Raw File Comparisons.. Question??

Isoterica

Hall of Famer
Dec 6, 2011
Has anyone having both a Fuji X camera [X100s, X-Ti, etc] and a Sony A [7, 7R, 7II etc..] compared the raw files and if so, which are better? Or are they similar?

The reason I ask is my 7DII doesn't have the quality of raw that my X100s does which.. disturbs me. There is that kind of grain that you are good with, like in the Ricoh GR (a film quality grain), and that kind of grain you are not (for me the 7DII).

Comparing my X100s raw.. which seems to have no grain until higher ISOs. I'm debating if I should go Sony [compatible with a lot of lenses via adapters] or even another Fuji. I can't afford full frame Canon unless it's the discontinued 6D due for an upgrade. I would rather not buy older tech.

*I will be having my instructor go over the camera tomorrow to make sure it's just not a bad copy but I just think I've been spoiled by Fuji's raw algorithms. Even the canon jpeg processed in camera seem grainy. You'd think their software would be ideal for processing their own raw.
 

grillec

Veteran
Jan 16, 2014
I own X100, X-E1, X-E2 and A7, but I haven't compared the same sujet for noise in raw. The Fuji (at least X-E1 and X-E2) boost the iso number. So a ISO1600 Fuji pic has to be compared with a ISO800 Sony pic in the matter of noise.
The IQ of both raw files is very good (the Fuji have a better internal jpg converter) and I doubt you could tell a difference between two 1m prints.
The AF speed should be A7<X-T1<A7II. Fuji delivers more faster lenses (e.g. XF35mm/1.4, XF 56mm/1.2), but I like to use old legacy lenses with the A7.
The Sony EF 70-200mm should deliver a better IQ than the XF55-200mm but this I couldn't proof.
If I have to choose between two cameras I would test them for a while if possible and would decide for the greater fun.
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
The A7/A7r use lossy RAW compression - an absolute no-go for me, at least not in regard to full frame.
It does for me too, conceptually. But I had an RX1 for a couple of years and I freakin' LOVED those raw files, so I'd imagine I'd be OK with the A7/A7ii files as well. It's a strike against it, but not a deal breaker for me, not by itself anyway. Having had the RX1 and several Fuji's, I'd say the Sony 24mp full frame sensor blows the Fuji X-trans APS out of the water. Clearly in terms of detail, but also in terms of high ISO and DR. I'd take the RX1 at 6400 against the X-T1 at 3200 and that's with the understanding that the XT1 at 3200 is actually closer to something about a half to 2/3 of a stop less (maybe around 2000) due to the way Fuji inflates it's ISO numbers.

I honestly don't think there's a comparison. Which is not to say the Fuji sensor may not be good enough for many uses - lot's of people love it and I liked it pretty well myself. But just in terms of pure sensor horsepower, the Sony 24mp is far more capable in pretty much every way. And that Sony sensor may be better in the Nikon D610 / D750 where it has fully uncompressed 14 bit raw and a lossless compression option, rather than Sony's lossy compression, but it's still REAL damn good in the Sony, at least that was my experience with it in the RX1...

-Ray
 

krugorg

All-Pro
Sep 26, 2011
Minnesota USA
Kyle Krug
I love working with the raw files from the A7/II/RX1. Noise isn't really a problem, especially when you downsample to print size (you have more megapixels to work with). If I have the luxury of choice, I would take the Sony full frame raw over my X100S' xtrans raw every time. No contest.

I would be glad to send you some A7 II raw files for you to play with... just tell me what you want to see (high iso, etc.). One thing to keep in mind is that a 24mpx file could look noisier on screen than a 16mpx file. You need to export them at the same resolution, or print at the same physical size, to do an apples-to-apples comparison (I wonder if that would make a difference with the 7DII for you also).
 

SnapDawg

Rorschach Test Pilot
Apr 18, 2014
Canary Islands
Ken
It does for me too, conceptually. But I had an RX1 for a couple of years and I freakin' LOVED those raw files, so I'd imagine I'd be OK with the A7/A7ii files as well. It's a strike against it, but not a deal breaker for me, not by itself anyway. Having had the RX1 and several Fuji's, I'd say the Sony 24mp full frame sensor blows the Fuji X-trans APS out of the water. Clearly in terms of detail, but also in terms of high ISO and DR. I'd take the RX1 at 6400 against the X-T1 at 3200 and that's with the understanding that the XT1 at 3200 is actually closer to something about a half to 2/3 of a stop less (maybe around 2000) due to the way Fuji inflates it's ISO numbers.

I honestly don't think there's a comparison. Which is not to say the Fuji sensor may not be good enough for many uses - lot's of people love it and I liked it pretty well myself. But just in terms of pure sensor horsepower, the Sony 24mp is far more capable in pretty much every way. And that Sony sensor may be better in the Nikon D610 / D750 where it has fully uncompressed 14 bit raw and a lossless compression option, rather than Sony's lossy compression, but it's still REAL damn good in the Sony, at least that was my experience with it in the RX1...

-Ray
Ray, no doubt Fuji's 16MP X-Trans doesn't stand a real chance against Sony's 24 MP FF but on the other hand X-Trans sure holds it's own against other full frame sensors (e.g. Canon 5d Mark II)), so as you've said, it is good enough for many uses, maybe even more than good enough for most, mine included (>90% B&W, big prints) and we even haven't touched glass and the rest.
However, 14bit uncompressed RAW would be one of my personal main requirements regarding a possible FF upgrade, no need to mention significant improvements in dynamic range, resolution, noise, AF speed and reliability, weather sealing, ... all of that paired with excellent native glass, ... and the whole package as compact and light as possible.
Let's wait and see, I'm not in a hurry - the Xes are still a joy to shoot.

