (116) from Fuji (X-Pro1, X-T10, X-E2, with a couple of lenses).
I never shot the Fujis in jpg-only mode. I'm too much of a tweaker. Even if I just take pictures of a kids birthday, I'll find myself tweaking them later on in Lightroom.

Shooting RAW allows me to focus entirely on the moment and not worry too much about settings. (yes, I shoot in Aperture Priority mode with auto ISO and some +/- EV corrections on site, so I mostly end up tweaking exposure, shadows, highlights, etc. in post. )

I still have the VSCO Film presets and like to play around with them.

 

I dropped the Fuji system because the Autofocus was incredibly unreliable (if the too-big AF square overlapped a subject, it would almost always focus on the more contrasty background, despite the camera claiming to be equipped with PDAF (X-T10) and me shooting during a bright day.  Reason why I went to a Leica Q?
I had a Fuji X100S like 6 years ago. Loved that camera soo much! But the 35mm equiv. field of view was just a tad too narrow for my taste.
The Ricoh GRII was an alternative, but I've always lusted after a digital Leica (owning an R5 with a bunch of lenses) and then there was this awesome deal on a barely used copy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mbphotox said:

I dropped the Fuji system because the Autofocus was incredibly unreliable (if the too-big AF square overlapped a subject, it would almost always focus on the more contrasty background, 

Just make the AF square smaller... Or use one of the other AF options. Recent Fuji cameras have excellent AF. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Fuji's film simulation. I have an X-E4, and use it for color, while I use my Q2M for black and white. The Fuji Acros film simulation is especially nice, but also several of the color, such as Velvia and Classic Chrome. You have lots of in-camera options for converting from raw, which makes it a really powerful camera. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really love the Fuji jpegs too.  For casual shooting - really handy to get what you want SOOC.  
There’s clearly more in a Q2 RAW file to work with but it’s easy to select and set up the sims for quick and easy images on my Fujis.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a while there, I was using the Q2 side by side with an X100F. I decided on a workflow that entailed using the X100F for jpg's with their film simulations (ACROS and CC mostly) and then mostly for people shots due to their skin tone rendering. I rarely fiddled with the files in LR. I used the Q2 for everything else. I was happy. Eventually I decided that having two cameras (especially these two cameras - wide angle fixed lens) made little sense and I stuck with the Q2. Having said that, if one is looking for SOOC results and no fuss, I believe that they cannot go wrong with Fujifilm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kirkmc said:

Just make the AF square smaller... Or use one of the other AF options. Recent Fuji cameras have excellent AF. 

I don't doubt that Fuji improved in that regard.

But they didn't do anything over the couple of years when I used Fuji. The X-T10 was not a cheap camera and the smallest AF square was far too large. And the fact that a PDAF system focuses on the background is just a massive f*ç"-up.

 

My other issue was colour and detail... I brought my Fujis to the USA and the results in the forests were abysmal at best. There was absolutely no fine detail in the huge trees in the Sequoias. It was all a blurry frigging mess. (I worked with Lightroom, but I also tried all the countless "better alternatives" that struggled less with the Fuji algorithms... I couldn't get a result anywhere near as clean as with my much much older Canon bodies. This unnerved me so much that I dumped the entire Fuji collection and never looked back.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, mbphotox said:

I don't doubt that Fuji improved in that regard.

But they didn't do anything over the couple of years when I used Fuji. The X-T10 was not a cheap camera and the smallest AF square was far too large. And the fact that a PDAF system focuses on the background is just a massive f*ç"-up.

 

My other issue was colour and detail... I brought my Fujis to the USA and the results in the forests were abysmal at best. There was absolutely no fine detail in the huge trees in the Sequoias. It was all a blurry frigging mess. (I worked with Lightroom, but I also tried all the countless "better alternatives" that struggled less with the Fuji algorithms... I couldn't get a result anywhere near as clean as with my much much older Canon bodies. This unnerved me so much that I dumped the entire Fuji collection and never looked back.)

