Terry
New member
Actually on the bridge shot Andy chalked it up to user error.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=37825789
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=37825789
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!
Thanks, that might explain bridge shot. What about rest of shots?
I understand why people look at it that way but that can be said for any output, they are all starting points for adjustment to personal taste, which makes one wonder what _should be_ a starting point?
Like your sentence says, starting point should be _neutral_. In other words, best output should not deviate from reality so one has freedom / same amount of clearance to adjust it in either direction.
Otherwise if starting point is leaning toward either side, by being too flat or too amped up, one won't be able to do much without introducing obvious negative side effects.
Which means question is how close to reality output from X100 is. From everything we have seen do we feel it is dead on, very close, or too toned down?
m3photo
New member
Web Images
Secondly, the examples offered are all from the same camera so comparing what the fruit bowl looks like on said screens at 200ISO or 6400ISO only tells us what most of us know - digital camera makers always go at least one step up in their high ISO boastings; take any camera you like and whatever they say the maximum ISO is take it down a notch or two. In the case of this one I'd say 3200 for black and white and 1600 for colour, not bad but about par for the course.
If we could see the exact same pictures taken with the Leica X1 and an M9 with a 35mm Summicron, then we'd see if Fuji have done their homework on the sensor. The rest of the camera is wonderful - it's the "film" inside that's the deal breaker.
Firstly, one must not forget that we are always looking at 72dpi web images on whatever screen we have before us. Well printed at A2/A3 size is a different story I'm sure. This is the case for all cameras naturally.
Secondly, the examples offered are all from the same camera so comparing what the fruit bowl looks like on said screens at 200ISO or 6400ISO only tells us what most of us know - digital camera makers always go at least one step up in their high ISO boastings; take any camera you like and whatever they say the maximum ISO is take it down a notch or two. In the case of this one I'd say 3200 for black and white and 1600 for colour, not bad but about par for the course.
If we could see the exact same pictures taken with the Leica X1 and an M9 with a 35mm Summicron, then we'd see if Fuji have done their homework on the sensor. The rest of the camera is wonderful - it's the "film" inside that's the deal breaker.
Terry
New member
Well in about a week or two you will begin to get your answers.
How much variation there can be between now and shipments? Those cameras are already off the production line.
Also, do you believe DPR would post with Fuji's approval something that would be far under final output level?
Re: Web Images
One can compare output in many different ways. Printing is not the only one. If something performs visibly better at full screen sizes then that is a better starting point for prints too.
That, comparing apples to apples and substance/output mattering more than surface to some, we do agree on.If we could see the exact same pictures taken with the Leica X1 and an M9 with a 35mm Summicron, then we'd see if Fuji have done their homework on the sensor. The rest of the camera is wonderful - it's the "film" inside that's the deal breaker.
ecsh
New member
TerryWell in about a week or two you will begin to get your answers.
I knew you may have one on order,<G> I believe there are more gear sluts on this forum than any other i visit, and i include myself in that description as well.
Hopefully it will not dissapoint.
Terry
New member
Well, I do find it fun to try out different cameras. Selling them has been reasonably easy....however, if all is as it seems with the X100 it seems like one that will be a longer term companion.
The difference about the gear sluts on this forum is that we all seem to enjoy our photography and not just the gear, we want to learn from others, we do like to try shiny new things, don't get hung up on brand, and can appreciate when a good product comes a long or there is a step forward in technology even if it doesn't in the end suit our style.
ecsh
New member
You are correct about the gear. I started with Nikon, went to Sony, which i still have and really enjoy, and now have the Pentax K5 with the limiteds, and its great. I think this is a wonderful time to be a photographer, beginner or expert, and enjoy what is going on as a whole. This forum also shares more information than the others i visit, and i have never seen someone starting out talked down to by another member in that regard. It is fun.
Joe
Joe
And I thought that I was the only one that was brand tolerant. That is I seem to have stuff from multiple manufacturers, and use the equipment best suited for the job at hand.
