The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fujifilm X-100 testimonies surfacing

J

jorgeAD

Guest
Spanish X100 CRITICAL test

http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/fuji-x100-analisis-muestras-video,1_7351

Some highlights (based on a X100 with firmware 0.69) :

Tester complains about the rear wheel that, unlike great top controls, he finds inconvenient and slow when accesing camera menus.

He also complains about the EVF refresh rates when the light gets really low, but considers its quality very close to the Panasonic G2.

He would have liked the center area of the EVF to get enlarged upon activating the MF dial, which he complains works in small bursts (fly-by-wire). So as expected MF isnt really a forte of the X100.

They have a interactive geometrical distortion and vignetting test from F2 to f16. Tester claims (and samples seem to prove) the distortion is very well controlled at all F stops and vignetting is considerably reduced by F2.8 and gone at F4.

Corner sharpness is also tested with crops at all F stops and full performance achieved by F4, but already outstanding by F2.8. He praises contrast and resolution consistency between F2.8-F11.

He notes that even using a SanDisk Xtreme Class 10 card, once the buffer gets filled with 10 JPGs or 8 RAWs its takes 20 seconds to empty the buffer. Apparently the X100 lets the photographer shoot even with a full buffer, but menus are not accessible so only aperture and speed can be changed.

With the firmware used Aperture Priority limited shutter speed between 1/30 and 1/1000.

He tested the Dynamic Range and was pleasantly surprised by the highlight recovery ability possible with the DR400 option (full size samples available).

He postpones judgement on Noise Reduction and high ISO performance until Firmware 1.0 is available, yet posted NEW full-size low-light ISO 3200 - 6400 - 12800 samples taken on location (no studio setup)...

Hope you find this info useful. Please excuse my limited non-native english...:confused:
 

barjohn

New member
ptomsu,

Please show me a comparable camera that shoots ISO 12800 with that much detail and color. I haven't seen it. The closest I have seen is the Nikon D3S and it is a FF $5K camera if I remember correctly. Do I need 12800, not most of the time but in low light where the subjects are not posed (moving) I need a higher shutter speed, hence higher ISO. Restaurants, night clubs , parties, etc.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
ptomsu,

Please show me a comparable camera that shoots ISO 12800 with that much detail and color. I haven't seen it. The closest I have seen is the Nikon D3S and it is a FF $5K camera if I remember correctly. Do I need 12800, not most of the time but in low light where the subjects are not posed (moving) I need a higher shutter speed, hence higher ISO. Restaurants, night clubs , parties, etc.
Sorry to be a bit direct here, but further discussion is useless. Have fun with the X-100 and ISO 12800 and higher :D

PS: I agree on the D3S although it does one thing as well - plastify the higher the ISO (means you loos detail). But it is ok for certain needs.
 

Jerry_R

New member
You loose detail. You loose dynamic range with every stop.

What everybody can do - is to compare lowest ISO with eg. 12 800 and see how much you loose.
Ideally with face, skin within the frame and not whole photo perfectly lit.

Then everybody can answer yourself, if accepts it or not.
For WEB or small prints - it may work.

Personally,
even in pub or restaurant - I always find a way to put camera still if needed and use longer shutter.
Even if people move - I personally prefer to show it, than plastic picture.

PS: About - show me today camera - I think you can find few RAWs makers, plus good de-noise soft and achieve the same. If you like of course.


PPS: to be clear - I have nothing against what X100 is delivering at 12 800. I just wouldn't use it anyway, that's not the reason I observe that camera :)
 
J

jorgeAD

Guest
Right ! barjohn wasnt paid enough by Architectural Digest so instead of a 4x5 he did the interior shot with his new pocket toy :ROTFL:

Fictions and proofs-of-concept aside, I think Fuji is reclaiming the low light compact digicam throne and, most likely, the DR one as well with the DR400 function.

Thanks for the iso 12800 touch-up barjohn, your version does indeed look a lot better, even printable !

