Why the x100s files are lacking

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,757
Like?
Re: Why the x100s files are lacking
In reply to Phil Levy, Mar 29, 2013

Phil Levy wrote:

Whilst all these observations may be technically correct, I enjoy the output from both my X100 as well as my X-E1. Ultimately When looking back at my work, the last consideration is what camera an image was created with. Both have produced fantastic shots and this is all that counts for me.

I'm not saying that the OP may not have valid points,  just that for a lot of us they are not a big deal in any way whatsoever .

True, but then the "lot of us" are probably more into landscape photography or something similar, where a tripod will let you use the lowest ISO values and long, slow shutter speed to produce fantastic images. But for sports shooting or street shooting in dim light, cameras that are able to get cleaner, more noise free photos even or especially using high ISO values are what you'd like to use.

So how do you determine which cameras produce better high ISO images? One way is to compare them using DPR's Studio comparison tool. Pick a high ISO and then compare different parts of the studio scene. This shows which cameras do better than others, but it doesn't quite tell you all that you need to know. More on that below.

Looking at the currently selected 4 cameras at ISO 6400 and ISO 12800, the X100s does a lot better than Canon's T4i, whose images are a blurry mess. But Nikon's D7100 and Olympus's OM-D E-M5 are producing better images than the X100s, mainly because the X100's color has begun to fade.

I don't know if DPR trusted the camera's metering to produce equivalent brightness or got similar exposures by setting the apertures and shutter speeds manually, but the apparent brightness of the images from all of the cameras appears to be the same, so there's one last check to make. Download the studio images for each of the cameras and compare the shutter speeds and apertures that were used. The results clearly show that the two Fuji cameras that I checked came in last place. They needed greater exposures at the same ISOs (I compared ISO 200 and ISO 6400) than all of the other cameras and the two best were from Nikon and Canon.

What this means is that if for whatever reason, you need to use a certain aperture and shutter speed (to stop motion or to get a wider depth of field), to get the same exposure, the Fuji cameras would have to use a higher ISO. It's only a difference of almost one stop, but it's hard to say that this is insignificant when the same persons that say this might have once been amazed at how the X100 produced as clean or cleaner images at ISO 3200 than brand X APS-C cameras did at ISO 1600. Maybe some of that super ISO was just due to the way Fuji calibrated their ISO values. Here's the exposure data I got from the downloaded studio images.

X100S : ISO 0200 : 1/30 @ f/8.0
X-Pro1 : ISO 0200 : 1/30 @ f/8.0
D7100 : ISO 0200 : 1/50 @ f/8.0
D7000 : ISO 0200 : 1/40 @ f/9.0
K-5 II : ISO 0200 :  1/40 @ f/8.0
GH3 : ISO 0200 : 1/80 @ f/6.3
T4i : ISO 0200 : 1/60 @ f/8.0
OM-D E-M5 : ISO 0200 : 1/50 @ f/6.3
X100S : ISO 6400 : 1/1000 @ f/8.0
X-Pro1 : ISO 6400 : 1/1000 @ f/8.0
D7100 : ISO 6400 : 1/1600 @ f/8.0
D7000 : ISO 6400 : 1/1600 @ f/9.0
K-5 II : ISO 6400 :  1/1250 @ f/8.0
GH3 : ISO 6400 : 1/2500 @ f/6.3
T4i : ISO 6400 : 1/2000 @ f/8.0
OM-D E-M5 : ISO 6400 : 1/1600 @ f/6.3

Again, in case you've forgotten, Fuji's cameras aren't at any disadvantage if there's no penalty incurred using slow shutter speeds and you can use  low ISO values. But if you've reached the point where you don't want to push the ISO any higher due to compromised image quality, there are other cameras that could have.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
?New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow