X20 Full-size ISO 400 images

Started Feb 24, 2013 | Discussions
2eyesee
Senior MemberPosts: 1,357
Like?
X20 Full-size ISO 400 images
Feb 24, 2013

I found links to a couple of full-size X20 images:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-j085-XpcmC4/USW14P69THI/AAAAAAABawU/AAklZuD32E4/s0/

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-powkmJgI7tw/USW1sSks0mI/AAAAAAABawM/bZ3aAzb0jFI/s0/

Both are ISO 400, so it's pushing the sensor a bit more than the ISO 100-200 images I've seen.

Images courtesy of the following German forum (which have quite a lively discussion going on which you can loosely follow on using Google Translate):

http://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread.php?p=10829221

Fujifilm X20
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 Full-size ISO 400 images
In reply to 2eyesee, Feb 24, 2013

2eyesee wrote:

I found links to a couple of full-size X20 images:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-j085-XpcmC4/USW14P69THI/AAAAAAABawU/AAklZuD32E4/s0/

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-powkmJgI7tw/USW1sSks0mI/AAAAAAABawM/bZ3aAzb0jFI/s0/

Both are ISO 400, so it's pushing the sensor a bit more than the ISO 100-200 images I've seen.

These both look very nice, especially the first one where it looks sharp, but not digitally sharpened.

What I'm trying to say is natural looking images.

I've been downloading a lot of MX-1 JPEGs, and they are extremely sharp, but they look at bit over the top, with high sharpening noticeable at 100%.  So with the MX-1, you have the impression sharpening of OOC JPEGs is high whereas with the X20 I'm feeling perhaps it's the missing OPLF and the lens creating the clean, sharp images like the two above.

At 100% we see some JPEG and NR artifacts, but at normal viewing size, they look terrific.  Make sense?

Thanks very much.  Good job.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joel Stern
Forum ProPosts: 10,182Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 Full-size ISO 400 images
In reply to marike6, Feb 24, 2013

Thx for posting, these look very good.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kamerakazi
Junior MemberPosts: 26
Like?
Re: X20 Full-size ISO 400 images
In reply to 2eyesee, Feb 24, 2013

Those are my photos which I took in my hometown, in Tokyo.  My experience with the camera that ive been usinf since Feb 21 is that it is a very good camera. I also own the X10 and the RX100. In my opinion,  the RX100 wins easily on image quality at all iso. The X10 and X20 are basically identical in image quality, even at higher iso.

In short, if you own the X10, i don't think you need to upgrade to the X2I, as image quality won't improve much.... The video is however much much better, as us of course, the viewfinder.

Suteishi

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamera-kazi/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
2eyesee
Senior MemberPosts: 1,357
Like?
Re: X20 Full-size ISO 400 images
In reply to Kamerakazi, Feb 24, 2013

Kamerakazi wrote:

Those are my photos which I took in my hometown, in Tokyo. My experience with the camera that ive been usinf since Feb 21 is that it is a very good camera. I also own the X10 and the RX100. In my opinion, the RX100 wins easily on image quality at all iso. The X10 and X20 are basically identical in image quality, even at higher iso.

In short, if you own the X10, i don't think you need to upgrade to the X2I, as image quality won't improve much.... The video is however much much better, as us of course, the viewfinder.

Suteishi

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamera-kazi/

Thank you, Suteishi, for the photos - and your comments on the X20 from first hand experience.

I'm sure you understand there is intense interest in this camera, and no one on this forum has one at present so your full size images are greatly appreciated.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kamerakazi
Junior MemberPosts: 26
Like?
Re: X20 Full-size ISO 400 images
In reply to 2eyesee, Feb 24, 2013

2eyesee wrote:

Kamerakazi wrote:

Those are my photos which I took in my hometown, in Tokyo. My experience with the camera that ive been usinf since Feb 21 is that it is a very good camera. I also own the X10 and the RX100. In my opinion, the RX100 wins easily on image quality at all iso. The X10 and X20 are basically identical in image quality, even at higher iso.

