Apple iPhone 4S, 4.28 mm, ISO 80, F 2.4, 1/120 sec.

Apple iPhone 4S, 4.28 mm, ISO 100, F 2.4, 1/120 sec.

Apple iPhone 4S, 4.28 mm, ISO 50, F 2.4, 1/40 sec.

Apple iPhone 4S, 4.28 mm, ISO 50, F 2.4, 1/170 sec.

Apple iPhone 4S, 4.28 mm, ISO 50, F 2.4, 1/190 sec.

Apple iPhone 4S, 4.28 mm, ISO 50, F 2.4, 1/660 sec.

Apple iPhone 4S, 4.28 mm, ISO 50, F 2.4, 1/2510 sec.

Spring time in Vienna is a beautiful season, the trees and flowers are blooming and every street corner is filled with colors.

A panorama at Schönbrunn Palace and some photos taken during April with the Iphone 4s in the Hietzing district and Schönbrunn Gardens.

Apple iPhone 4S, 4.28 mm, ISO 50, F 2.4, 1/3460 sec.

Apple iPhone 4S, 4.28 mm, ISO 50, F 2.4, 1/1260 sec.

Apple iPhone 4S, 4.28 mm, ISO 50, F 2.4, 1/430 sec.

Apple iPhone 4S, 4.28 mm, ISO 50, F 2.4, 1/1310 sec.

Apple iPhone 4S, 4.28 mm, ISO 50, F 2.4, 1/1020 sec.

The rest of the spring flowers photos series is on my Iphone photography gallery page here.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 55 mm, ISO 200, F 4, 1/130 sec.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 18 mm, ISO 250, F 4, 1/130 sec.

Two trees trunks in winter and spring.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 55 mm, ISO 200, F 4, 1/1800 sec.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 55 mm, ISO 200, F 4, 1/180 sec.

This January, in front of Palmenhaus Cafe in Vienna. Processed in Lightroom 4.4 with the free presets from onOne Software - these are pretty cool.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 44.4 mm, ISO 200, F 8, 1/350 sec.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 55 mm, ISO 200, F 4, 1/1200 sec.

I have been using the Fuji X-E1 since about four months but have only recently started here on my blog to post photos taken with it. This post contains my personal findings on the Fuji X-E1 camera and my experience on the switch to it from my previous Ricoh GXR system. The majority of photos here in this post are my last snow photos captured this year with the X-E1 during a day’s walk in Schönbrunn Gardens back in February.

When I first started to draft this post I initially wrote it wasn’t going to be about pixel peeping because this is not what I enjoy this hobby for and I don’t search for the perfect camera out there. However later in this post when I am comparing the output of the three different RAW converters I will show crops of the 1:1 images, so there will be some pixel peeping after all. I guess part of the explanation for this is that I haven’t looked so closely and methodically to my Fuji X-E1 images since I got the camera months back and wanted therefore to confirm (or not) what I had read before about the Fuji X-E1 images and to arrive to my own conclusion. Now after doing this, I can really say that the image quality of the Fuji X-E1 is superb.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 35.8 mm, ISO 200, F 9, 1/170 sec.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 31.5 mm, ISO 200, F 8, 1/300 sec.

(Ricoh GXR + couple of lenses)

However about four months back I finally sold everything and switched over to Fuji X-E1 with the 18-55mm zoom (XF18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS that is).

(my new Fuji X-E1 with the 18-55mm zoom. A second hand Fuji XF 35 1.4 lens is on the way to me and can’t wait to try it on)

If anyone is interested on my reasons of parting with the Ricoh GXR:

- the main reason is that camera started to fall apart, both grips became unglued and the buttons on the back were becoming “sticky” and all in less than a year time. The EVF was wobbly. Although with a magnesium shell underneath, so I wasn’t afraid of it disintegrating, for me a camera has to feel good in my hands to make me feel good for the day. I loved it’s small compact size so initially I had planed to buy a second or third spare body to keep me going for couple of more years but since there was no news from Ricoh about development plans for a GXR-II or further info to show that they will be supporting the system in the future, it became clear to me that the concept will eventually be dropped;

- long writing speeds to the SD card;

