Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Fuji X Series > Fuji Digital General Discussion

View Poll Results: X100s vs. M240/35/1.7 Ultron: which is which
First is the X100s, second the 240 20 50.00%
First is the 240, second the X100s 19 47.50%
They look too similar to me 1 2.50%
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 12-30-2015   #41
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 421
First one is Leica M240, I think the 37/1.7 Ultron is not as sharp as it could be on the outer zones... Don't mean to say that it's a bad lens. Bottom pic is 100S, Fuji greens and very well optimised sensor to lens. I don't know. Hope I win...
__________________
View my Flickr space
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseantoniomorales/
  Reply With Quote

The files
Old 12-30-2015   #42
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,249
The files

Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
ooh, upload the raw files! we can all fiddle around with post-processing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
If you create a dropbox account you can upload them there and share them.
Shawn
Aizan, Shawn, anybody else who wants to play,

Here are the raw files:

M240 (26.22 MB): https://www.dropbox.com/s/e68aqc9q5s...00097.DNG?dl=0
X100s (32.25 MB): https://www.dropbox.com/s/r9sdqlw6en...F0063.RAF?dl=0

And here, the LR-generated TIF:

M240 (136 MB): https://www.dropbox.com/s/vq1xnsex192edyb/M240.TIF?dl=0
X100s (91.4 MB): https://www.dropbox.com/s/0joil6t7gc...X100s.TIF?dl=0

Very interested to hear what you find,

Roland.

PS: and for you non-Californians who have never seen one of my lens tests: behind the tree on the left is Oracle, and somewhere close to the horizon on the right, NASA, Ebay, Paypal, Yahoo, Google, etc.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #43
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,376
Thanks for the RAWs. Here are a few at the same reduced resolution...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/22404bwe5z...inity.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u2wwj7zh7j...063ID.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0wqcmj7mu7...63RPP.jpg?dl=0

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #44
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,376
Two from the Leica...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xt3024298y...inity.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mdoeuoedel...dient.jpg?dl=0

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #45
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,205
Will someone just tell me best camera?
I only want to use best camera for my photos.
For best photos internets tell me I need best camera and lens roadmap.
Confused on lens roadmap for X100 though.
But need best camera first, and the poll doesn't tell me which is best.
Frustrated, but will search on internet for more best cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #46
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is online now
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,239
MikeL, Ken Rockwell says the X100T, Worlds Best Digital Camera.

You're welcome.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #47
pechelman
resu deretsiger
 
pechelman is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 291
Thought i would play a it too. (hopefully the image links work, I was having trouble)

Certainly I'm not claiming that these are my "perfect processing" but that they are fairly representative of what I would do to a picture I intended to share with folks.

For the fuji, I applied the astia camera profile in LR and did a few levels type adjustments (whites\blacks\etc) and then added a touch of clarity. Less than 15, just to what looks OK to my eye. I then added a touch of vignette, less than 15 as well, I think it was 9, because, well, I like how a bit of vignette keeps the eye centered in the image or wandering off a corner. I also added some sharpening via a preset I have set for foliage. Maybe I didnt add enough, but whatever. Sharpness isnt really the issue at hand imo.




Now, for the leica, I hit my magic preset which does some color balancing to mimic the M9 and a few other things with levels. I think I slightly adjusted either whites or highlights from there, but that was it. (vignette and other stuff is all built into that one preset)



Overall, on my screen, I like both. The amount of detail in the leica file is impressive. It's almost as if the shots were taken with completely different lighting and atmospheric conditions as the city and mountains in the background seem "dehazed". But I dont think it really makes too much of a difference in the end image.

We talk about lenses and how they draw or paint images (rigid summicron for example) and give them so much praise for their character. On the other hand, some chastise cameras like the x100s/t for doing the same thing. I think there's some beauty in this character of rendering details with what people call the watercolor effect. Then again, it can also be frustrating at times when it isnt desired.

