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
Re: Fujifilm X-100 - iPhone analogy

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.
Even if the X100 doesnt hold as much detail as a Foveon X3 sensor or an M9 with no AA filter at base ISO, it is likely to change the way a lot of people make photographs, other manufacturers design cameras, be a success and start a new camera category.

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.
Did the iPhone become the No. 1 cell phone because it offers better reception, carrier service or even ergonomy ? Dont think so. Its all about USABILITY and in compact digicams, about getting pleasure back into the act of photographing living, breathing people no brick walls or static stuff !

Now you can guess why I didnt get a Sigma DP2, no matter how impressive its low ISO resolution may be...
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Jerry's point is that he has observed that maximizing high ISO abilities comes at the cost of lesser quality at low ISO's.
And he has a point. The Olympus E-5 shows exceptional, although not universal (limited DR), qualities at low ISO, but is clearly limited above ISO800, some would say above 400. Nikon D7000 is clearly aimed at those wanting high ISO potential. There's no doubt what sells better in the current market, but if I look at what ISO the majority of my photos are shot at, it's at ISO400 and lower.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... The Olympus E-5 shows exceptional, although not universal (limited DR), qualities at low ISO, but is clearly limited above ISO800, some would say above 400. ...
Limited in what way(s)?

My tests and experience of the E-5 using my own methodology (repeatable since I designed and implemented it myself, comparable to other cameras I test with it) shows 11.5-12.0 stops dynamic range at ISO 200, 11.5 at ISO 100, and 11.5-10.5 at ISOs moving up to 3200. Acutance is very good throughout the range, with only minor degradation up to ISO 3200. Of course that says what I see as its limits, but in practical, photographic terms those limits define a pretty darn broad range of capability.

The more important question, of course, is "what is good enough?" We usd to compare digital cameras to film cameras of similar format ... but *any* current DSLR-class sensor outperforms 35mm film on technical grounds of DR and resolution, particularly at high sensitivity. Things can always get better. How much acutance, how much dynamic range, is actually, practically enough to make photographs that meet the needs of viewers, of buying, for publication, etc.?

If there is no point at which we can say the acutance and dynamic range are sufficient for the purpose of making photographs, then no camera will ever be good enough, which logically also suggests that no camera has ever been good enough. And there are a whole hell of a lot of excellent, high-quality photographs that have been made with cameras that weren't good enough ...

;-)
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Other than the 5D mkII's well known low iso banding issue due to pushing the higher iso end of the spectrum, I've never heard of another APC or FF camera with that problem. Yes perhaps you could get even better low iso but to be honest, I can't think of ever needing better than my incredible 1Ds mkIII was capable of at iso 100 and that is a 4 year old camera now superceded in DR by crop cameras!

As a wedding/event shooter I don't remember the last time I used iso 100/200, I live at 800-3200 and that's with f1.8-f2.8 mainly. Shot my last wedding on Thursday of last week, stopped down past f2.8 for the family groups only, used two off camera speedlites in total the entire day rather than my usual two off camera and 4 strobes. So much easier and nicer. Shot a big synagogue dinner on Saturday night, shot iso 800 & 1600, f1.8 to f4, bounced on camera flash only. Again I don't remember using anything under iso 400 for commercial work, if only for the faster shutter speeds even when tripod mounted.

As an urban landscape shooter I again rarely use low ISO, I need to stop people movement when stopped down to f16, much of my work shown here is iso 800 & 1600.

Quality of iso 100 is important for landscape and studio, outside, I'll take all the shutter speed I can get while maximising natural light in any location, any lighting and any time of day.

I have little doubt that the majority, the vast majority are with me, the cameras from practically every manufacturer wouldn't be set up like that otherwise...
 
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.
.
Terry, I posted one edit over on X100Forum.com

They hold up extremely well since they are so neutral to begin with. They almost look like RAW images, or at least how I like to prepare my RAW files before editing in CS.
 

Jerry_R

New member
Ben,
that is what I meant. If you see nothing else then today dSLRs - you do not understand what other people talk about. Only if you would have in hands other cameras for some time, other, than Sony, Nikon, Canon - you could see the difference.

I fully agree with your need of high ISO taking into account what you photograph. I can only tell you: my friend is a wedding photographer. He uses 5D II and small Sigma. His experience is clear - if conditions allow (and it often happens outdoors, he lives at seaside) - he leaves 5D II in bag and uses Sigma. You know why?