- the EVF add-on became wobbly and while it provided a good picture, I disliked the process of attaching/detaching every time I stored the camera in my bag. I am a viewfinder type of person so I appreciate a good EVF in the camera itself, like the XE-1 has;

-low quality of the S10 24-72mm module, the only advantage being that it was wide starting at 24mm but that’s about it. Poor color rendering, slow autofocus, made terrible noises when focusing, not focusing at infinity sometimes and getting spots of dust inside the lens assembly;

FUJIFILM X-E1, 18 mm, ISO 200, F 8, 1/100 sec.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 55 mm, ISO 200, F 8, 1/210 sec.

So in the end the tipping point for me was not the image quality of the GXR + M mount module which I still think it is top but the afore-mentioned. I then headed for a camera that is small + has large sensor + integrated viewfinder + decent kit lens autofocus + good construction quality + still has the ability to add manual old lenses in the future. I wanted to like the Olympus OMD-E5 but it wasn’t love at first sight after I held the camera in my hands and considered the Sony NEX-7 body but hated their bulky lenses. The Fuji X-E1 together with the lens road map had just been announced at that point and I liked immediately. I knew from the reviews that followed the announcement that I wasn’t going to get the fastest auto-focus in the world and the EVF refresh rate was to be laggy in low light due to a smaller refresh rate, but they were not important factors for me since I rarely shoot sports or in low-light. The form factor, size, good quality compact lenses, good image quality were key factors.

Truth be told, in regards to image quality at low ISO, I was very happy with what the GXR delivered. Using the default options I think the X-E1 doesn’t have the same color “punch” I used to get from the GXR, but then again, the Fuji delivers more natural colors (skin tones are very natural) and white balance is definitely many steps forward. I also find the Fuji has more dynamic range and high ISO performance is stellar.

The next three photos below have been shot at ISO 1600, 3200 and 6400. Handheld and straight out of camera Jpegs, just resized to be displayed here.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 44.4 mm, ISO 1600, F 4, 1/30 sec.

(taken in a coffee house, Auto WB came  a bit warm as the light conditions were mixed, natural light from a left window and a tungsten warm light above the flower. Camera had no problems to focus and you can get also an idea of the DOF which you can get with the kit zoom at 44mm and  f4 – very smooth!)

FUJIFILM X-E1, 18 mm, ISO 3200, F 2.8, 1/20 sec.

(Auto WB came spot on here, those were indeed warm lights. Good sky color)

FUJIFILM X-E1, 55 mm, ISO 6400, F 4, 1/60 sec.

(ISO 6400 at 55mm, straight of out camera, perfectly usable. This is a 1:1 crop of the image)

The Fuji kit lens is sharp across all the focal range, nothing more to say here. Two other good things at this lens are: it is stabilized and it is relatively fast (f2.8-f4) for a kit lens. It has a metal construction and feels really solid in the hand. What I appreciate less is the narrow manual focus ring and the non-marked aperture ring. Because of this, you have to either look at the EVF/LCD to see what aperture is currently selected but this is not such a deal breaker.

For my needs, AF is fast enough, but yes, it could be better. I have played with the OMD-E5 and the AF is amazingly fast even in low light. Of course I would have liked my Fuji to be the same, but cannot have all in life?! AF is not the critical factor for my style of shooting and needs of a hobbyist but I would have reserves to recommend the camera solely for taking photos of kids playing or sports. It can be done, by involving yourself more in the shooting process by anticipating and/or zone focusing, but action shooting is not the main purpose of this camera. Unless the AF can be improved by next firmware updates, which at the time of writing this article seems to be the case according to official news from Fuji

QUOTE By upgrading your X-Pro1 or X-E1 with new firmware you will also improve the AF speed with other existing XF lenses. *** The firmware will be available to download from www.fujifilm.com nearer the launch of the XF55-200mmF3.5-4.8R LM. UNQUOTE

FUJIFILM X-E1, 31.5 mm, ISO 200, F 3.6, 1/1600 sec.

One can improve the focusing speed by selecting different sizes of the focus frame area depending on the light intensity and size or shape of the desired object to be in focus.