Ken
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
Ray, no doubt Fuji's 16MP X-Trans doesn't stand a real chance against Sony's 24 MP FF but on the other hand X-Trans sure holds it's own against other full frame sensors (e.g. Canon 5d Mark II)), so as you've said, it is good enough for many uses, maybe even more than good enough for most, mine included (>90% B&W, big prints) and we even haven't touched glass and the rest.
However, 14bit uncompressed RAW would be one of my personal main requirements regarding a possible FF upgrade, no need to mention significant improvements in dynamic range, resolution, noise, AF speed and reliability, weather sealing, ... all of that paired with excellent native glass, ... and the whole package as compact and light as possible.
Let's wait and see, I'm not in a hurry - the Xes are still a joy to shoot.

Ken
Yeah, the Fuji's are nice, and a few of their prime lenses are as good as it gets for APS and pretty reasonably priced as well. The differences in the sensor matter at the margins of low light, of heavy processing (the high DR really comes in handy for the way I process a lot of shots), and the resolution can matter if you either display in very large format or crop a lot. The resolution isn't really an issue for me - I'm fine with the 16mp in the Df, as I was with the Fuji sensor. And I could see the issues many had with processing Fuji raw but they never bothered me much. Whatever they lacked in sharp detail they made up for with a lovely smoothness - just a matter of taste I guess...

-Ray
 

lenshacker

Veteran
Nov 21, 2014
Nikon offers uncompressed NEF and so called "lossless" compressed NEF, which is defined as "visually lossless". I don't use the latter. You want all of the intensity levels as recorded by the sensor to pull details out of the shadows and highlights. The difference between "visually lossless" and "lossless" shows up when you need to stretch the histogram. I'm surprised that Sony does not offer uncompressed Raw in their mirrorless cameras, they did in the DSLR's. Somebody at Sony thinks too much of their compression algorithm.
 

Isoterica

Hall of Famer
Dec 6, 2011
I would be glad to send you some A7 II raw files for you to play with... just tell me what you want to see (high iso, etc.). One thing to keep in mind is that a 24mpx file could look noisier on screen than a 16mpx file. You need to export them at the same resolution, or print at the same physical size, to do an apples-to-apples comparison (I wonder if that would make a difference with the 7DII for you also).
A few raw files would be great, low iso, high iso, you know a fair representation. And while I haven't reduced my 20mp to 16 to match the Fuji.. I did read online in a couple places that other people felt the canon raw were a bit grainy, and they had reduced their files doing side by side tests. I should dig out my old rebel and look at its files again. Maybe I've just gotten used to Fuji's magic algorithms or something. Now that I have the Canon set up better it's not.. unbearable, but at 100%, I feel like I'm looking at a microdot monet :D I didn't buy for the mp, but 20mp doesn't seem like that big of a jump.
 

krugorg

All-Pro
Sep 26, 2011
Minnesota USA
Kyle Krug
A few raw files would be great, low iso, high iso, you know a fair representation. And while I haven't reduced my 20mp to 16 to match the Fuji.. I did read online in a couple places that other people felt the canon raw were a bit grainy, and they had reduced their files doing side by side tests. I should dig out my old rebel and look at its files again. Maybe I've just gotten used to Fuji's magic algorithms or something. Now that I have the Canon set up better it's not.. unbearable, but at 100%, I feel like I'm looking at a microdot monet :D I didn't buy for the mp, but 20mp doesn't seem like that big of a jump.
Cool, I will shoot some over the next day or two and send you a download link.
 

Woody112704

Veteran
Nov 7, 2013
Iowa
Jared
I'd love to hear your your thoughts on the differences in the files Isoterica. What type of photography do you like doing more? Landscapes, street or portraits?
 

Isoterica

Hall of Famer
Dec 6, 2011
I'd love to hear your your thoughts on the differences in the files Isoterica. What type of photography do you like doing more? Landscapes, street or portraits?
I'm no pro, just a hobbyist. I like macro, landscape, urban decay, street..

As for files.. the raw files were grainy, even the in camera jpeg were-- unrelated to iso. It wasn't noise, just the grain of the file. My teacher looked the camera over and my settings were sound. Maybe I had a bad copy, dunno, I did take it back. I'll rent a few cameras, maybe even another 7DII. A new 6D update may be out soon too.
 

lenshacker

Veteran
Nov 21, 2014
Can you post a section of the image showing the grain? I've seen Sony compression artifacts that look "grainy" posted on the web.
 

SnapDawg

Rorschach Test Pilot
Apr 18, 2014
Canary Islands
Ken
I'm no pro, just a hobbyist. I like macro, landscape, urban decay, street..

As for files.. the raw files were grainy, even the in camera jpeg were-- unrelated to iso. It wasn't noise, just the grain of the file. My teacher looked the camera over and my settings were sound. Maybe I had a bad copy, dunno, I did take it back. I'll rent a few cameras, maybe even another 7DII. A new 6D update may be out soon too.
Macro, street, ... what about the OM-D EM-1 ? Great IQ, fast AF, excellent lens lineup, environmental sealing, yadda yadda ...

Ken
 

Isoterica

Hall of Famer
Dec 6, 2011
Macro, street, ... what about the OM-D EM-1 ? Great IQ, fast AF, excellent lens lineup, environmental sealing, yadda yadda ...

Ken
I just looked to see if metabones had a canon to m4/3 adapter, lo and behold, front page banner on the Olympus. So okay, I will look into that too. I really don't want to give up my canon glass. Thanks!
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom