Alas dear Fuji, I knew you well.

It's been a while since I posted on nzdigital (about three months), but I haven't been quiet during that time - anything but. I've been posting, instead, on my 'other' blog; The Fuji X-Files. It made sense, since I had invested heavily into the Fuji mirrorless system with the X-E2, and had a Fuji-centric blog waiting and ready to go.

And I enjoyed the Fujifilm X-E2, I really did. Well, at least I thought I did - until recently. Let me explain...

Lake Kaniere. Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm. f11 @ 1/80th, ISO 200.

A few weeks ago I decided to film a video for my Youtube channel, comparing images taken with a full frame, APS-C and micro four thirds camera. I just happened to have all three sensor sizes together at one time, and thought it might make for an interesting video? And it certainly was interesting, and enlightening, but not quite in the way I had envisaged it would be. 

I went into the 'experiment' with a fairly clear idea of what I thought the outcome would be (not very scientific, I know), since I've shot on all three sensors over the years and know that they can all perform fantastically. All can produce clean, clear and sharp (more on that soon) images - at least at the sizes I need to print or display my work at. I took all the images at the same focal length, with the same effective aperture, and all in RAW so I could get the very best out of each sensor.

The three cameras I tested were the 24MP full frame Sony a99, my 16MP Fujifilm APS-C X-E2, and my son's Olympus OM-D E-M5 16MP micro four thirds. Above is the edited RAW images, with a 100% crop from the extreme left edge of the frame, from each camera. The full frame 24MP image has the edge in sharpness and clarity - of course it does. But having said that, the Olympus E-M5 micro four thirds image gives an impressive performance - with the very cheap 14-45mm kit lens no less - and isn't that far behind. But what shocked, surprised, and upset me, was how poor the Fujifilm X-E2 result was! It might not be quite as obvious from the images here on the web, but compared to the Sony and Olympus, the X-E2's 100% crop from the left edge is horrible! Soft, mushy and just plain horrible! Bugger 😞

On closer inspection, it looks as if the Fujinon XC16-50mm kit lens that I've been using has a slightly de-focused left side of the image, since the right side edge was indeed sharper. So chalk that up to a lens issue and move on. Whew!

Things will surely get better if we look at the central portion of the image - all shot at an f11 effective aperture, all on a tripod. Well, hang on there Bucky. Not so fast. Once again, it might be hard to tell from these web images, but - once again, the Sony and Olympus look very sharp, while the Fujifilm X-E2... not so much.

This time the result is not so much blurry, as just every so slightly 'mushy'? Detail just isn't as distinct and 'crisp' on the Fuji as in the Sony and Olympus images. On-screen, they all look fine. Sharp and clear enough. But pixel-peep at 100% and the Fujifilm X-trans sensor is definitely more 'mushy' in rendering detail. If I was being kind (hey, I'm trying), I'd say it produces a more 'painterly' image - maybe more filmic, than the other two? Great if that's the look you're going for.

Now normally I'm not a pixel-peeper. Really, I'm not. And I'm also not someone who has to have the 'cleanest' image possible with zero noise/grain present. In fact, with the Fujifilm cameras, I'm actually purposefully going the other way and introducing grain into the image. I like the fact that they can produce very film-looking images straight out of camera - when I want that look. But I'm also not the first to have noticed a general 'softness' with Fuji RAW files that aren't there with other systems.

This image softness has mostly been attributed to Adobe Lightroom's handling of the Fujifilm RAF files (yes, I'm using Lightroom). It's a common, and oft discussed issue, with a couple of work-arounds.

First, third-party plug-ins can take over the RAW development engine inside of Lightroom to process the RAF files. This is the 'fix' preferred by those who wish to stay within the Adobe ecosystem.

Second, ditch Lightroom all together and move to Capture One for processing RAF files in the future. Capture One has worked closely with Fujifilm, and are known to have a much superior RAW processing engine for RAF files than Lightroom. People have reported much sharper images processing in Capture One than Lightroom. So fortunately, there is a fix.

Having said all that, I'm not laying the blame only at the foot of Adobe. I have to at least consider that the lens has something (a lot) to do with IQ and sharpness. I've been shooting the X-E2 mostly in jpeg, and letting the camera process the image. If you do this, then a lot of the inherent lens issues will be 'minimised' by the processing software. So that what you get out of camera should be fairly sharp, corrected images. Not so with RAW. The RAF's are unadulterated data - warts and all - and it seems that maybe the XC16-50mm has quite a few warts?

So, having established this, I made two decisions immediately. One - get a new lens, and two - start processing RAF files in Capture One.