Either way, great cameras. While I wasnt there, to my eye it seems the Leica renders the scene a bit more naturally and is also the image I prefer.


edit: and for reference, the time spent on each photo was not much. I didnt time myself, but I probably spent ~30-45 seconds on the fuji. Aided by a couple of presets. More time was spent here to adjust the individul photo using the sliders one at a time.

The leica image I spent maybe 10s with. Hit my preset button, drug a slider, and I was happy. Much less "thinking" about what I was doing. I suppose I could do the same on the fuji, just never found one preset to adjust global levels that's made me happy.

edit2: thought i should just post a quick crop comparison of the two for completeness

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #48
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,645
Wow .... in those crops the Leica absolutely hoses the Fuji for detail! It says a lot for that Ultron lens also.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #49
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,979
Honestly, I wouldn't call it as color test.
Color test is where RGB are all present.
Here it is more like G test, with some hint of B.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #50
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
It's almost as if the shots were taken with completely different lighting and atmospheric conditions as the city and mountains in the background seem "dehazed".
that's because he has a uv/ir filter on the ultron.

gonna play with these tomorrow. =)
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #51
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,249
Thanks for the work, guys. I'll look at the results on a bigger screen tomorrow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Wow .... in those crops the Leica absolutely hoses the Fuji for detail! It says a lot for that Ultron lens also.
Keith, comparing resolution with a same sized crop at infinity is not fair, here. Remember that the focus was on the tree - not at inf. I did try to compensate the different DOF with different apertures, but the Fuji might just have thinner DOF. But the UV/IR filter seems to play a role in the subtle differences, too. I was wondering if somebody remembered, Aizan.

Roland.

PS: nice touch with the "roadmap", Mike
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #52
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitimageview View Post
MikeL, Ken Rockwell says the X100T, Worlds Best Digital Camera.

You're welcome.
My photos appreciate your, and Ken's, knowledge, Mr. splitimageview!


Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Thanks for the work, guys.
Thank you Iron Rider for putting in the effort! Beer's on me next meet and I'll bring my bestest camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2015   #53
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Thanks for the work, guys. I'll look at the results on a bigger screen tomorrow.



Keith, comparing resolution with a same sized crop at infinity is not fair, here. Remember that the focus was on the tree - not at inf. I did try to compensate the different DOF with different apertures, but the Fuji might just have thinner DOF. But the UV/IR filter seems to play a role in the subtle differences, too. I was wondering if somebody remembered, Aizan.

Roland.

PS: nice touch with the "roadmap", Mike


Come on Roland .... stop kidding yourself. The Fuji has absolutely no pixie dust on the sensor and you know it!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

The Best Camera
Old 12-30-2015   #54
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,054
The Best Camera

Mike,
Make a venn diagram of Steve Huff's list of best cameras, Ken Rockwell's list, and Thorsten Overgaard's. Whatever ends up in the middle is the Best Camera. If there's more than one, then take the one with the biggest you-know-what.
Jamie


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeL View Post
Will someone just tell me best camera?
I only want to use best camera for my photos.
For best photos internets tell me I need best camera and lens roadmap.
Confused on lens roadmap for X100 though.
But need best camera first, and the poll doesn't tell me which is best.
Frustrated, but will search on internet for more best cameras.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X-T3; X-Pro1; XF10

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #55
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeL View Post
Will someone just tell me best camera?
I only want to use best camera for my photos.
That is easy. PhaseOne XF/IQ3-80, or, if one generation behind is fine, Hasselblad H5D-60. If you would also consider film, to gain even more resolution, a Gandolfi 11x14.

But most people settle for some very much smaller second best camera, as they need something for personal carriage and not equipment that needs a crew van for transport (and a crew for assistance).
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #56
Filzkoeter
stray dog
 
Filzkoeter's Avatar
 
Filzkoeter is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin - Germany
Age: 33
Posts: 415
The depth of field/focus is different on both, so its unfair to compare the details in the background... but here are two center crops at 100%, minimal sharpening, both files same settings + auto white balance. Both Capture One 9 Pro.