Several times he used both. When he presented print outs (not LCD 100% pixels) - customers always were selecting FOVEON.

To be clear - I do not use Sigma.

PS: I do not know how you - I am really for cutting this discussion. I expressed my X100 opinion based on seen samples, materials - ergonomy - great, IQ - just good. That is all. People who 'only use today dSLRs' - may not understand the point.
 

douglasf13

New member
Jerry, actually, you're a bit wrong about Sony. They use a less transparent color filter than both Nikon and Canon, in order to trade performance at high ISO for low ISO color separation. That is why Sony cameras usually test a little behind at high ISO compared to Nikon cameras with the same sensor.

The Sony A580 implementation of the newest Sony chip has both incredible DR and great color, and is certainly outstanding at low ISO. If you're finding that Ricoh, Sigma or Leica X1 is doing a better job at low ISO in any way...color, dr, noise, etc, you need to adjust your workflow for the Sony, because that shouldn't be the case.

As we've discussed before, the NEX-5 also has the weakest AA filter I've seen in an APS-C camera, so, while obviously not an M9, it has very good detail.


Anyways, I'm sure the X100 will be fine in performance. I can't wait to try one.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Hi Jerry,

The niche markets serve niche needs, the general working pro market wants every bit of high iso it can get. I support the need for niche markets to serve those who desire a 'non generic' feature set however the general and pro markets have specific needs which are addressed by the manufacturers.

What I like about this forum is that there is a lot of respect for others choices and needs so that if someone likes the Foveon look then all power to them, if someone needs a MF CCD sensor or lookalike (Sony A900), that is respected and understood. If someone is mainstream then who cares as long as they are happy with their tools.

I have a long on going thread in the pictures forum. I don't think anyone ever asked me what camera I used and why I didn't use 'X' instead. A person picks a tool based on their specific needs and comfort level, end of the day, it's the image that counts.

Point is though, denying the validity of the drive towards high iso does not seem justified by the general markets need and want of that high iso.

What I have learnt through 10 years of full time pro photography is that the client or customer unless very high end or an art director can't tell and couldn't care about the difference, not when you can print an iso 1600 print from my 'ancient' 5D's at 20x24" and not know it wasn't shot at iso 400 unless you put your nose literally to the print. It was a huge revelation to me after years of thinking that I cared just to be disallusioned again and again and again by client reactions. They don't care about noise unless it's ugly (colour noise/banding/blotchy), they don't care about resolution if you have enough for the images needs. They do care about impact, impact, impact and only impact. Get the rest good enough and you're good, every time.

I wanted to try this theory and so bought a lensbaby to start a new project after shooting 70 megapixel stitches and MF film for years. People love it, absolutely love it. You need the quality that the image requires but more than that and even another photographer might not know the difference in print.

My 1Ds mkIII had far more tonality and resolution. A D7000 has far more tonality. A MF back has a better look. But not for my needs which is why after 6 years, I'm still shooting a pair of battered 5D's, at all ISO's including 3200 and screw the armchair number crunching theorists.
 

jonoslack

Active 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.
HI Jerry
have you ever used a Sony A900? They've been criticised for poor high ISO, but the files have a really delicious colour subtlety at lower ISO . . . added to which the one Nikon sensor which really does seem to do well at lower ISO is . . . . the D3x, which uses the same Sony sensor.

As for Leica - Ricoh and Sigma, I must claim sigmaignorance - but my main camera is an M9, and I've spent a lot of time with various Ricohs, and understand their strengths and weaknesses.

I actually completely agree with you about the trade off between high iso and low iso . . . except with respect to the Sony 24mp ff sensor, and also the new APS-c sensor found in the A580 and the pentax K5, which also seems to walk a good line between high ISO and good low ISO.

So perhaps it's becoming possible to deliver both (if you have thoroughly used both of these sensors then I guess we have to agree to differ).

Whether the X100 does this remains to be seen, but I think the images we have seen suggest that at least they've made an effort.

all the best
 

PeterA

Well-known member
In NY I only went out with M8 + 28 cron. So, this will be very similar. Now I just
need to get back into doing some street shooting in San Francisco.
Terry I know a couple of excellent street shooters to in SF - let me know if you want an intro - there is quite an active community in SF.

I am looking forward to the Fuji camera they know how to make a decent lens.
 