My personal use is: I use the smaller one when I want precise focusing, when the object is static and has enough contrast / edges to focus on and when there is enough light. I gradually increase the size of the focusing area when one or more of these factors are not met.

I have also read comments from other users advising that focusing is faster when using Continuous mode.

From my experience I can say that it is indeed faster but only in certain situations, mainly in low light. What I found very interesting is that C-mode achieves focus for objects with lower contrast or no defined edges, where the Single mode would fail! I’ve tried this with a number of objects including an almost white wall where it achieved focus! It’s like having a different camera; the AF is that much better.

Because in this mode you are using a crosshair to focus instead of the normal focus frame rectangle for the S-mode, I need to experiment more to find out how much around the center the camera looks for things to focus on. From my experience so far, this is not limited to just exactly the center of the crosshair but a tad wider. A disadvantage of this mode is the battery will be depleted faster so it is not advisable to keep it on all the time, unless one is looking for the reason this mode exists, which is subject tracking (however, in practice I found the X-E1 to be slow at this).

FUJIFILM X-E1, 39 mm, ISO 200, F 8, 1/110 sec.

RAW processing.
(comparision Raw Photo Processor vs Silkypix Raw File Converter vs Lightroom)
With the Ricoh GXR, the processed RAW files came out better in all aspects than the Jpegs. With the Fuji X-E1, the quality of the out of camera Jpegs is astonishing, this is the first time I can say no need anymore to process RAWs. Personally I still do, as I like to have the option to post-correct or tinker with any setting in a non-destructive way, but for casual shooting there should be no need.

The two photos below are taken with the different cameras and four months apart. The colored one is with the Ricoh GXR in autumn, the snowy one with the Fuji X-E1 in winter.

RICOH GXR MOUNT A12_VOIGTLANDER 75MM 2.5, 75 mm, ISO 1600, F 2.5, 1/140 sec.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 42.5 mm, ISO 200, F 10, 1/110 sec.

(Tunnel of leaves, Schönbrunn Gardens)

Two known and long discussed on the web RAW development issues for the X-Trans sensor (which requires a different demosaicing algorithm) are the “zipper effect” which manifests itself by jaggy lines instead of normal straight ones, and the “watercolor effect” when under certain conditions, foliage is given a watercolor appearance. Unless one looks at 100% magnification or higher, these may go unnoticed. It needs to be said also that the Fuji X-Trans sensor is not equally supported by every RAW program, results vary among them. Recently Lightroom 4.4 was updated with better support for the Fuji X cameras and I was interested to see the differences between these three RAW converters below. I have used the same WB for all (as shot) and default development settings for LR and RFC. Since RPP does not have an Auto setting, I have used settings of what I consider myself as “default”

• Raw Photo Processor 4.7.0 (RPP) – this is a beta that has support for the X-E1. This is program produced great results for the Ricoh GXR; WB As shot, K64 Preset, Compressed Exposure +1, Curve type L*, Sharpness +3, Local contrast +3, Interpolation VNG, export Jpeg 85% quality

• RAW File Converter EX 3.2.12.1 (RFC) – this converter is provided by Silkypix and comes free with the camera; WB As shot, Auto Exposure, everything else default settings, export Jpeg 80% quality

• Lightroom 4.4 (LR) – this is what I normally use;  WB As shot, Auto Tone, everything else default settings, export Jpeg 80% quality

• and the out of camera Jpeg

Full size originals are here, if someone is interested.

Normally I do not leave the default development settings ever because when I process a RAW means that I want to squeeze the last bit of quality of out it and therefore play with the settings. So in the end the differences between converters are reduced to a minimum and coming down to personal preferences.

So, couple of comments regarding each RAW converter, based on my own preference

- the out of the camera Jpeg has the best overall sharpness, fewer artifacts and vivid colors. The in-camera processor also corrects for chromatic aberations, same as RFC. For casual shooting or when one does not need to play with the RAW files, this is the best option.

