Ridiculous Fuji X20 Claims Locked

This is from Fuji's presentation.  Several things stick out here.  First, who makes a 12MP 1.5" sensor?  Canon has a 1.5" sensor but it is 14MP.  Next, this quick-n-dirty graph shows the old 2/3" EXR to be VERY close to the 20MP 1" Sony sensor in terms of SNR.  Well, that is completely untrue as shown by the DXOmark comparison between the RX-100 and FinePix XS1. The RX-100 is fully 1EV ahead of the old sensor in SNR.  Finally, this shows the new 12MP Xtrans to show better resolution than the 1.5" sensor and the 1" 20MP sensor.  This seems ridiculous and is pretty unlikely.  Furthermore, the new tiny X-trans is supposedly SIGNIFICANTLY better in terms of SNR than the Sony 1", also a ridiculous claim.

A lot of people are going about on forums preaching this as gospel, despite the flaws that are obvious regarding the comparison of the old sensor and the larger sensors.  People ought to temper their expectations, given the bold and oft-short-falling claims of Fuji in the recent past.

--
-AC-

You are in the same position: ridiculing a product before its been released and tested.

Maybe people should wait and review their own findings on the product when they actually get it?  Just an idea.

Troll, troll, troll, don't you think so ?

--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

Well if they overstate the high ISO by 3 stops or more, it can certainly exceed FF performance? Hint hint.

I'm a troll for pointing out the errors in Fuji marketing material? Uh, it would be great if they could pull this off, but their positioning of the X10 sensor (which we have documented evidence of) does not align with their information in this document. So why would anyone be naive enough to see these obvious errors and assume that the other apparent "gilding the lilly" activity hasn't occurred? I'm not a troll, I'm just confused by the lack of obvious analysis of this marketing slide.

--
-AC-

Are you buying one then?

--
http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

AC, if you notice:

1.there is no indication of the specific ISO where this "improvement" is achieved. They show a similar graph on their X100s marketing brochure, but there it's clear that the improvements are not significant until ISO3200 compared to the current X100. So, while techinically they can claim an inprovement, it's hardly significant practically for most people most of the time, it's bragging rights achieved by the slimest of techincal margins under specific conditions

2.there is no specific scale on their X/Y graph, each graph square represents what: dpi, ppi, a ratio?so again, it may be the case that at ISO6400 there may be a 0.001% improvement in resolutiuon compared to camera X. So it may be technically "true" but it may end up hardly significant in practice.

We will have to see...

Possibly.  If it actually matches their propaganda so far, it's going to be hard to resist!

--
-AC-

I do think we need to wait and see.  I had an RX100, I inch sensor, very nice IQ but......... I did not love the images (some yes, some no) and it was not to my liking to handle, and after using Ricoh's the UI was just not there, it is too small for good handing, and I do not have very large hands, medium is all.

I think you are not well acquainted with either the XP1 and XE-1 cameras.

I hate to say this, but it is not an error but rather a misconception on your part.  some posters already mentioned what you misunderstood, so it's kinda redundant if I were to tell you the same exact things as what is there to understand. the graph is clear as daylight and there are valid points to consider to Fuji's claim.

what I find amusing though is where you came up with such bold statement that Fuji has short fallings with their sensor development. I find that ridiculous.

Which presentation?

It's not on any of their official camera pages - where did you find it?

--
Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

What do you mean? I had the old X10 and currently have the X-E1. I won't talk about high ISO performance as this is difficult to evaluate and compare. But resolution is quite clear and easy to find out. I agree with the original poster that Fuji's marketing claims have been quite bold lately... The whole marketing of the X-Trans sensor suggests that in terms of resolution and sharpness that sensor is better than conventional Bayer pattern sensors.

However, actual pictures/ samples and my some 1500 pics I have made so far indicate that neither sharpness nor real detail is any higher than let's say in a Nex-5N.

However, the X-trans sensor with a different colour matrix opened up a can of worms in terms of RAW conversion. So far I fail to see the real benefit of not going with a conventional sensor.

I like the system as a whole, for it's good Fuji colours/ skin tones and the good lenses, but Fujis marketing claims are over the top.

Bernie

--
'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)

I agree completely Bernie.  The marketing claims are just ridiculous now.  Anyone who thinks that Fuji's APS-C is even remotely competitive with FF in terms of resolution should wipe the Vaseline off their glasses.

--
DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinions and/or suggestions of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

Probably at one of the consumer electronics show. I have seen that very or a similar presentation, always placing the X- cameras somewhere ridiculously high in comparision to cameras with larger sensors - like the X-Pro1 compared to FF cameras.

Obviously Fuji's marketing works, as a large part of the reviews repeat Fujis claims that the resolution of the X-models is exceptionally high, now asking how much goes to the very good lenses (specially the 35mm/ F1,4) and how much to the sensor. But straight tests like the imaging-resource "comparometer" suggests (compare X-E1 with Nex-5d) that the resolution of the Fuji is in not better than to be expected from a 16MP sensor.

I don't say 16MP is not enough for 98% of all purposes, I actually never miss Megapixels, but I don't like overly optimistic claims that seem hard to verify.

Bernie

--
'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)

So this means nothing at all?

Looking at samples of photographed test charts is very different from using a camera in real life: I have done the second, and compared it with my Nex-5n, and the Fuji is simply not sharper.

dpreview also wrote clearly: "As usual this is false detail (i.e. it's not an accurate representation of the chart) but in real-world use it often helps give an impression of increased detail anyway."

In resolution charts with relatively straight lines this false detail may have an impact, but real life pictures rarely have such lines, and the sensor behaves differently then.

Bernie

--
'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)

Well that will depend: FF is both a d700 with 12MP, a 5d II (which I have) with 21MP and a d800 with 36MP. I can no longer compare my X-E1 with the d700 because I sold the Nikon, but I did compare with my 5dII, and the result although the Canon had a slightly wider FOV and thus was at a slight disadvantage, was quite clear: The Canon files were smoother, seemed more "effortless" (in lack of a better word) and simply more detailed.

This was in 100% view of course. In 50% screen view (which according to a lot of people corresponds more or less to normal print viewing in normal viewing distance) the difference was almost invisible.

In my experience, 12MP (5d Mk1) was plenty for 16x14 inch prints, very good quality, so 16MP of the Fuji should be enough for my needs, specially with the great colour of the Fuji.

But the X-Trans sensor cannot compete with a 20+ MP sensor in sheer resolution. Same goes for the Nex-7 which has more resolution than the Fuji.

But it probably doesn't matter much.

However Fuji's new marketing style raises questions, IMO. I applaud them to make cameras with a very distinctive colour palette, but I'd prefer them to stay a bit more conservative in their claims.

Bernie

--
'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)

This is pretty much where I sit.  I love the innovation (and particularly the styling) of the X100/X10/X20, and I HOPE the X20 performs well without a hitch, because ultimately I may buy one and at the very least it will create healthy competition.  It's just that the claims they are making are a bit off in this slide.  I wish they'd just let the product do the talking.

--
-AC-

People ought to temper their expectations ...

Yes moderation and self-restraint are human qualities of uttermost importance!