1. Fuji
2. Leica




and just for fun, the Fuji RAW in Capture One vs Lightroom



I could sharpen the hell out of the file in C1... anything more then this amount of sharpening and everything turns into worm-like-artifacts in LR



The Fuji and the Leica file had both a "Provia" ICC applied, the Fuji LR file had the Provia color profile selected
__________________
-Miko

- flickr -
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #57
ABrosig
Registered User
 
ABrosig's Avatar
 
ABrosig is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Torrington WY USA
Posts: 302
That's interesting. Came in late, couldn't vote, but I'd have bet the first image was the Leica based on it looked (on the screen) just a tad crisper (sharper? more contrasty?).
__________________
You can teach just the basics, reading, writing and arithmetic in schools, but without art, there is nothing to read and write about.

http://andrewbrosigphotography.blogspot.com/
http://instagram.com/andrewbrosig
http://www.andrewbrosigphotography.com

In hoc loco sum
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #58
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,803
Having only completed migration from Aperture to Lightroom earlier this week, the RAW comparison pretty much guarantees there is no future for a Fuji in my workflow.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #59
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is online now
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,239
Interesting, I feel there is no Lightroom in mine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #60
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
i dont understand, is there a point to this comparison?

both cameras take nice pictures, just use the one you want to use and be done with it.

and really, who out there would simply take the raw files from either camera and hit export to use as a final product? this is just pointless imo.
Very true. Ad-hoc tests are often disappointing and useless.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #61
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,376
"edit2: thought i should just post a quick crop comparison of the two for completeness"

That Fuji crop is about 200% though, isn't it?

This is at 100% using Iridient.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/utfisrd517...opped.jpg?dl=0

Still not to the resolution of the Leica but considerably better than the Adobe 200% crop.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Executive Summary
Old 12-31-2015   #62
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,249
Executive Summary

Alright, these are my personal take-aways so far:

1 - assuming anybody shooting either camera does some minimal pp on her/his raw files, nothing can be said about the color differences of the two cameras. In particular, looking at low-res flickr output and saying one camera is better than the other is non-sense.
2 - even though the Leica generates a little more detail, both cameras make very competent images. Keep in mind that the x100s can still be bought new for almost 10x less dollars than the M + VM Ultron.
3 - LR is not a good tool for Fuji RAW processing.
4 - The UV/IR filter makes a noticeable difference in clarity of the final output. For morning landscapes like the above, maybe more so than the MP difference of the two cameras.

3 and 4 will change the way I work with the Fuji, so thanks to the contributors.

I still don't understand the DOF difference, and should investigate further. But then again, real shooting is probably more fun then further testing

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #63
littleearth
Registered User
 
littleearth is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 177
Fuji corners are so much softer ! Easy one !
  Reply With Quote

For you pixel-peepers
Old 12-31-2015   #64
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,249
For you pixel-peepers

Quote:
Originally Posted by littleearth View Post
Fuji corners are so much softer ! Easy one !
Not really. Went out, took a similar shot again, similar settings as yesterday, similar time of day, but used UV filter on X100s, a tripod, and focused both cameras at infinity.

The attached are with my personal color corrections, and include crops to check resolution. No sharpening in post was applied.

Overall picture:



Center crop (100% on X100s, and 80% on Leica for "MP fairness")



Corner performance of both.



This was my last lens test of the year You all celebrate well tonight.

Prost !

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #65
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,173
I heard the iPhone blows them all away though...
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #66
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,384
The second image shows more details on the fence (on my monitor).
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #67
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
The second image shows more details on the fence (on my monitor).
It does, Raid, since now I focused at infinity. For some reason, the X100s DOF is more shallow than expected.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #68
littleearth
Registered User
 
littleearth is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 177
On your second photo the difference is negligible, although I much prefer the Leica colors on both.