- Lightrooom 4.4 – what is interesting is that while I see better sharpness (second to the Jpeg) on the architectural structures, the foliage looks soft and less defined (last place of all actually). The “Auto tone” option in LR offers more dynamic range with a single click. On this subject I have to re-iterate here how wonderful the dynamic range of the X-E1 is, there is a vast amount of details “hidden” underneath the shadow areas. LR and RPP do not automatically correct for chromatic aberrations at their default settings.

- I consider Raw Photo Processor 4.7.0 to have an edge on the colors – really like how the greens look and there is good sharpness on the trees. Unfortunately, this version of RPP exhibits the “zipper effect” where straight lines have a jagged appearance and this goes for all other X-E1 photos I’ve tried with this converter. There are other artifacts as well on the building. So while for Ricoh GXR this program gave me the best sharpness and colors, for X-E1 this won’t be the best option as it introduces more artifacts. What is interesting is that this converter gives you more “image” in all directions; looks like all the others are cropped by some pixels (this includes the OOC Jpeg). Just look at the bottom right corners at the RPP image where you will see more pixels.

- RAW File Convertor 3.2.12.1 – the default settings do not do this converter justice, as the image looks softer than the others and highlights too bright. However, from my experience with the X-E1 files with this converter, if one has the time to play with the settings the resulted image comes out better in all aspects, probably the closest to the Jpeg. I am personally not too fond of its interface and lack of a cataloging option, and with less amount of time playing with the settings in LR 4.4 I come very close to this output. Furthermore I have no need for the absolute sharpness in my images and I like the other tools and presets Lightroom offers.

With the Fuji kit lens, I can see some purple fringing/CA but nothing to worry about, I think they are overall well controlled. I’ve seen these with the GXR + Voigtlander Heliar 15mm although to a lesser extent but bear in mind one is a zoom and the other is of the most appreciated wide angle M mount primes.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 55 mm, ISO 400, F 4, 1/350 sec.

(vignetting added in LR)

In conclusion, I am very happy with the Fuji X-E1 and here below a summary of my findings

The good for me:

+out of the camera jpegs are really good; very good image quality in a compact body
+great build quality and love the retro look and feel of the camera; less intimidating on the street;
+the camera body is only marginally larger than the Ricoh GXR;
+excellent 18-55mm zoom lens;
+integrated EVF (for me this was a big plus) which is bright and clear (2.4 million dots).
+fast access to aperture, ISO, EV compensation, layout of the buttons, and easy selection the desired shooting program;
+road map for the lenses. Again a big plus for me to see where the system is going and what lenses will be coming;
+auto WB, dynamic range and color tones, high ISO performance are all stellar;
+on-camera flash can easily be bounced off the ceiling.

The not so good aspects for me:

-Q button is good as it provides fast access to custom settings, however would like to be able to name these (not just C1, C2, C3). With the Ricoh GXR I could give such names to my custom modes and was not limited to just three;

-in Aperture or Automatic modes, the camera selects 1/30 as the minimum shutter speed. I would like to be able to specify a minimum shutter speed myself, as 1/30 is too low and could lead to blurred shots. One way to go around this limitation is to go into S mode and select the shutter speed on the knob and let the camera manage the aperture/ISO. Still, I cannot really understand this omission; the Ricoh GXR had this option to select the minimum shutter speed depending on the lens, and this I found very useful;

- would have liked the 18-55mm to have aperture markings on the lens itself;

- the EVF “lags” a bit in low light due to a slower refresh rate;

- I wished there was a focusing peaking aid in the menu/firmware, for old manual focus lenses or even for Fuji ones for situations when one wants to focus manually, I loved this option on the Ricoh GXR. Yes, I know that with the Fuji you can magnify the central focusing area but the Ricoh had these both (actually two modes of focus peaking!);

-the battery goes fast, one needs a spare (or even two);

-cannot understand the reason why when displaying vertical shots on the LCD, upon zooming in to check the photo, the camera does not fill the entire LCD area.

And ending with the last two photos from this snow series…

FUJIFILM X-E1, 55 mm, ISO 200, F 8, 1/200 sec.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 55 mm, ISO 200, F 4, 1/500 sec.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 55 mm, ISO 200, F 4, 1/320 sec.

FUJIFILM X-E1, 55 mm, ISO 200, F 4, 1/420 sec.