View Full Version : X100 - new samples from Spain
ebrandon
02-17-2011, 05:50
http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/fuji-x100-muestras-analisis,1_7322
I didn't understand every word of the preview, but one thing I did glean is that they thought the write time (jpg+raw) was slow -- about 5 seconds. This was on a pre-production camera, however.
jsrockit
02-17-2011, 06:11
12800 JPEG:
http://images.quesabesde.com/camaras_digitales/noticias/fuji_x100_dscf0254.jpg
PatrickT
02-17-2011, 06:16
The translated version of the site: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quesabesde.com%2Fnoticias%2Ffuj i-x100-muestras-analisis%2C1_7322
Looks damn good to me!
wjlapier
02-17-2011, 06:27
12800 JPEG:
http://images.quesabesde.com/camaras_digitales/noticias/fuji_x100_dscf0254.jpg
Looks good to me.
tapesonthefloor
02-17-2011, 06:33
That's a wiiiiide thirty-five, it is. Too wide for this boy.
Thank you for the link - Google Translate does a fair job on the Spanish text.
Interesting - this review doesn't speak about framelines briefly disappearing during autufocus action (!).
File storage delays may still be ironed out - I read in some other reviews that the camera features multiple processors. So hopefully, filesave delays may still be ironed out with improvements of inter-processor cooordination and communication.
The good news in this review is that the reviewer was impressed with autofocus speed.
jsrockit
02-17-2011, 06:42
That's a wiiiiide thirty-five, it is. Too wide for this boy.
Too cryptic, please repeat... cannot compute. ;)
Wow - the high ISO pictures are very impressive. Apparently, the pictures were shot in Barcelona - I have several of the pictured locations in some of my shots that I took using a Nikon D300.
The X100 is clearly outperforming the D300 in noise terms. Only one thing: I didn't like the ISO 6400 sample - it shows signs of overly aggressive denoising (strange halos of lowered color saturation around high-contrast edges).
Images look really good....
it looks good at higher ISO, way better than what I expected!
Thanks for the Link
keytarjunkie
02-17-2011, 06:55
Wow - the high ISO pictures are very impressive. Apparently, the pictures were shot in Barcelona - I have several of the pictured locations in some of my shots that I took using a Nikon D300.
The X100 is clearly outperforming the D300 in noise terms. Only one thing: I didn't like the ISO 6400 sample - it shows signs of overly aggressive denoising (strange halos of lowered color saturation around high-contrast edges).
The D300 is turning 4 this year. They're not really comparable cameras...but yes it is an improvement. I'm more interested to see how this stacks up against the current offering of DX sensors (D3100, D7000, T3i, 60D) than the D300.
That's a wiiiiide thirty-five, it is. Too wide for this boy.
Yes, me too. If it came with a 50mm or even 40mm, I'd buy it in a second.
scottwallick
02-17-2011, 07:00
Trying to keep my head about me, so I'll only note that 3200 (http://images.quesabesde.com/camaras_digitales/noticias/fuji_x100_dscf0292.jpg) looks quite good.
The D300 is turning 4 this year. They're not really comparable cameras...
Well, it's a point of reference, and very relevant (at least) for me, because low light is one of my favorite uses of my D300, and the D300 was hailed a low-light specialist when it was launched.
jsrockit
02-17-2011, 07:07
Does anyone plan to use this in JPEG mode?
Looks freaking amazing. Slays my 5d in ISO performance. Lens looks amazingly good too.
They can't look bad for that bag of money! ;)
wjlapier
02-17-2011, 08:25
Does anyone plan to use this in JPEG mode?
Yes.
I never shoot raw with my GF1 and GH2. But who knows, I might be persuaded to shoot raw if there is a compelling reason to.
jsrockit
02-17-2011, 08:56
I was just wondering wjlapier... because the high ISO samples would only matter to the who do I would imagine.