In short, if you own the X10, i don't think you need to upgrade to the X2I, as image quality won't improve much.... The video is however much much better, as us of course, the viewfinder.

Suteishi

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamera-kazi/

Thank you, Suteishi, for the photos - and your comments on the X20 from first hand experience.

I'm sure you understand there is intense interest in this camera, and no one on this forum has one at present so your full size images are greatly appreciated.

Yes I understand interest, as we all had interest here too in Japan

please feel free to share my X20 photos, I hope it will help for others who have interest in the camera.

Note, I do lIke the camera, a lot! But, as I own the X10, I expected a little more image quality.

Suteishi

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Quick Question and thanks.
In reply to Kamerakazi, Feb 24, 2013

Kamerakazi wrote:

2eyesee wrote:

Kamerakazi wrote:

Those are my photos which I took in my hometown, in Tokyo. My experience with the camera that ive been usinf since Feb 21 is that it is a very good camera. I also own the X10 and the RX100. In my opinion, the RX100 wins easily on image quality at all iso. The X10 and X20 are basically identical in image quality, even at higher iso.

In short, if you own the X10, i don't think you need to upgrade to the X2I, as image quality won't improve much.... The video is however much much better, as us of course, the viewfinder.

Suteishi

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamera-kazi/

Thank you, Suteishi, for the photos - and your comments on the X20 from first hand experience.

I'm sure you understand there is intense interest in this camera, and no one on this forum has one at present so your full size images are greatly appreciated.

Yes I understand interest, as we all had interest here too in Japan

please feel free to share my X20 photos, I hope it will help for others who have interest in the camera.

Note, I do lIke the camera, a lot! But, as I own the X10, I expected a little more image quality.

Question: have you shot RAW yet? I used to own both the RX100 and X10, and on those cameras you really need to shoot RAW to get the best quality.

As far as handling, the RX100 is much smaller, but doesn't feel very nice to shoot with because there is no grip or VF.

So have you had a chance to shoot and process any RAW files yet?

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment and offer your experiences with the X20.

Markus

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Absolutic
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,706Gear list
Like?
RX100 - owned for few months and sold.
In reply to marike6, Feb 24, 2013

i  used to own RX100 and sold it after couple of months of use.   My primary disappointment with the camera was portraits in low light,  because for portraits, I need to use longer focal length than 28mm (where 1.8 is) and on RX100 -  that 1.8 ends very quickly and F/4.9 starts rather quickly and that F/4.9 totally distroys any ability to have any depth of view isolation of your subject.  Also Sony menu is idiotic to get to some logical things I had to change often, I had to browse to 3 pages of menues (illogically set up) and you could not assign them to be on any of the assignable buttons.

So I got great landscape photos with RX100 but my primary use which is portraits of my wife, and her friends, and my child, that looked like portraits, it did not excel it.

Another problem with RX100 for me was a lack of hot shoe, at least with a hot shoe I could have installed a Sony flash and tried to take some low light portraits at F/4.9 with a flash.

X20, from what I see, with F/2.8 (although on a slightly smaller sensor than RX1) gives me that ability to isolate a main subject (obviously not on m43 or aps-c or full frame level) that is workable and it has a hot shoe.  And I see that it took a chapter from Olympus book (supermenu)  with its quick menu where I can change things I need to change on the spot quickly.

You also have phase AF with X20 which means continuous AF (during day at least) is actually useable.

The person who owns X20 in JAPAN, a big question,  HOW IS AF SPEED IN LOW LIGHT?   IS IT BETTER THAN ON X10?

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
JPEG engine and High ISOs compared to X10
In reply to 2eyesee, Feb 24, 2013

As far as I can tell from Kamerakazi samples, the X20's JPEGs in many cases, actually look worse than the X10.  Tons of NR artifacts obscuring details when viewed at 100%.

