View Full Version : Looking at the X100 image threads...
ElectroWNED
04-26-2011, 18:46
This thing produces images that look like just another digital point and shoot...
Should I have gotten swept up in the hype? Maybe digital just doesn't do it for me? To me, it seems any of these images could have been captured by a $100 point and shoot off the shelves of Walmart-- okay, maybe the images have a little bit more bokeh than a $100 P&S... but doesn't film still do it better, for cheaper?
Please explain why I'm wrong.
Of course, the computer screen can be a great equalizer to some extent. Can you see the difference between an M8 or M9, vs. a good P&S? Or an M8 vs. a D300 (etc)? Sometimes I feel I can. I haven't formed any opinions about the X100, though.
digitalintrigue
04-26-2011, 19:04
Heh. Try shooting ISO 6400 with a $100 P&S. ;)
Rob-F is correct, need to look at the full size images.
Also, RAW development is not *really* out yet...but I hear it might be very soon.
This thing produces images that look like just another digital point and shoot...
Should I have gotten swept up in the hype? Maybe digital just doesn't do it for me? To me, it seems any of these images could have been captured by a $100 point and shoot off the shelves of Walmart-- okay, maybe the images have a little bit more bokeh than a $100 P&S... but doesn't film still do it better, for cheaper?
Please explain why I'm wrong.
I was prepared to listen to your argument until we got to this bit!
willie_901
04-26-2011, 20:29
Is it the "thing" or the people using the "thing"?
Would you please publish a link to some photos you consider to be good?
back alley
04-26-2011, 20:31
i could not agree less...some of the images i have seen, on the net, are remarkable in sharpness, tone etc.
after deciding not to get one i am very tempted now...
This set is pretty amazing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookio/sets/72157626239350831/
gekopaca
04-26-2011, 21:56
You're wrong because you're asking a question to mask another question that seems to worry you a lot.
We must stop this tiresome and futile opposition between film and digital, it is a false problem, everybody cares!
Just try to think the picture of a philosophical, aesthetic, social, semiotic, point of view and not simply as the result of a chemical or digital process!
Do not confuse the pleasure of making and viewing pictures, with the questioning of each on his own melancholy, his refusal of the modern world or adulthood, his refusal to grow old or whatnot.
If the pictures made with the X100 you have seen are ugly, uninteresting or just common, it is because the majority of those who produce and share images on the web are unable to produce good pictures, it is not because the tool is valid or invalid.
Do not confuse the means of production and the production itself!
I know @ RFF we are all manic-depressive, inveterate collectors, fetishists and lens geeks, but please do not be superficial and let's talk about the questions of photography frankly.
sonofdanang
04-26-2011, 21:58
Yeah. Good camera in the right hands. Any camera is a good camera in the right hands. It's about seeing. Digital, film, it doesn't matter. Both have their limitations and their strengths. Understanding the tool, and then letting go of it and looking at the content is the key.
efirmage
04-26-2011, 22:04
It would be a ridiculously fun camera to own, even if the images weren't outstanding. I'd need to see an original at many different f/stops to try and determine that, so I won't guess.
As far as point and shoots go, I just picked up an S95, and I'm absolutely blown away at the quality of images I can get out of that little camera. Many of them I truly couldn't get if I were using any other. That's really what it comes down to - the right tool for the job.
This set is pretty amazing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookio/sets/72157626239350831/
I like these images a lot too.
But...a lot of blown highlights, it seems...
filmtwit
04-26-2011, 22:35
BTW - what's the minimum focus on this lens?
BTW - what's the minimum focus on this lens?
Non macro mode is 80cm
macro mode is 10cm
Pickett Wilson
04-27-2011, 00:24
The photos from most cameras made today look great on the Internet as low resolution jpegs. And I doubt many photos made with the X100 will actually be printed. So if it looks good at 900 pixels wide on the Internet, that's the only criteria that matters. And the X100 looks fine from the stuff I've seen posted.
I rarely hear discussion on forums of how photos from various cameras look in print.
I just got some A2 shots delivered taken on the X100, this camera can deliver the goods not only on the screen.
To the OP, it's the shooter, not the camera. For instance, look at my Photostream and you'll see no matter what I use, they are all crap :D
sleepyhead
04-27-2011, 01:04
I just got some A2 shots delivered taken on the X100, this camera can deliver the goods not only on the screen.
To the OP, it's the shooter, not the camera. For instance, look at my Photostream and you'll see no matter what I use, they are all crap :D
Actually, I like your iPhone pictures alot
;)
I like these images a lot too.
But...a lot of blown highlights, it seems...
Looks intentional to me. Not blown highlights, high-key. Exposure choice not camera failing.
Also, RAW development is not *really* out yet...but I hear it might be very soon.
Adobe has just updated Camera Raw and the update includes support for the X100.
Gabriel M.A.
04-27-2011, 03:06
If I buy this really nice pen that costs $1,000...will it make my writing jump to the top of the New York Times Best Seller list? At that price, I'm ready to blame the pen if otherwise.
ZeissFan
04-27-2011, 03:42
I think the promise of every new camera is that it will transform us into great photographers when -- in reality -- we still suck.
jsrockit
04-27-2011, 04:13
Jeez, this film versus digital crap is getting so damn annoying. They are just tools. Both are capable of great photos. A film throw-away camera can look just as good as a decent film SLR under the right conditions.
Nikon Bob
04-27-2011, 04:50
Jeez, this film versus digital crap is getting so damn annoying. They are just tools. Both are capable of great photos. A film throw-away camera can look just as good as a decent film SLR under the right conditions.
Yes this forum is getting bad for this film vs digital crapola. Then again some threads just aren't worth answering. This might have been one of them.
Bob
Viktor Sebastian
04-27-2011, 05:31
But...a lot of blown highlights, it seems...
Who really cares about blown highlights? Especially in this context.
Film also does this.
When something is really bright I expect it to be white. Would you prefer it to be gray or something?
I'd like blown highlights to flash red in my eyes, so I can avoid taking an otherwise interesting photo ;)
The X100 delivers, it's great fun, light, great quality. Use it, enjoy it, make pictures with it.
jsrockit
04-27-2011, 06:40
Who really cares about blown highlights? Especially in this context.
Film also does this.
Yes, it does. I was at the Leica Gallery here in NYC and the exhibit there (film / silver gelatin prints) had plenty of "blown" highlights. I guess the difference is that digital blown highlights can look uglier.
I looked through a few of the images in question and did not see anything really offensive "blown" highlights wise.
Up to now I have seen way to few high resolution images from X100 to get the impression about the output. I just wait until more pops up. Also some "standard" reviews will come at some point that offer comparison to other cameras. I just decided to give the camera time to unfold. It is anyhow not yet available in Germany.
There was valid point mentioned - people rarely look at prints to judge on the abilities of a camera. I actually did that recently for several "test" images that are available over at DPreview. I was surprised to see differences in A4 (at 360 ppi) I actually did not expect to see - in particular once I had several photos of the same scene side by side. But maybe I am just too demanding on the technical side.
shadowfox
04-27-2011, 08:54
This thing produces images that look like just another digital point and shoot...
Trying to find the strength of X100 by looking at the *quality* of the picture, is pointless, because it's using similar sensor technology as any other digital cameras these days. We know it's capable of high IQ, but so is Nikon D7000 or Olympus E-5. So what?
Instead, try to find *what kinds* of picture are possible to take using X100 as opposed to let's say Nikon D3.
Also, the owner's feeling towards using the camera is equally valid in this case.
jsrockit
04-27-2011, 09:02
Trying to find the strength of X100 by looking at the *quality* of the picture, is pointless, because it's using similar sensor technology as any other digital cameras these days. We know it's capable of high IQ, but so is Nikon D7000 or Olympus E-5. So what?
Instead, try to find *what kinds* of picture are possible to take using X100 as opposed to let's say Nikon D3.
Also, the owner's feeling towards using the camera is equally valid in this case.
I agree completely.
The photos from most cameras made today look great on the Internet as low resolution jpegs. And I doubt many photos made with the X100 will actually be printed. So if it looks good at 900 pixels wide on the Internet, that's the only criteria that matters. And the X100 looks fine from the stuff I've seen posted.
I rarely hear discussion on forums of how photos from various cameras look in print.
I, for one, am planning to print images taken with the X100. One of the big selling points for me was the APS-C sensor, so I don't have to make huge compromises in IQ compared with my D300s.
Jeff
gilpen123
04-27-2011, 17:36
Now that the raw support is out and the new firmware update released, I'm sure there will be many good samples in the net in the coming days.
Instead, try to find *what kinds* of picture are possible to take using X100 as opposed to let's say Nikon D3.
That's it. Thats the whole point of this camera: a unique combination of features and settings that no other camera currently offers, be it p&s (no high ISO, no VF), DSLR (big, loud), m4:3 (no VF, no silent shutter, no f2 wide), DRF (no high ISO) or hybrids like the Sigma DP (no VF, no high ISO, no f2). And if you need these features they can potentially result in images you simply wouldnt make otherwise.
As for image quality... its adequate :)
I'm sure you can find other cameras that beat it in that regard but they will probably look like small hydrants, sound like a sewing machine, require a dedicated bag, lack in high ISO or cost $6k. Or all of the above.
As for film, I think it's a valid comparison because there is a camera that is 90% the same, the Hexar AF. And I reckon that camera still does it better in some ways (it is full frame hence more options for dof control, it has the unique active IR AF system that works flawlessly in all lighting conditions, it takes film) and worse in others (it only does 1/250, it doesnt have all that awesome info in the VF, and... it takes film).
A slightly different combination of compromises :)
Jamie Pillers
04-27-2011, 21:53
Yes, just like film.
I really don't see the point in constantly making comparisons between film and what the X100 is capable off. It's really time to embrace digital for what it is, what it offers and just get on with photography!
Gabriel M.A.
04-27-2011, 22:50
I really don't see the point in constantly making comparisons between film and what the X100 is capable off. It's really time to embrace digital for what it is, what it offers and just get on with photography!
Never! Film is an inferior medium. Bring back Daguerreotypes, the one and only to have "soul"! :rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.