Jerry: I always carry a small Ultra Pod II table tripod in order to keep the iso down in my GRD2. I use it mostly for situational wide shots and it works great. But for candid or action flashless shots having good iso 6400 or great iso 3200 in a pocket digicam is something to acknlowledge.
 
Last edited:

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I personally think that the X100 is a great little camera, but I am so fed with all that high ISO stuff which vendors think they need to push in order to be able to sell their products.

What was MPs in prior years is now high ISO :eek:

Well I think the X100 is a perfect tool for low to mid ISO!
 
J

jorgeAD

Guest
Well I think the X100 is a perfect tool for low to mid ISO!
Heck my Ricoh GRD2 is perfect tool for low (80) to mid (400) ISO...

Unless you consider 800-1600 mid ISO, which in turn proves "ISO is the new MegaPixel...":eek:
 

Jerry_R

New member
What was MPs in prior years is now high ISO :eek:
Exactly.

I have forgotten to ask about DR - as I understand - it is all software, right?
So you can underexpose & develop RAW, like any today camera, right?

Or there is something new?
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I'm with you, Peter. There's way too much marketing hype and techno-geekery associated with any new camera (or other device) these days.

Based on what I've seen about it, I think the Fuji X100 will be a very fine compact camera. It looks like Fuji has put a lot of thought and effort into the design, and into producing something with the kind of quality feel and image quality that photographers value for the type of camera it is.

I look forward to seeing the photographs it produces, once it is released and some photographers learn how to exploit its capabilities.
 

barjohn

New member
Let's face it, unless you are making large prints with cropped images the MPs or the ISOs are not the problem. There are many very good P&S with small sensors that do a very good job (the new Oly XZ-1, the S-95, the LX-5, etc.) The one thing that small sensor cameras cannot do compared to APSC is high ISO. There is more than an order of magnitude difference. However, high ISO is not the only reason to buy a particular camera and certainly not the only reason to buy an X100 though it makes it a more compelling case. The ergonomics weigh very heavily and in psrticular the hybrid OVF/EVF view finder.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
One feature I noticed in the youtube link was the panoramic shooting mode...this is enough for me to buy one - I have missed a digital version of my XPan system...

a lot of very useful in viewfinder features as well - all in a nice tidy little pocketable package..

where do I sgn up ? Is anyone organising a bulk purchase -:)
 

Terry

New member
Let's face it, unless you are making large prints with cropped images the MPs or the ISOs are not the problem. There are many very good P&S with small sensors that do a very good job (the new Oly XZ-1, the S-95, the LX-5, etc.) The one thing that small sensor cameras cannot do compared to APSC is high ISO. There is more than an order of magnitude difference. However, high ISO is not the only reason to buy a particular camera and certainly not the only reason to buy an X100 though it makes it a more compelling case. The ergonomics weigh very heavily and in psrticular the hybrid OVF/EVF view finder.

Actually one more thing....more control over the depth of field. Yes I know this is a wide angle lens but compared to a small sensor camera it will draw differently and allow you to clean up some backgrounds that could otherwise look cluttered and messy.
 

tom in mpls

Active member
Actually one more thing....more control over the depth of field. Yes I know this is a wide angle lens but compared to a small sensor camera it will draw differently and allow you to clean up some backgrounds that could otherwise look cluttered and messy.
+1!
 

barjohn

New member
Actually one more thing....more control over the depth of field. Yes I know this is a wide angle lens but compared to a small sensor camera it will draw differently and allow you to clean up some backgrounds that could otherwise look cluttered and messy.
True Terry but that is also lens speed and focal length dependent such that an f3.5 24mm isn't going to offer the depth of field as the f2.0.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
The E5 gives very clear results with much greater detail up to ISO1600 compared with the K5, given you are using the appropriate pro glass from Olympus.
I don't think so. I mean, put high end glass to the K-5 too and then compare. Olympus glass is nice but E-5's ISO 1600 isn't.

