Let me start off by saying this is my last forum on choosing a camera. I have it narrowed down to these 3. I just have a few questions. I'm interested in shooting jpeg only and I'll mainly be doing low-light portraits and street photography. Is there a difference in image quality between the x-t10 and x-e2s considering the x-e2s has no AA filter? Does anyone have any examples of the different rendering between the x-pro 1 and x-t10/x-e2s in jpeg? Last but not least how does the classic chrome present on LR look on the X-pro 1? Is it near identical to the film sims on the x-trans ii? Thank you  io_bg • Senior Member • Posts: 1,764 Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s In reply to New guyy • May 9, 2018 New guyy wrote: The X-E2s and X-T10 will output the exactly same images as they feature the same X-Trans II sensor. Some will say the X-Pro1 will have slightly better IQ as there are no OSPDAF pixels. In my view it's worth the trade-off for having PDAF. Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Fujifilm 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 II +4 more Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s In reply to New guyy • May 9, 2018 New guyy wrote: None of the cameras mentioned above have an AA filter - they are all X trans. The original X100 was Bayer and the current XA series are Bayer. The XT10 and XE2/s have some phase detect pixels for faster AF. Some prefer the output of these sensors. XT10 and XE2/S are basically the same workings but give the choice of SLR style or rangefinder. There are small differences but basically the same. The XT1 was the slightly larger more "pro" model of this series and has WR. The XP1 is still an excellent camera but as pointed out is slower to focus - I still prefer to use mine for street even though I have also XT20 and XT2. Slower is a relative thing. The XP1 is another camera that has its aficionados which is perhaps more to do with the output from the processor and the more considered use of the camera - which is a good thing! I rarely use film sims but shoot raw and start pp from Adobe standard (LR) since I know I will be making adjustments. I quite like Classic Chrome (in LR) for low light colour - that is best I can say. Don't place too much value on the few extra film sims of later models and if you are shooting raw and adjusting then there is no problem using the sims provided by the PP software as a start point. Vic -- hide signature -- The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin. Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +11 more OP New guyy • Forum Member • Posts: 90 Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s Vic Chapman wrote:New guyy wrote: Thank you for the insightful reply. I heard that the x-trans didn't have AA filters, Camera decision.com must be not updated. Is it possible to shoot jpeg and then use the classic chrome preset in post? Or does it need to be raw? Also have you ever missed out on a street shot due to the slower auto-focus? Threaded • Veteran Member • Posts: 4,406 Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s 1 Remember Classic Chrome was itself a later addition and isn’t available on the X-Pro1. Of these three I would choose the XP1 any day of the week - in fact I did replace my XE2 with an XP1 a couple of years ago, because I found the jpegs so much better - particularly at high iso, where the XE2 exhibited the infamous waxy skin tone issue. The XP1 also has the hybrid finder which (imho) is much more useful than the small EVFs on the other two models. Of course you lose out on some autofocus performance, but in good light the XP1 still performs well these days, and despite everything the other two aren’t all that much better - apart from tracking at least. For really sorted af you need a current Fuji. Fujifilm X-Pro3 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s In reply to New guyy • May 9, 2018 New guyy wrote:Vic Chapman wrote:Thank you for the insightful reply. I heard that the x-trans didn't have AA filters, Camera decision.com must be not updated. Is it possible to shoot jpeg and then use the classic chrome preset in post? Or does it need to be raw? Also have you ever missed out on a street shot due to the slower auto-focus?New guyy wrote: First I should say that my sentence "some prefer the output of these sensors" should apply to the Original X100 and XA series rather than the XT10 and XE2 - however the difference is minimal - and possibly imagined. Unfortunately you can only use the film sim baked into the jpg - that is, the sim you set in-camera. There are work arounds whereby you can fool LR into thinking the file is from a later model camera but you'll need to start another thread to ask about that. As I said before, don't get too caught up in the film sim thing. When CC was first announced users were going to great lengths to get it and to use it on every frame. Now, I hardly see it mentioned. Astia, and pro neg seem to be most used. If I was to choose a general use sim it would be Astia. I dislike Velvia (another sim they fought over) as being even more false than the original film. To use other than the jpg sim you would best shoot raw and choose a sim from the software with the cameras mentioned. With latest models you also have recourse to the in-camera Fuji raw on your computer - but that is no help to you and is of limited value anyway (IMO). So my advice is to shoot raw and jpg (maybe bracket to get 3 jpg sims). You may find you're happy with one of the sims. I advocate the use of raw but PP is not for everyone and Fujis jpgs are what draws many users - inc pros. Having said all that: apart from white balance - you can make adjustments to camera jpgs- I'm sure many do - but take care because all adjustments to a jpg are destructive. Make small (non-extreme) adjustments and do them in one go - don't open and close (save) a jpg several times to make changes because the destruction comes with each successive save. Vic -- hide signature -- The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin. Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +11 more Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s In reply to Threaded • May 9, 2018 2 Me too and if the OP is into looks. the X-Pro1 is still the best looker! Vic -- hide signature -- The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin. Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +11 more uniball • Veteran Member • Posts: 3,094 Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s In reply to New guyy • May 9, 2018 1 I own the xp1 and xe2. I basically shoot jpeg (Astia) only. The xp1 is set for jpeg only while the xe2 is set for r+j, with raw as an insurance policy. Camera use is xp1 days, xe2 nights and travel. Some observations: The xe2 is a much quicker camera both in operation and focus. I can live with the xp1’s AF speed even with the old 35/1.4 and 60. I shoot street with both lenses and, during the day, have no issues. I prefocus on a zone to set the lens close to its final focus. Can't say I see any advantage to putting the newer 23/2 or 35/2 on the xp1 to improve AF speed. I have both and they are both in the for sale drawer as I prefer the render of the 1.4 lenses. Low light AF on the xe2 is much better. I shoot a lot of night and don't bother bringing out the xp1. If you're going to shoot night, the 23/1.4 and 35/1.4 will hunt with either body. The /2 lenses make more sense or the 16 or 18 (what I typically use) which will quickly lock on near anything irrespective of contrast. Jpeg on the xp1 is different and I much prefer it. Not a skin tone issue (which got a lot of buzz at the time of XTrans II's intro). I find the older processor renders a more filmic look. For night shooting I shoot r+j and find I frequently need the raw. Headroom in Fuji's JPEG's is excellent but it's certainly not at the level of a raw file. An objective vote would be an xe2. But the xp1 is pure sex appeal. It's also a lot better made if you value the feedback a quality made product provides. OP New guyy • Forum Member • Posts: 90 Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s Thanks lads. I went into my local camera store and they have both cameras in there. They said I could take a few shots on my sd card, so i'll do that and then come to my decision! Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s In reply to New guyy • May 9, 2018 1 In addition to not having phase-detect AF and not having Classic Chrome film simulation, the X-Pro1 doesn't have a diopter adjustment on the viewfinder. For some people including me that's a deal-killer. The X-T10 has the tilt LCD, which the other two don't. The X-E2S and X-T10 also have the full-on point-and-shoot scene-based "Auto" mode, which is mainly of interest if you hand the camera to someone else to take your picture. Not many people would consider it a key feature. Fujifilm X-T10 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Olympus Stylus 1030 SW Canon EOS 350D +13 more Ted_G • Regular Member • Posts: 224 Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s 1 Slightly contrary to other opinions I like the Classic Chrome and Velvia sims SOOC. After shooting the X-T10 for two years it's an easy and now very inexpensive body to enjoy. The AUTO switch has come in handy in plenty of occasions handing it off to strangers. The tilt monitor is handy too. I do find it alarmingly small in hand though. Nice and light paired with the lovely 18-55. Pretty robust in thinking about it....I have never had it in a dedicated bag aside from tossing it into a carry on protected simply by an aftermarket skin. -- hide signature -- "Lead Me....Follow Me....Or Get The Hell Out Of My Way" Sony RX100 VA Panasonic Lumix DC-S5II Panasonic Lumix S Pro 24-70mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix S 85mm F1.8 Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s In reply to New guyy • May 9, 2018 1 New guyy wrote: I'm interested in shooting jpeg only and I'll mainly be doing low-light portraits and street photography. Do not get a camera with the Xtrans-2 sensor (that means no X-T10 or XE2S). Those suffer from waxy skin tones at ISOs over 1600; the issue can only be solved by shooting underexposed Raw and converting to JPG in camera or on your computer. It's an unavoidable issue and there is no camera setting which eliminates the problem. It is easy to reproduce the issue; just take a photo of someone at ISO1600 and ISO6400 and observe the noise reduction on their face. I've had cameras for all three sensor generations and IMO the first generations like the X-Pro1 or X-E1 have the best in camera JPGs. Now if you are fine with dealing with the underexposed Raw workaround for your low light portraits the T10 and E2S are operationally faster with better AF. I loved my X-Pro1 and just sold it to a friend who had been borrowing it; not because the camera was bad but because I have a Pro2 so it was gathering dust. -- hide signature -- www.darngoodphotos.com Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T5 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +3 more Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s In reply to Threaded • May 10, 2018 1 I started with X-S1(new), then X-E2s(new), moved to X100T(used), added X-T1(new), now use X-Pro1 and X100T only. Having owned that X-E2s (purchased new) and moving to X-Pro1(purchased used), I would choose the X-Pro1 (again) given the used pricing in 2018 coupled with my experience that the X-Pro1 files are preferable in post and from camera. I have not used or owned the X-T10, but given that it is similar to the X-T1, I would still choose the X-Pro1 over the X-T1 for the user experience. My X-E2s files gave me a number of problems that I have not had with the other Fuji bodies (blocks of artifacts randomly). As 'Threaded' pointed out, the X-Pro1 has limited film simulations in camera, and this extends to Lightroom profiles