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

Godfrey

Well-known member
Godfrey, it is not art to produce noiseless high ISO pictures - without details. ...
So who said it was? Or that that was all the X100 provided?

The impetus behind all the "which sensor it is" stuff is the high ISO stuff. I'm sure the X100 will do a beautiful job at ISO 100 ... and Fuji have put an ND filter into the camera to allow capture at an effectively even lower ISO.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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...
+1

Considering the fact that most people nowadays use lenses that mostly open up to between f/3.5 and 5.6, the obsession with high ISO seems a bit strange. The F/2.0 lens of the X100 is around two stops faster than a typical kit lens for a DX format DSLR at the same focal length, and is probably sharper than most as well. That means shooting at ISO800 instead of 3200.

"Clean" high ISO is nice to have, but good quality, fast aperture lenses and excellent detail rendering at low ISO is so much more important for everyday use.

When that is said, the X100 seems to work very well, and better than most, at high ISO too. Seems to be a nice night companion :)
 

Jerry_R

New member
The impetus behind all the "which sensor it is" stuff is the high ISO stuff.
Do not interpolate your thoughts to other people.

For me "which sensor" is not about high ISO, but about quality. I hoped to see something exceptional, with many details, live colors, like other APS-C compacts deliver (Sigmas, X1, Ricohs).

So far, based on samples - all I see reminds NEX. NEX, which is good. But only good!

It's results have digital look like, are OK on higher ISOs, but fail to deliver details on lowest ISO (probably due to AA filter) and do not bring live, deep, clean color. That can be delivered with KODAK CCD sensor for example.

I'm sure the X100 will do a beautiful job at ISO 100 ...
I do not know where your enthusiasm come from, but me and many people I know - are not so happy. Especially people used to more analog look like or missed AA filter.

No doubts - X100 brings great ergonomy - big Thank You to Fuji. That makes it different from what we have on market today.

In terms of quality - delivers what most of today cameras do, using recent APS-C sensors.

Unfortunately, presented samples did not convince many people familiar with more analog, clean, full of details image.

Steve Huff is to make comparison with X1, not tables and lines, but real life examples. Let's see.
 

Jerry_R

New member
And why not?
Because delivering it decreases quality on lowest ISOs.
Also - native minimum ISO is getting higher and higher.

Example is recent Panasonic GH2. They way Panasonic selected recently - is caused by Sony no doubts.
People expected better quality, even more details due to increased resolution. And they were given?
Bettter high ISO, more noisy low ISO, details not changed.

I have compared NEX and u43 on one manual high quality lens. NEX has bigger sensor, higher resolution. But does not bring more details on lower ISOs. The higher ISO - the less details. u43 is more noisy, but also contains more details (due to weak AA filter).
Yes, from NEX everything is bigger, larger. But you will not see more details in hair, material area.

If you use daily dSLRs - you may not see what I write about. If you have chance to see output from different cameras - it becomes clear for you. Steve Huff was writing about it during Ricoh compact review.

Friend sent me two RAWs - one from NEX, one from small Sigma.
NEX is OK, digital, but lifeless. It has better high ISO. But Sigma is more clean, detailed and analog.

I do observe the same with M9 vs NEX. I was expecting from X100 something different than from NEX.
So far - looks we receive perfect ergonomy with NEX IQ. I am interested in RAWs mostly, not JPGs.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... For me "which sensor" is not about high ISO, but about quality. I hoped to see something exceptional, with many details, live colors, like other APS-C compacts deliver (Sigmas, X1, Ricohs).
So far, based on samples -
...
I do not know where your enthusiasm come from, but me and many people I know
...
I don't look at the examples myself other than for entertainment. Nor do I read reviews, other than to enjoy the list of features and the pictures. I don't see the point. But that casual glance for the usual blah test photos looked pretty good.

As I've said on here before, obsessing over AA filters, numbers, specs and such is a waste of time. I don't care what other camera uses a sibling to its sensor ... and I don't believe for an instant that it is identical to a D300 or any other specific sensor, although it might be in the same technology family ...

My enthusiasm for the X100 stems from the design of the camera. I think Fuji has done a very nice job there. The performance is what I'll evaluate for myself if and when I get a chance to work with one ...I haven't made a decision to buy one yet.