Pickett Wilson
02-17-2011, 08:59
Well, the metadata shows a brightness value of -3.15 and that the flash fired. Me thinks they cheated a little. :)
Pickett Wilson
02-17-2011, 09:01
Exposure Mode: Auto
Brightness Value: -3.15
Focal Length: 23.0
Flash: Fired, compulsory mode
willie_901
02-17-2011, 09:41
A used D300 and a new Nikkor 35/1.8 DX prime costs about what the X100 costs. The comparison is not far-fetched. The Nikon D7000 body only can be bought for just under $1200... so the cost with the 35/1.8 would be around $1,400. While the field-of-view is different, the X100 high-ISO performance has to be close to the D7000's in order to be perceived as current technology by some.
willie_901
02-17-2011, 09:43
Well, the metadata shows a brightness value of -3.15 and that the flash fired. Me thinks they cheated a little. :)
I don't understand how these parameters affect the inherent signal-to-noise ratio of the sensor? Please explain.
jsrockit
02-17-2011, 10:14
A used D300 and a new Nikkor 35/1.8 DX prime costs about what the X100 costs. The comparison is not far-fetched. The Nikon D7000 body only can be bought for just under $1200... so the cost with the 35/1.8 would be around $1,400. While the field-of-view is different, the X100 high-ISO performance has to be close to the D7000's in order to be perceived as current technology by some.
If we wanted a DSLR, we'd buy a DSLR... they are generally the best bang for the buck. I'm buying this because I don't like SLRs.
A used D300 and a new Nikkor 35/1.8 DX prime costs about what the X100 costs. The comparison is not far-fetched. The Nikon D7000 body only can be bought for just under $1200... so the cost with the 35/1.8 would be around $1,400. While the field-of-view is different, the X100 high-ISO performance has to be close to the D7000's in order to be perceived as current technology by some.
You are mixing up three different criteria: (1) relative camera(& lens) costs, (2) image quality, and (3) lens performance.
Firstly, a viewfinder camera is a beast of its own merit, and will be used in different situations than a DSLR. While the two camera types might use similar image sensors, they most certainly are specialized for different uses. Thus, a cost comparison between those two camera types is bound to be an apples-to-oranges comparison. DSLR prices are commodity item prices whereas the X100 price today is still very much governed by uniqueness.
Secondly, comparing image sensors of differing pixel densities (12Mpix vs. 16Mpix) but of the same physical size offers another source of error. Sensors with a higher pixel density inherently generate more noise which must be compensated via soft/firmware using more aggressive measures. If we wanted to come to a viable comparison, we would have to go into serious pixel-peeping, which only makes sense if both opponents are using finalized firmware.
Thirdly, comparing lenses designed for different FOV is another occasion for an unbalanced comparison. A 35mm lens (even if optimized for an APS-C sensor) features a different field of view and therefore entails a host of different design compromises than the development of a 23mm lens.
Lets face it - this is a new type of camera for a different application. Even if it might look costly in comparison to one of the many commodity DSLRs, it will attract its own user base that will benefit from its unique features. If the X100 wouldn't offer anything special, we would not devote so much time discussing it.
A used D300 and a new Nikkor 35/1.8 DX prime costs about what the X100 costs. The comparison is not far-fetched. The Nikon D7000 body only can be bought for just under $1200... so the cost with the 35/1.8 would be around $1,400. While the field-of-view is different, the X100 high-ISO performance has to be close to the D7000's in order to be perceived as current technology by some.
Do this DSLR's even have built-in flash? :rolleyes:
gekopaca
02-17-2011, 12:58
Is somebody knows how transform those bloody .raf in .dng?
For the first time we have raw and we can't open it with LR!
Please somebody help!
Roberto V.
02-17-2011, 13:19
Is somebody knows how transform those bloody .raf in .dng?
For the first time we have raw and we can't open it with LR!
Please somebody help!
According to the article, they haven't found any current software that supports it yet, they just posted them in case some reader found a solution.
gekopaca
02-17-2011, 13:28
According to the article, they haven't found any current software that supports it yet, they just posted them in case some reader found a solution.
OK thanks…
All stay connected!
I've been trying the ones I've got here, CS5 doesn't get anywhere but the embedded .jpgs are visible in Photo Mechanic. Another friend has tried a few solutions with no success, so I think we can probably say there isn't anything out there ready to process them yet...
R
Well Irfan View can open them, there are some adjustments possible, and can save as a .jpg. Irfan View is a free-ware, google it if you don't know it.
Oh, right - I assumed it was just extracting the embedded .jpg, same as Photo Mechanic. So you can adjust and save the actual RAW file at full size? (The embedded .jpg is 2176 × 1448, rather than 2848 x 4288 for the full-size files.)
R
Viktor Sebastian
02-17-2011, 15:47
Opened up the x100 files in photo raw processor.