J

jorgeAD

Guest
I am looking forward to the Fuji camera they know how to make a decent lens.
Indeed they do, and I have the Fuji GS645W pictures to prove it !

I think very few companies were in a position to produce an X100-like camera without hurting their system sales... and from them only FujiFilm combined the lens know-how and color reproduction-dynamic range experience to make it a success.

Crossing fingers and saving nickels...

Thanks everyone for a nice informative and constructive thread ! :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
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.
Here was the original...


And the edit to look like Velvia (since Ken Rockwell was dissing the X100 for not looking anything like Velvia)
 
Last edited:

raist3d

Well-known 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.


.

I did :) Looks pretty decent to me honestly. The color is there, and so is the DR. Shows that Fuji still "has it" after stopping on the S5 Pro. The DR settings though are a trick- same trick of the F100FS. I wish they had come out with another SR sensor even at 8/8 megapixels.

- Raist
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Limited in what way(s)?
At ISO 800 the E-5 starts losing detail as noise kicks in. The DR is certainly sub par vs the current competition, and so is its high ISO performance. On the good side, low ISO shots look great.

My tests and experience of the E-5 using my own methodology (repeatable since I designed and implemented it myself, comparable to other cameras I test with it) shows 11.5-12.0 stops dynamic range at ISO 200, 11.5 at ISO 100, and 11.5-10.5 at ISOs moving up to 3200. Acutance is very good throughout the range, with only minor degradation up to ISO 3200. Of course that says what I see as its limits, but in practical, photographic terms those limits define a pretty darn broad range of capability.
If the E-5 has 11.5-12 stops at ISO 200, then a K-5 must have like 15-15.5 stops using the same test. It may seem the E-5 has a "lot of DR" because some highlights are preserved like the e-30/620 but the truth is the shadows have lost a lot of the DR they used to have like on the E-3. Even many shots on the E-5 have visible shadow noise as early as ISO 200, though Olympus JPEG processing (new JPEG processing) helps here. This isn't something the E-3 did.

The more important question, of course, is "what is good enough?" We usd to compare digital cameras to film cameras of similar format ... but *any* current DSLR-class sensor outperforms 35mm film on technical grounds of DR and resolution, particularly at high sensitivity.
Not negative B&W film. At least not "any" camera.

Things can always get better. How much acutance, how much dynamic range, is actually, practically enough to make photographs that meet the needs of viewers, of buying, for publication, etc.?
That's a good point, there are certainly points of diminishing returns. A better question to ask then is why pay more for the camera that has less of that irrespective of some diminishing returns, though that "good enough" depends on the type of photography one is doing also.

If there is no point at which we can say the acutance and dynamic range are sufficient for the purpose of making photographs, then no camera will ever be good enough, which logically also suggests that no camera has ever been good enough. And there are a whole hell of a lot of excellent, high-quality photographs that have been made with cameras that weren't good enough ...

;-)
All of the current cameras are good. But there are pros and cons and matching one needs is important, and if any camera can do - but then on top of that you have cheaper option than other models while still doing better anyway, I think that's worth considering.

- Raist
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
At ISO 800 the E-5 starts losing detail as noise kicks in. The DR is certainly sub par vs the current competition, and so is its high ISO performance. On the good side, low ISO shots look great.


If the E-5 has 11.5-12 stops at ISO 200, then a K-5 must have like 15-15.5 stops using the same test. It may seem the E-5 has a "lot of DR" because some highlights are preserved like the e-30/620 but the truth is the shadows have lost a lot of the DR they used to have like on the E-3. Even many shots on the E-5 have visible shadow noise as early as ISO 200, though Olympus JPEG processing (new JPEG processing) helps here. This isn't something the E-3 did.



Not negative B&W film. At least not "any" camera.



That's a good point, there are certainly points of diminishing returns. A better question to ask then is why pay more for the camera that has less of that irrespective of some diminishing returns, though that "good enough" depends on the type of photography one is doing also.



All of the current cameras are good. But there are pros and cons and matching one needs is important, and if any camera can do - but then on top of that you have cheaper option than other models while still doing better anyway, I think that's worth considering.

- Raist

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.

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????

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 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.

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)?

For myself I vote for the first approach and stay myself responsible for how I want to massage my images.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
@barjohn

and did you really need ISO12800 ?????

Or would 3200 not have been sufficient?

Or ISO 1600 or even 800 with a decent in camera IS ?????

BTW the details do not blow me away - sorry.
 
Top