Not very happy with this development, and need to decide what I'm going to do about my pre-order.  My problem is I'm a RAW shooter.  But if the X20's X-Trans RAWs have conversion issues with LR and others, and we don't get great OOC JPEGs like the X10, then what is the purpose of spending over 700 USD (once I get the lenshood/filter set)?  It's a pretty camera, but...

I can get the same blotchy high ISO images with a less expensive 1/1.7" camera like the MX-1.  And I won't have to wait for RAW conversion issues to be resolved.

I have a pre-order at B&H. Might change it to an MX-1 or go nuts on a D7100.

Anyway, thanks again to Kamerakazi for the wonderful sample set.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kim Letkeman
Forum ProPosts: 32,556Gear list
Like?
Re: JPEG engine and High ISOs compared to X10
In reply to marike6, Feb 24, 2013

marike6 wrote:

As far as I can tell from Kamerakazi samples, the X20's JPEGs in many cases, actually look worse than the X10. Tons of NR artifacts obscuring details when viewed at 100%.

Yup ... after all the hype, these were pretty underwhelming for 400 ISO ...

 Kim Letkeman's gear list:Kim Letkeman's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
2eyesee
Senior MemberPosts: 1,357
Like?
Re: RX100 - owned for few months and sold.
In reply to Absolutic, Feb 24, 2013

Absolutic wrote:

i used to own RX100 and sold it after couple of months of use. My primary disappointment with the camera was portraits in low light, because for portraits, I need to use longer focal length than 28mm (where 1.8 is) and on RX100 - that 1.8 ends very quickly and F/4.9 starts rather quickly and that F/4.9 totally distroys any ability to have any depth of view isolation of your subject. Also Sony menu is idiotic to get to some logical things I had to change often, I had to browse to 3 pages of menues (illogically set up) and you could not assign them to be on any of the assignable buttons.

So I got great landscape photos with RX100 but my primary use which is portraits of my wife, and her friends, and my child, that looked like portraits, it did not excel it.

Another problem with RX100 for me was a lack of hot shoe, at least with a hot shoe I could have installed a Sony flash and tried to take some low light portraits at F/4.9 with a flash.

X20, from what I see, with F/2.8 (although on a slightly smaller sensor than RX1) gives me that ability to isolate a main subject (obviously not on m43 or aps-c or full frame level) that is workable and it has a hot shoe. And I see that it took a chapter from Olympus book (supermenu) with its quick menu where I can change things I need to change on the spot quickly.

You also have phase AF with X20 which means continuous AF (during day at least) is actually useable.

The person who owns X20 in JAPAN, a big question, HOW IS AF SPEED IN LOW LIGHT? IS IT BETTER THAN ON X10?

That makes at least 3 former RX100 owners on this thread - you, me and Markus (marike6)! You did better than Markus and myself though. I got to 6 weeks, Markus got to 4 weeks if I recall correctly.

To be honest, I wouldn't have thought there would be much difference in subject isolation when you compare a 2/3" sensor at f/2.8 and a 1" sensor at f/4.9. Even though you have 1.5 stops wider aperture then sensor is half the size.

If you're serious about shallow depth of field I really think you need to go APS-C with a fast prime.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DS21
Senior MemberPosts: 1,617Gear list
Like?
Re: JPEG engine and High ISOs compared to X10
In reply to Kim Letkeman, Feb 24, 2013

marike6 wrote:

As far as I can tell from Kamerakazi samples, the X20's JPEGs in many cases, actually look worse than the X10. Tons of NR artifacts obscuring details when viewed at 100%.

Yup ... after all the hype, these were pretty underwhelming for 400 ISO ...

What's up with the background or out of focus parts of image, it looks strangely terrible, like a printer with missaligned color cartridges. Or the glazing effect on fabric, so weird.