Fuji af has come a long way from the X-T10.  Not quite Sony level on average but pretty good.  And software companies have come a long way when it comes to working with X-Trans files.  The key to crisp jpegs on that sensor was to dial noise reduction all the way down. 
 

Unsure why you’d bring price up in the discussion though since we are in a Leica forum after all. The current  X-T30II is a fraction of what a Q2 costs and I bought my X-T10 new for well under $1,000 US.    😜

Edited by liggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2022 at 7:46 AM, LondonL said:

Perhaps an X-100 would be a better compliment to the M10, ahead of the Q-P?

I don’t follow the logic of this at all: why not just shoot RAW on a QP and process the images to get the look you want. Fuji’s recipes with jpegs are like eating microwave dinners when you can cook your own the way you want it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2022 at 6:46 AM, LondonL said:

A bit of background, I shoot with a Q-P, M10 and occasionally M6, but recently I’ve discovered the magic of Fuji ‘recipes’ on their X system cameras. The quality and rendering of the JPEG files is the best I’ve seen, in that it really does eliminate the need to shoot and post process a RAW file for everyday family photography. Simply pick a recipe you like for that day, shoot and you have some fantastic quality JPEG’s. 

Compare this with the Q-P, the quality of the JPEG images are just not comparable, but like many on here, we love the Leica for the simplicity, the lenses and the experience of making images which cannot be replicated by other brands. 

Has anyone used the Fuji’s with the jpeg recipes? What are your thoughts? Has it made you consider switching systems or adding a Fuji to the kit list?

Perhaps an X-100 would be a better compliment to the M10, ahead of the Q-P?

You can greatly improve the Q-P JPEG color by editing the JPEG style in-camera: lower contrast and raise saturation. Then if you're up to some extra work, shoot in Adobe RGB mode – but you'll have to convert them to Display P3 profile in Photoshop (or import the JPEGs into LR/C1 and export with Display P3 profile in a batch) before sharing or the images will appear dull online. This will preserve a large portion of the extra Adobe RGB color spectrum. All recent mobile phones, computer browsers and major apps support Display P3. But just changing the in-camera JPEG color and leaving it on sRGB is fine if you don't want the hassle of converting to Display P3 profile.

Edited by hdmesa
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also tried it.  After having the Q2 for a year, I purchased the X100V specifically for the JPEG.  I had owned an X100F in the past prior to the Q2.  What I found was I preferred the Q2's color results both in JPEG and DNG with a little post processing.   I just did not see the benefit of owning both, though the Fujifilm is a very nice camera.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sold off my Fuji's when I moved to Leica and don't miss it. I had an X-S10, X70, X-E4, and a X100f. Yes the film sims were nice but I like the images I get from my Q, CL, and SL2-s better. I think the only Fuji I would someday add back is an X100V, but not sure that is anytime soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a pretty large Fuji kit at one point. I had mixed results, but in the end I never really settled in.  Yes, I got some great results but I also got some really odd ones.  My last were the xx2 versions, XT, X-pro, etc.  I found the xtrans processor to be problematic and at time difficult to work with.  The raf files too an incredibly long time to ingest into LR compared to cr2 and DNG. 
 

there was also a certain something about the files that always bothered me. I never really could nail it down, but it never met my needs or expectations. 
I also think the Fuji files have a very digital look to them.  The Leica files, at least to me don’t have that kind of harsh digital look most of the time. Still digital of course, but a bit more organic with better transitions and none of the crazy choppiness of xtrans (especially in foliage)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve had a number of Fuji cameras over the years including the latest models, and still have an old X-Pro1 on the shelf. I’ve always liked the Fuji hardware and the simplicity, but never cared for the files. I don’t like Fuji colours much at all either the JPG or RAW files. 

I much prefer the files I get from the M10-P or indeed the little Ricoh GR3 that lives in my coat pocket a lot of the time. I’m always tempted by a Fuji when I pick one up and handle one, but resist the temptation to jump back in knowing I’ll dislike the output. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...