I too hope that the X100 lives up to most of its expectations.
Funny, I always thought that this behavior (or equipment variety) was some type of abnormality. Maybe its not!!!!
Martin
I too hope that the X100 lives up to most of its expectations.
Funny, I always thought that this behavior (or equipment variety) was some type of abnormality. Maybe its not!!!!
Martin
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
It is truly liberating using more than one brand of camera equipment. The evil spirit
of brand defensiveness fades away leaving only the angel :angel: of how the heck do I get a good picture in this light. :ROTFL:Matt
Godfrey
Well-known member
I find that when I have too much of too many different brands of equipment, I spend too much of my time making decisions as to what equipment to work with for a given activity. Cut it back to one system, a couple of lenses ... I spend my time thinking about how to make creative photographs.
I don't love any one brand over another ... I've had virtually every significant brand of gear in most formats at one time or another. Nikon, Leica, Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Olympus, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Konica, Contax, Minox, Linhof, Plaubel, Zeiss Ikon, Fuji, Mamiya, Graflex, Alpa ... Each has its strengths and weaknesses, a couple I like more than others for one reason or another. All can make great photographs.
I am sticking with my Olympus gear as I like it and it works for what I want to do at present. I consider the X100 for when I want to do something a little different with less gear.
J
jorgeAD
Guest
Isnt room to adjust an out of camera JPG a rare, desirable feature ?
If a JPG gets generic in-camera USM (to make it look "crispy") and you then want to print it larger than 8x10, the micro halo around edges (USM) gets enlarged along with the picture. Something akin with color, what most photographers consider snappy or "not anemic" is usually channel clipping...
Apparently the X100 default settings allow interpreting color, contrast and sharpening even from JPG. If one makes photographs as a form of expression not just reproduction, 12-bit raws provide even more room for interpretatio, yet I often find my students tweaking JPGs to no end...
Here is my reasoning behind the X100 cost: If an equivalent F2 pancake lens was available for DSLRs (the mirror chamber wont allow it) it wouldnt cost less than $500, since the 4/3 Panasonic 20mm F1.7 pancake has a simpler design with fewer elements and goes for $400. The $500 Pentax smc DA 21mm f/3.2 AL Limited pancake is the closest I have found to the funky X100 lens design.
http://www.beanos.com/~tsoutij/wp/stuff/index-of-pancake-lenses
Add $100 for the microlens customization and you are paying in the order of $600 for the X100 body and sensor, not a bad deal at all considering its iso 3200 performance seems up there with the Pentax K-5 or Nikon D700 (both around $2000, without a lens).
I havent made my order yet, as sending stuff back from Central America is :shocked: and I paid the early adopter premium on my $700 GRD2, PLUS there are multiple signs an all black version will be released right after the summer. By then Ebay is likely to offer shiny $999 X100s from "real" photographers who cant stand the single focal length or by connoisseurs who confirmed their $3000 Summicron beats a $500 pancake :ROTFL:
http://www.youtube.com/user/JorgeAlban
woodyspedden
New member
Well the sensor of the X1 is identical to the sensor of the Nikon D300. I owned a D300 and my daughter is still using it four years later. it is (was) a great little camera so the X1 is endowed with a capable sensor. However the technology is a little long in the tooth so it will be interesting to see the results our folks can get from the X100. I look forward to owning one.
Woody
Is it the same as Sony A500?
Godfrey
Well-known member
LOL ... back again to the "it's the same sensor as ..." conversation once more. I think I've seen this merry-go-round spin here about five times since the X100 was announced.
Who cares what sensor it is "the same as" if it produces superb low-noise results at ISO 3200 and 6400 as the sample image files seem to indicate?
Godfrey, it is not art to produce noiseless high ISO pictures - without details.
I prefer best quality at low ISO, and in 2nd step - as good as possible - high ISO.
Unfortunately, there is a trend recently to glorify high ISO...