 DS21's gear list:DS21's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F11 Zoom Fujifilm FinePix F30 Zoom Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Fujifilm FinePix F100fd Fujifilm FinePix S6000fd +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kamerakazi
Junior MemberPosts: 26
Like?
Re: Quick Question and thanks.
In reply to marike6, Feb 24, 2013

marike6 wrote:

Kamerakazi wrote:

2eyesee wrote:

Kamerakazi wrote:

Those are my photos which I took in my hometown, in Tokyo. My experience with the camera that ive been usinf since Feb 21 is that it is a very good camera. I also own the X10 and the RX100. In my opinion, the RX100 wins easily on image quality at all iso. The X10 and X20 are basically identical in image quality, even at higher iso.

In short, if you own the X10, i don't think you need to upgrade to the X2I, as image quality won't improve much.... The video is however much much better, as us of course, the viewfinder.

Suteishi

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamera-kazi/

Thank you, Suteishi, for the photos - and your comments on the X20 from first hand experience.

I'm sure you understand there is intense interest in this camera, and no one on this forum has one at present so your full size images are greatly appreciated.

Yes I understand interest, as we all had interest here too in Japan

please feel free to share my X20 photos, I hope it will help for others who have interest in the camera.

Note, I do lIke the camera, a lot! But, as I own the X10, I expected a little more image quality.

Question: have you shot RAW yet? I used to own both the RX100 and X10, and on those cameras you really need to shoot RAW to get the best quality.

As far as handling, the RX100 is much smaller, but doesn't feel very nice to shoot with because there is no grip or VF.

So have you had a chance to shoot and process any RAW files yet?

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment and offer your experiences with the X20.

Markus

Hello Markus,

Yes, I have shot RAW with both cameras. I used the in-camera RAW processor for the X20 and LR4 for the RX100. My results in terms of image quality remain as earlier stated, the RX100 greatly beats, with no margin of error, the X20 at every ISO.

As for lack of a grip, I use the Franiac grip on the RX100 and it works well to provide holding area. I rarely use a VF as I shoot streetphotos, so this has never been a problem for me on the RX100.

Regards,

Suteishi

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
2eyesee
Senior MemberPosts: 1,357
Like?
Re: X20 Full-size ISO 400 images
In reply to marike6, Feb 24, 2013

marike6 wrote:

2eyesee wrote:

I found links to a couple of full-size X20 images:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-j085-XpcmC4/USW14P69THI/AAAAAAABawU/AAklZuD32E4/s0/

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-powkmJgI7tw/USW1sSks0mI/AAAAAAABawM/bZ3aAzb0jFI/s0/

Both are ISO 400, so it's pushing the sensor a bit more than the ISO 100-200 images I've seen.

These both look very nice, especially the first one where it looks sharp, but not digitally sharpened.

What I'm trying to say is natural looking images.

I've been downloading a lot of MX-1 JPEGs, and they are extremely sharp, but they look at bit over the top, with high sharpening noticeable at 100%. So with the MX-1, you have the impression sharpening of OOC JPEGs is high whereas with the X20 I'm feeling perhaps it's the missing OPLF and the lens creating the clean, sharp images like the two above.

At 100% we see some JPEG and NR artifacts, but at normal viewing size, they look terrific. Make sense?

I know what you are saying, but can't you just turn down sharpening in the jpg settings if it's over the top? Aren't you a RAW shooter anyway? Doesn't it then make it irrelevant what the jpg engine is doing if you're going to be 'developing' your own jpg's anyway?

I personally prefer what some might consider excessive sharpening, but I do sometimes fall into the trap when comparing images where I see a sharper image and my immediate reaction is that it is 'better'. Sharper images can appear to have more detail, but it's not 'real' detail (I'm still getting used to this idea!).

Thanks very much. Good job.