Speculating over whose sensor it is, looking at sample jpegs on line with a microscope, etc, is just a waste of time prognosticating what cannot be known until a production camera is in your hands and you can see what it actually produces.
 

tom in mpls

Active member
Speculating over whose sensor it is, looking at sample jpegs on line with a microscope, etc, is just a waste of time prognosticating what cannot be known until a production camera is in your hands and you can see what it actually produces.
Ain't it the truth, bruddah. I think it's silly at this time to claim either how perfect or imperfect it is. I like it's concept and promise, and am looking forward to trying it.
 
J

jorgeAD

Guest
Re: Fujifilm X-100: About High ISO

Godfrey, it is not art to produce noiseless high ISO pictures - without details.
We associate grain pattern with classic reportage (in a broad sense from Eisenstaedt to Salgado). Unfortunately high iso banding from digicams doesnt get the same kind of emotional response.

Digicams finally reaching a level where one can avoid ugly TV patterns at iso 1600-3200 and click the right emotional buttons in the audience should be considered progress, not lamented !

I prefer best quality at low ISO, and in 2nd step - as good as possible - high ISO.
Well I will pay ANYTHING (but Leica M9 tax) to get back my TMAX P3200 pulled to 1600 in Rodinal in digital-land. Even better if I get to decide where to apply USM as the X100 seems to offer, even in JPG.

Tiny sensor digicams as my Ricoh GRD2 are very sharp and have nice tight grain pattern at base iso, however above iso 400 it is a sad digital looking mess... Looking forward to X100 reviews in this respect...

Unfortunately, there is a trend recently to glorify high ISO...
Again different strokes for different folks... You dont care much for high ISO, good for you, yet the X100 was built for available light candid photography. Should a Porsche be blamed for no seating 7 people ?

Most small digicams struggle as light levels drop, forcing one to use built-in flash (or carry a tripod and pose subjects). Built-in flash kills available light character, depth, color, etc, so the promise of useable high iso in a relatively small digicam like the X100 is something to celebrate, at least from my point of view, even more so if you add a bright and clear hybrid viewfinder and analog controls, (I am so looking forward to turning that rear screen OFF for good :D )
 

Terry

New member
I'm surprised that nobody has downloaded any of the full sized samples and processed them out to see if the jpegs hold up and can take some pushing around.







.
 

Jerry_R

New member
To assume a priori that hight ISO will mean worse quality on low ISO is a mistake. Technology advances.
No, technology, producers - split more and more. Not all follow high ISO race for masses, like it would be most important in photography.

You will see it will be discussed more and more in coming months\years.

I am fine to finish the discussion now, we can have different opinions of course.
Let's wait for more X100 reviews.
 

Terry

New member
They haven't posted RAWs yet but you can get info from the jpegs and the jpegs were shot with very neutral settings. You can certainly get an idea of how much information is in the jpegs and know that it gets better with the RAW.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a snow scene that wasn't even full sized jpeg. With a bit of a tweak to the highlight and shadow made a huge difference and was a nice clue as to how much DR was really there!
 

tom in mpls

Active member
No, technology, producers - split more and more. Not all follow high ISO race for masses, like it would be most important in photography.
Jerry, we disagree but I am listening to your argument. However, I'm not sure what you meant in the above statement. If you don't mind, would you explain that further for me?
 

Jerry_R

New member
Sure, there are manufacturers that do care for high ISO mostly - Sony, Canon, Nikon (using Sony sensors). Panasonic joined recently. They care a lot what tests, review show - when looking at static tables, graphs, etc.

There are others, like Sigma, Ricoh, Leica - who do care for high ISO too, but most important is highest quality on base ISOs.

So far - seems that it is not possoble to deliver both. That is point where we disagree.
 

Jerry_R

New member
Because it allows for handheld photography in even darker environments than we have been used to... what's wrong with that?
Do you think I do not know it? Do you think I am against it?

Nothing wrong in two specified tools, sold separately:
- one with best quality up to 400 (and still good higher, but not optimal)
- second best quality since 800 (and still good lower, but not optimal)
until manufactureres come up with solution merging both.

What is not so nice, when you can not select and get only 2nd.

PS: Recent rumors tell, that NIKON D800 will be sold with 2 kinds of sensors, for different kind of photography, and users can select which to buy or both.
We will see. For me - direction is good.
 
Top