And that's exactly what I did. I purchased the 23mm f2 prime (35mm equivalent fov) and downloaded Capture One Pro for Fujifilm (which just happened to be on special). Problem solved - right?

Well actually, no. On the lens front, I'm sure that I am getting sharper results with the 23mm prime than I was with the XC16-5mm kit lens. No doubt. It's a lovely little lens, and a joy to use.

But, when I went back and re-processed the RAF file in Capture One, I got the exact same result as I had when I used Lightroom. The Fuji file still looked 'painterly' rather than crisp and sharp. Bugger (again) 😢

After that, it was a bit like one of those inkblot tests. Once I had seen it, I couldn't 'un' see it. I started going through my back catalog of images and looking at photos at 100% (I really am NOT a pixel peeper!). If I clicked on an image at random, then I could almost always tell if it had come from the Fuji because of the painterly pixel structure. If I clicked on an image, enlarged it, and thought "great, that looks better" then it was invariably from another camera sensor (usually a Nikon). And once I started playing the 'spot the Fuji fuzziness" game, then that was really the beginning of the end for me and Fuji.

Motukiekie Beach. Fujifilm X-E2 with Fujinon XC16-50mm

I've had a lot of fun using the Fujifilm X-E2, and made a lot of amazing images with it. It's been another piece of my mirrorless journey puzzle, and shown me that I can get along with smaller cameras. But it's also been a bit of a struggle, I'm not gonna lie. The X-Trans sensor is a unique beast, and many struggle to tame it satisfactorily. It's especially difficult if you're an otherwise satisfied Lightroom user. 

Shooting jpegs and using images SOOC (straight out of camera) is a serious option to consider with Fujifilm - their film profiles are really that good. And boy, have I had a lot of fun (and wasted a lot of time) with custom film profiles. The combinations are almost endless. Which again, unfortunately, presents something of a problem. I've programmed, changed, and reprogrammed the custom film settings on the X-E2 dozens of times - tweaking, reshooting, tweaking and reshooting again - only to end up changing them all later anyway. They are fun, but for me they've also been time-wasters, and something else for me to obsess about with my photography (me, obsessive? never!?).

So I've decided - for better or worse - to move on from Fujifilm (what a shock). I've used it for about a year now, which is fairly good going for me and a camera system historically 😕 I haven't really been a one-camera-one-system guy for years now. Variety is, as they say, the spice of life.

There is, however, one love that I have returned to time after time. And I think she is calling me again... 

I'm pretty sure I was using a Nikon before I switched to Olympus, and I know I was using a Nikon D300 before switching to the Fujifilm X-E2. My first digital 'love' was the Nikon D70, tearing me away from my 20 year affair with Canon. Nikon has been the stable home in my system-swapping career, and I hear her calling me again... 

I've also thoroughly documented my struggle (love and hate relationship) with 'going' mirrorless, since I'm still convinced (as are many) that mirorrless is the future of photography. But... having grown up using SLR style cameras, the DSLR has a strong emotional, and physical, attachment to me. As soon as I pick up a solid, hefty, magnesium alloy DLSR body, it feels like coming home. They just feel so 'right'. So wonderfully good in the hand. And try as I might - and I have tried - mirrorless cameras, with all their bells and whistles, just do not feel as good to hold and use. This is a hugely underrated part of enjoying photography. How does the camera 'feel' in you hands. Does it make you want to pick it up and use it for long periods of time? For me, Nikon's just do.

Of course all of this would be moot if money was no object. It would, of course, present a whole new raft of problems - but if money was no object, then I would definitely be buying a mirrorless camera. But not a tiny wee thing like a Fujifilm XT30 or Olympus E-M10III - something solid like an Olympus EM1x or Fujifilm XT4 with grip attached. Actually, what I think I would do is wait for the new Nikon Z9. I think that's going to be a stellar camera for Nikon. But alas, I haven't won lotto (that I'm aware of anyway), so budget is, as always, a major factor.

I'm going to Christchurch this weekend (as I write this). I've sold my Fuji gear already, have a few other bits and pieces to sell, and with the money I am going to buy another camera and lens(s). I don't know exactly what I will get, but at the moment I'm thinking it will be a Nikon DLSR. Something like the D7000 pictured above. Or maybe, if my budget can stretch and I can be convinced that its sensor is clean, a full-frame Nikon D600? It will all depend on what the store has in its secondhand department at the time.

Then again, there's a very nice black and silver Olympus OM-D E-M1 for sale as well. And, as we all know, the future is mirrorless!