Thanks!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kamerakazi
Junior MemberPosts: 26
Like?
Re: RX100 - owned for few months and sold.
In reply to Absolutic, Feb 24, 2013

Absolutic wrote:

i used to own RX100 and sold it after couple of months of use. My primary disappointment with the camera was portraits in low light, because for portraits, I need to use longer focal length than 28mm (where 1.8 is) and on RX100 - that 1.8 ends very quickly and F/4.9 starts rather quickly and that F/4.9 totally distroys any ability to have any depth of view isolation of your subject. Also Sony menu is idiotic to get to some logical things I had to change often, I had to browse to 3 pages of menues (illogically set up) and you could not assign them to be on any of the assignable buttons.

So I got great landscape photos with RX100 but my primary use which is portraits of my wife, and her friends, and my child, that looked like portraits, it did not excel it.

Another problem with RX100 for me was a lack of hot shoe, at least with a hot shoe I could have installed a Sony flash and tried to take some low light portraits at F/4.9 with a flash.

X20, from what I see, with F/2.8 (although on a slightly smaller sensor than RX1) gives me that ability to isolate a main subject (obviously not on m43 or aps-c or full frame level) that is workable and it has a hot shoe. And I see that it took a chapter from Olympus book (supermenu) with its quick menu where I can change things I need to change on the spot quickly.

You also have phase AF with X20 which means continuous AF (during day at least) is actually useable.

The person who owns X20 in JAPAN, a big question, HOW IS AF SPEED IN LOW LIGHT? IS IT BETTER THAN ON X10?

Hello Absolutic,

I used the RX100 many times for portrait-style photos, and am satisfied for what the camera can do remembering that it is a point/shoot camera.

Here is link to my FLickr RX100 set, you can see many portrait shots, even at night, of my wife and other people I have taken.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamera-kazi/sets/72157630494190536/

For me, I shoot streetphotos, so flash or VF are never an issue, but of course this is just my own shooting style.

For your question, the X20 AF speed is faster, but the X10 never really was a slow camera to start with, so the difference in speed, although noticeable, is not huge.

Regards,

Suteishi

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kamerakazi
Junior MemberPosts: 26
Like?
Re: JPEG engine and High ISOs compared to X10
In reply to marike6, Feb 24, 2013

marike6 wrote:

As far as I can tell from Kamerakazi samples, the X20's JPEGs in many cases, actually look worse than the X10. Tons of NR artifacts obscuring details when viewed at 100%.

Not very happy with this development, and need to decide what I'm going to do about my pre-order. My problem is I'm a RAW shooter. But if the X20's X-Trans RAWs have conversion issues with LR and others, and we don't get great OOC JPEGs like the X10, then what is the purpose of spending over 700 USD (once I get the lenshood/filter set)? It's a pretty camera, but...

I can get the same blotchy high ISO images with a less expensive 1/1.7" camera like the MX-1. And I won't have to wait for RAW conversion issues to be resolved.

I have a pre-order at B&H. Might change it to an MX-1 or go nuts on a D7100.

Anyway, thanks again to Kamerakazi for the wonderful sample set.

You are welcome,

I am sorry if I dissapoint any, but I just give my own experience with this camera. Note, it is a very, very good camera. But I do not see a large improvement in image quality over the X10.

I do not know why, but the MX-1 is not available yet in Japan. This is a camera that I also wish to own and test on the streets.

Regards,

Suteishi

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kamerakazi
Junior MemberPosts: 26
Like?
Re: JPEG engine and High ISOs compared to X10
In reply to Kim Letkeman, Feb 24, 2013

Kim Letkeman wrote:

marike6 wrote:

As far as I can tell from Kamerakazi samples, the X20's JPEGs in many cases, actually look worse than the X10. Tons of NR artifacts obscuring details when viewed at 100%.

Yup ... after all the hype, these were pretty underwhelming for 400 ISO ...

Yes, Kim,

I continue to be disappointed in Fuji, but they did release a wonderful camera, the X20. It is just not what everyone was hoping for.