On your original samples the difference is obvious, specially on the fence. Much sharper on the Leica.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #69
pechelman
resu deretsiger
 
pechelman is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
"edit2: thought i should just post a quick crop comparison of the two for completeness"

That Fuji crop is about 200% though, isn't it?
According to LR I had selected 1:1


Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Alright, these are my personal take-aways so far:

3 - LR is not a good tool for Fuji RAW processing.
4 - The UV/IR filter makes a noticeable difference in clarity of the final output. For morning landscapes like the above, maybe more so than the MP difference of the two cameras.

.
agree with 1 and 2

for 3, I slightly disagree and I think the answer here is more of a "it depends".
Depends on the subject matter, desired output, required detail and sharpness, as well as the time needed to use a different program other than LR, if that's what one is used to. For me it works just fine in about 90% of the situations where I shoot RAF's*. The proof being not just on my screen but also on large'ish prints (16x10 in photobooks). Really even foliage and stuff prints nicely for me. By no means am I suggesting my photos couldnt have been made better with a different piece of software or using a different camera, but I'm pretty happy with them. Taken the fujis one two big trips and never regretted it.
2015 Trip and 2014 Trip

The only real difficulty I seem to have with the fuji sensor is when I really push its capability, such as when trying to generate false color IR or shooting in lower light.
These 3 photos come to mind, yet each in their own way, I'm still somewhat OK with them.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/254599...7654148437141/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/254599...7654148437141/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/254599...7654148437141/

for 4, i must have overlooked the UV/IR usage in the original post. at least that explains what i was seeing. that difference is striking.

edit:
*Before someone points out that hypocritical statement, since I am a self-professed mostly Fuji JPG shooter, I think it's reasonably fair for someone to say that i also think LR isnt suitable for RAF processing, but for me, it's really just about a time and economics standpoint. When I bring my fuji's on a trip, I'll generally come back with a lot of photos. As such, JPG is just so much more efficient in that I dont need to bring extra memory cards (I just use the one 32gb in the camera) and the time it takes to download and process when I get home is cut by a significant amount. Also, I've never really been unhappy with the detail, sharpness, and latitude available in the fuji jpgs given the right settings. (I generally use NR-2 and highlights shadows at a -1 value in anticipation of post) When I know a jpg wont work, I shoot RAFs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #70
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
for 4, i must have overlooked the UV/IR usage in the original post. at least that explains what i was seeing. that difference is striking.
Just to make sure, I wasn't trying to mislead with the UV/IR filter, I just experienced some funky colors on the 240 indoors in the past. I think the 240 has a thinner filter layer on the sensor than the M9, and does generate Magenta casts sometimes. So I use IR filters.

Totally surprised myself by the benefit of the UV filter here, in a good way

Thanks again,

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #71
pechelman
resu deretsiger
 
pechelman is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 291
didnt think you were trying to pull the wool over, i just overlooked.

either way, Im glad you used the filter too....has me thinking about picking up a couple just in case and to play with. Never seen that much different before either with one. It also has me thinking that maybe I should try IR shots on the m240...
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #72
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
It does, Raid, since now I focused at infinity. For some reason, the X100s DOF is more shallow than expected.
I had not seen the results on which camera was used. It shows.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2015   #73
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
No. 2 seems to have a tad more shadow detail (look at the fence) but gawd the colour is awful. The greens remind me of old 5247 cine film shorts spooled in cartridges and sold by Seattle Film Labs.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Lesson Learned
Old 01-29-2016   #74
RObert Budding
Registered User
 
RObert Budding is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,397
Lesson Learned

My conclusion from this thread is that I shouldn't use LR to process Fuji RAW files.
__________________
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
~Robert Wilensky

"He could be right, he could be wrong. I think he's wrong but he says it in such a sincere way. You have to think he thinks he's right."
~ Bob Dylan
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:18.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.