as well in post from raw files; I use the standalone LR6 and CS5 along with ON1 for image management. I would not buy the X-T1 or X-E2s again having used the X-Pro1, and I have never considered the X-T10. This is based both on (subjective) file quality and user experience. Fujifilm X100T Fujifilm X-Pro1 Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Samyang 50mm F1.2 Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s 3 ragsn_old_iron wrote: As 'Threaded' pointed out, the X-Pro1 has limited film simulations in camera, and this extends to Lightroom profiles as well in post from raw files; I use the standalone LR6 and CS5 along with ON1 for image management. Itr's worth pointing out that if you edit the Raw's EXIF and change the camera name from X-Pro1 to X-Pro2, or any of the newer cameras, you will have access to Classic Chrome and Acros in Lightroom. Change it to X-H1 and you also get Eterna. -- hide signature -- www.darngoodphotos.com Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T5 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +3 more Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s DarnGoodPhotos wrote:ragsn_old_iron wrote: As 'Threaded' pointed out, the X-Pro1 has limited film simulations in camera, and this extends to Lightroom profiles as well in post from raw files; I use the standalone LR6 and CS5 along with ON1 for image management.Itr's worth pointing out that if you edit the Raw's EXIF and change the camera name from X-Pro1 to X-Pro2, or any of the newer cameras, you will have access to Classic Chrome and Acros in Lightroom. Change it to X-H1 and you also get Eterna. Thank-you! I was totally unaware of this solution. Fujifilm X100T Fujifilm X-Pro1 Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Samyang 50mm F1.2 Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s Vic Chapman wrote: Having said all that: apart from white balance - you can make adjustments to camera jpgs- I'm sure many do - but take care because all adjustments to a jpg are destructive. Make small (non-extreme) adjustments and do them in one go - don't open and close (save) a jpg several times to make changes because the destruction comes with each successive save. That depends on the program you are using. JPG edits in Lightroom and Apple Photos, for example, are non-destructive, while edits in Photoshop are destructive. -- hide signature -- www.darngoodphotos.com Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T5 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +3 more Sal Baker • Forum Pro • Posts: 11,561 Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s In reply to New guyy • May 10, 2018 New guyy wrote: You might consider an X-E2 (same imaging tech as the repackaged X-E2s). I still shoot with mine as I couldn't see a difference in large prints over the newer X-cams. I shoot RAW and process with Iridient Developer. Zero artifacts and no high ISO waxiness. The X-E2 is a tank and should last well into the next generation Fujis. Put as much $$ into glass as you can. Sal Ricoh GR Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T100 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +3 more SithTracy • Regular Member • Posts: 365 X-Pro1 image vs X-T1 image In reply to New guyy • May 10, 2018 1 Did this a couple years back changing the lens and switching camera on the tri-pod as quickly as I could. It is a non-scientific test of the original X-Trans vs X-Trans II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Fujifilm X100T Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM +20 more OP New guyy • Forum Member • Posts: 90 Re: X-Pro1 image vs X-T1 image SithTracy wrote: Thank you OP New guyy • Forum Member • Posts: 90 Re: X-pro 1 vs x-t10 vs x-e2s ragsn_old_iron wrote:DarnGoodPhotos wrote:Thank-you! I was totally unaware of this solution.ragsn_old_iron wrote: As 'Threaded' pointed out, the X-Pro1 has limited film simulations in camera, and this extends to Lightroom profiles as well in post from raw files; I use the standalone LR6 and CS5 along with ON1 for image management.Itr's worth pointing out that if you edit the Raw's EXIF and change the camera name from X-Pro1 to X-Pro2, or any of the newer cameras, you will have access to Classic Chrome and Acros in Lightroom. Change it to X-H1 and you also get Eterna. Thank you for your response. I found this website for the colour comparisons: https://www.fujivsfuji.com/x-e1-vs-x-e2/ There is also a comparison between the x-pro 1 and x-pro 2. The x-pro 2 jpegs look better but the x-pro 1 rafs look better imo Keyboard shortcuts: FForum MMy threads You may also likeLatest sample galleriesLatest in-depth reviewsSony updates the ZV-1, giving the vlog-centric compact camera a 18-50mm equivalent F1.8-4.0 lens that's now wide enough for less cramped selfie mode videos. OM Digital Solutions has updated its flagship high speed camera just two years after launch. The latest version includes more memory and some performance and handling tweaks. The Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR delivers a 35mm full-frame equivalent field of view and stands out due to its small size and weather-resistant build. However, it faces stiff competition from lenses with faster F1.4 apertures. In this review, we tell you what you need to know about this popular lens. The EOS R100 is the cheapest way to get into Canon's RF-mount system. But, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for, since its older components make the R100 feel dated. The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that adds the latest Expeed 7 processor and features such as 3D Tracking AF to the $2000 price bracket. We're not sure the experience lives up to the looks. Latest buying guidesIf you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites. What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best. 'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked. What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder. |