Regards,

Suteishi

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: Quick Question and thanks.
In reply to Kamerakazi, Feb 24, 2013

Kamerakazi wrote:

marike6 wrote:

Kamerakazi wrote:

2eyesee wrote:

Kamerakazi wrote:

Those are my photos which I took in my hometown, in Tokyo. My experience with the camera that ive been usinf since Feb 21 is that it is a very good camera. I also own the X10 and the RX100. In my opinion, the RX100 wins easily on image quality at all iso. The X10 and X20 are basically identical in image quality, even at higher iso.

In short, if you own the X10, i don't think you need to upgrade to the X2I, as image quality won't improve much.... The video is however much much better, as us of course, the viewfinder.

Suteishi

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamera-kazi/

Thank you, Suteishi, for the photos - and your comments on the X20 from first hand experience.

I'm sure you understand there is intense interest in this camera, and no one on this forum has one at present so your full size images are greatly appreciated.

Yes I understand interest, as we all had interest here too in Japan

please feel free to share my X20 photos, I hope it will help for others who have interest in the camera.

Note, I do lIke the camera, a lot! But, as I own the X10, I expected a little more image quality.

Question: have you shot RAW yet? I used to own both the RX100 and X10, and on those cameras you really need to shoot RAW to get the best quality.

As far as handling, the RX100 is much smaller, but doesn't feel very nice to shoot with because there is no grip or VF.

So have you had a chance to shoot and process any RAW files yet?

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment and offer your experiences with the X20.

Markus

Hello Markus,

Yes, I have shot RAW with both cameras. I used the in-camera RAW processor for the X20 and LR4 for the RX100. My results in terms of image quality remain as earlier stated, the RX100 greatly beats, with no margin of error, the X20 at every ISO.

As for lack of a grip, I use the Franiac grip on the RX100 and it works well to provide holding area. I rarely use a VF as I shoot streetphotos, so this has never been a problem for me on the RX100.

Regards,

Suteishi

Hello Suteishi,

I'm not interested in the RX100, I've used it and no longer have it. The main question is about X20 RAWs. Are the JPEGs you get from converted RAWs about the same as OOC JPEGs, or do they look better? The noise in the shadows even at a low ISO setting like ISO 400 on the X20 is surprising. You can see noise on faces, in the shadows, etc.  That surprised me as Fuji's claim on their website was that X-Trans would improve S/NR even over larger sensor cameras.  Of course that now seems like marketing talk and not a reality.

The X10 has great, usable out-of-camera JPEGs, and I like you images a lot, but the JPEG quality doesn't seem to be there. Do you know what NR setting you are using on the X20 in your Flickr Gallery? Can't find it in the EXIF file.

Again, I like the RX100, I know it's great, unfortunately I didn't enjoy shooting with it as much as the X10 or GRD III that I used to use.

I was asking more because I have pre-ordered the X20 and want to find out a bit more details. But thanks so much. I'll be patient like everyone else.

All the best, and thanks again,

Kindest regards, Markus

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: JPEG engine and High ISOs compared to X10
In reply to Kamerakazi, Feb 24, 2013

Kamerakazi wrote:

marike6 wrote:

As far as I can tell from Kamerakazi samples, the X20's JPEGs in many cases, actually look worse than the X10. Tons of NR artifacts obscuring details when viewed at 100%.

Not very happy with this development, and need to decide what I'm going to do about my pre-order. My problem is I'm a RAW shooter. But if the X20's X-Trans RAWs have conversion issues with LR and others, and we don't get great OOC JPEGs like the X10, then what is the purpose of spending over 700 USD (once I get the lenshood/filter set)? It's a pretty camera, but...

I can get the same blotchy high ISO images with a less expensive 1/1.7" camera like the MX-1. And I won't have to wait for RAW conversion issues to be resolved.

I have a pre-order at B&H. Might change it to an MX-1 or go nuts on a D7100.