However there are these test showing higher DR for the K5 and also D7000 and other cameras. But how does it come that the results from the E5 are topping the results from the K5 and others by such a high degree????
Where? Not in DR and certainly not in high ISO. I think Olympus got color profiling right and out of the box gives better color at low ISO, or resized down at high ISO (they are really good at keeping color tones in high iso considering the sensor they have to deal with). But the detail loss is there, if you need more of the original file resolution, at ISO 1600 it doesn't look like a winning proposition vs some of the competition. That doesn't mean it's useless.

The most likely answer is the weak AA filter of the E5 plus the less strong post processing for higher ISO. Just take a E5 image shot with 6400 and apply strong noise correction - bingo then you might even top the K5 or D7000 results :D
Yeah right. Have you done this yourself? At ISO 6400 the E-5 suffers very often from nasty banding. The detail loss is quite big and the DR has eroded quite a bit. I am sure if you are showing VGA sized shots maybe- and even at those I have seen banding from miles.

Unfortunately all competition is relying on pretty strong AA filters so far. Which results in "waxy" and "not so detailed" images the higher the ISO gets. With the E5 you have still details as you go higher, but as noise is not limited in camera, you finally get noise taking over the fine details.
I am not sure about that. The noise reduction you have to employ will leave you with waxy images. What the E-5 did with a weaker AA is with a 12 MP sensor, at low iso, match resolution or ball park so of the 16MP's. That's quite remarkable, but 16 MP's they are. This means that advantage sort of cancels out in the comparison. Remarkable for a 12 MP sensor, but not a real advantage when it comes to compare result vs result.

So what is the better approach? To have a product like the E5 where the last decision is left to the customer for noise suppression, or the other approach where the vendor makes the customer happy (tries to make the customer happy)?
I certainly prefer having the choice. But by the same token, there's only so much you can do with a 3 year old sensor. I give Olympus credit for doing a superb job at making the most of it, and at low ISO the E-5 can certainly be fantastic.

For myself I vote for the first approach and stay myself responsible for how I want to massage my images.
I vote the same. But you also have to consider the quality of the original data. I have pushed K-5 files hard and you don't see banding anywhere. Can't say that about E-5 files.

- Raist
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I visited my camera pusher today. He'll get his demo X100 in 2-3 days. He told me he has orders for more than 50 cameras already.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I don't think so. I mean, put high end glass to the K-5 too and then compare. Olympus glass is nice but E-5's ISO 1600 isn't.
Sorry, but which high end glass for the K5 ?????

Also I do disagree with the ISO1600 statement, I am developing my ORFs in Lr3.3 and/or C1Pro and I absolutely cannot find any noise! Just set the parameters right of course! But I have much more details than I had with the K5 (and of course only a DA70 for comparison).

Again and again, I think all this trying to argue about same or similar IQ from the other cameras is just useless, as the main issue is the AA filter which is almost not there in the E5.
 
J

jorgeAD

Guest
X100 Depth of Field

Actually one more thing....more control over the depth of field. Yes I know this is a wide angle lens but compared to a small sensor camera it will draw differently and allow you to clean up some backgrounds that could otherwise look cluttered and messy.
Full Frame sensors have 63.4% the depth-of-field of APS-C sensors when focused at 3 feet. So F2 APS-C behaves close to F2.8 in FF (according to online calculators and taking into account the appropriate circle of confusion for each format).

My Ricoh GRD2 has 6.5 x as much depth of field at 3 feet than the X100 lens, so yes, more control is possible than with tiny sensor digicams. The 23mm lens produces however a much more gradual focus loss than 35mm so backgrounds, even though theoretically out-of-focus, dont defocus as much or as fast, so I think it safer to call it “separation” instead of "clean up".

Sensor size, along with Hybrid viewfinder, analog controls (and now high iso performance) is the main lure of the X100, which according that dpreview thread you mentioned is a grown:bugeyes:-grown ups toy!
 
Top