The images look great, noise is very well controlled, great detail and the lens appears to be very very sharp. Bokeh looks great as well. I am surprised that the skin tones are so accurate. Well done Fuji!
http://bureau.is/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/001-900x580.jpg
http://bureau.is/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/002-900x580.jpg
http://bureau.is/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/003-900x580.jpg
shashinka-ichiban
02-17-2011, 16:33
My .raf files from my Fuji S2pro open in photoshop CS3 extended.
Though they may not be the same. I had 2 Nikons which both produced .nef but not both kinds would open in PS.
The RAF files from my S2 Pro opens in LR 1.0 but not in my CS4, go figure. I doubt the RAF files for the X100 would open in either. In the meantime Fuji is providing software for the RAF files for the X100.
TimothyHughes
02-17-2011, 16:58
I'm impressed. These are pretty useful test images IMO.
Yup, as I suspected, it's not processing the RAF file, just extracting the 'thumbnail' / embedded .jpg from it for quick viewing and some minor editing. That's what I was trying to describe before - same thing Photo Mechanic does.
R
Orange juice shandy?
http://images.quesabesde.com/camaras_digitales/noticias/fuji_x100_dscf0277.jpg
Those Catalans are crazy!
Those high ISO shots (up to 3200) are extremely impressive. Looks to have good dynamic range as well, and considering the noise reduction is pre-production and automated those shots are extremely clean and noise-free. 6400 looks like a ISO 800 GF1 shot and even 12800 isn't too bad. Would say that this is probably producing better shots overall at high ISOs than my D700...
Those high ISO shots (up to 3200) are extremely impressive. Looks to have good dynamic range as well, and considering the noise reduction is pre-production and automated those shots are extremely clean and noise-free. 6400 looks like a ISO 800 GF1 shot and even 12800 isn't too bad. Would say that this is probably producing better shots overall at high ISOs than my D700...
If that's the case when the camera finally starts producing images from new owners and users I'd be shocked ... because the Nikon is definitely the class leader here for affordable digital IMO.
Agreed re the D700, and if you play with the RAW files you can probably get more out of them, but for allegedly straight-out-of-the-camera jpgs those are better. The noise looks more film-like to my eye
http://images.quesabesde.com/camaras...0_dscf0277.jpg
out of focus areas are horribly pixellated.
Would this be normal for a DSRL?
Looks like my future digital 'carry everywhere' camera is taken care of :)
http://images.quesabesde.com/camaras...0_dscf0277.jpg
out of focus areas are horribly pixellated.
Would this be normal for a DSRL?
Not Found
The requested URL /camaras...0_dscf0277.jpg was not found on this server.
Apache/2.2.8 (Ubuntu) PHP/5.2.4-2ubuntu5.14 with Suhosin-Patch Server at images.quesabesde.com Port 80
Interesting ...
Interesting ...
I think the link should be:
http://images.quesabesde.com/camaras_digitales/noticias/fuji_x100_dscf0277.jpg
-Bruce
http://www.brucehemingway.com/
http://images.quesabesde.com/camaras...0_dscf0277.jpg
out of focus areas are horribly pixellated.
Would this be normal for a DSRL?
They are as they should be - blurred. I can't see any pixelation other than that which can be seen when viewing the file at scales substantially larger than 100% (which is perfectly normal).
Yup, as I suspected, it's not processing the RAF file, just extracting the 'thumbnail' / embedded .jpg from it for quick viewing and some minor editing. That's what I was trying to describe before - same thing Photo Mechanic does.
R
Irfanview (free) with the plugins (free) for it will open the RAF files. But I'm not sure what I'm looking at as there are are only a tiny number of settings when the open takes place so its not as though I can specify any conversion options.
Pickett Wilson
02-21-2011, 02:40
The metadata in all these low light examples, though, shows that the flash fired. I would love to see some low light shots with the X100 with only available light, which is how I would use the camera. And some lowlight shots with the lens wide open, not at f/4.
Irfanview (free) with the plugins (free) for it will open the RAF files. But I'm not sure what I'm looking at as there are are only a tiny number of settings when the open takes place so its not as though I can specify any conversion options.
We're basically saying the same thing. My point is just that what Irfanview is showing you is an in-camera jpg that is part of the RAW file, not the RAW data itself; you're basically able to edit the jpg just like you would any in-camera jpg.
So I don't think we can say it's OPENING the RAW file, since you can't see or use any of the extra data available. It's just skimming the file for the thumbnail that's included in it. Which is fine, if you don't also have a full-res jpg of the same subject!
R
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.