Anyway, thanks again to Kamerakazi for the wonderful sample set.

You are welcome,

I am sorry if I dissapoint any, but I just give my own experience with this camera. Note, it is a very, very good camera. But I do not see a large improvement in image quality over the X10.

You didn't disappoint me at all.  The X20 IQ at mid to high ISO did from what I see in the JPEGs. From what I can see, the JPEG engine doesn't seem as good as the X10.  As for RAW, I've never known a camera to have LESS noisy RAW files than JPEG, so I would have to guess that the RAW files as even more noisy.  They might look better because NR won't smear detail, but I don't think we'll see an RX100 or even X10 killer with the X20 for low-light shooting.

I do not know why, but the MX-1 is not available yet in Japan. This is a camera that I also wish to own and test on the streets.

That is a pity.  I've collected all the MX-1 sample images from around the internet, and JPEGs look great, totally usually (don't think I could better much better from RAW) and the lens - well it's amazingly sharp right to the edges of the frame.  Anyway, thanks so much.

Much appreciated.  Enjoy your collection of cameras and I hope you make many more beautiful images.

Best, Markus

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kamerakazi
Junior MemberPosts: 26
Like?
Re: Quick Question and thanks.
In reply to marike6, Feb 24, 2013

marike6 wrote:

Kamerakazi wrote:

marike6 wrote:

Kamerakazi wrote:

2eyesee wrote:

Kamerakazi wrote:

Those are my photos which I took in my hometown, in Tokyo. My experience with the camera that ive been usinf since Feb 21 is that it is a very good camera. I also own the X10 and the RX100. In my opinion, the RX100 wins easily on image quality at all iso. The X10 and X20 are basically identical in image quality, even at higher iso.

In short, if you own the X10, i don't think you need to upgrade to the X2I, as image quality won't improve much.... The video is however much much better, as us of course, the viewfinder.

Suteishi

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamera-kazi/

Thank you, Suteishi, for the photos - and your comments on the X20 from first hand experience.

I'm sure you understand there is intense interest in this camera, and no one on this forum has one at present so your full size images are greatly appreciated.

Yes I understand interest, as we all had interest here too in Japan

please feel free to share my X20 photos, I hope it will help for others who have interest in the camera.

Note, I do lIke the camera, a lot! But, as I own the X10, I expected a little more image quality.

Question: have you shot RAW yet? I used to own both the RX100 and X10, and on those cameras you really need to shoot RAW to get the best quality.

As far as handling, the RX100 is much smaller, but doesn't feel very nice to shoot with because there is no grip or VF.

So have you had a chance to shoot and process any RAW files yet?

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment and offer your experiences with the X20.

Markus

Hello Markus,

Yes, I have shot RAW with both cameras. I used the in-camera RAW processor for the X20 and LR4 for the RX100. My results in terms of image quality remain as earlier stated, the RX100 greatly beats, with no margin of error, the X20 at every ISO.

As for lack of a grip, I use the Franiac grip on the RX100 and it works well to provide holding area. I rarely use a VF as I shoot streetphotos, so this has never been a problem for me on the RX100.

Regards,

Suteishi

Hello Suteishi,

I'm not interested in the RX100, I've used it and no longer have it. The main question is about X20 RAWs. Are the JPEGs you get from converted RAWs about the same as OOC JPEGs, or do they look better? The noise in the shadows even at a low ISO setting like ISO 400 on the X20 is surprising.

The X10 has great, usable out-of-camera JPEGs, and I like you images a lot, but the JPEG quality doesn't seem to be there. Do you know what NR setting you are using on the X20 in your Flickr Gallery? Can't find it in the EXIF file.

Again, I like the RX100, I know it's great, unfortunately I didn't enjoy shooting with it as much as the X10 or GRD III that I used to use.

I was asking more because I have pre-ordered the X20 and want to find out a bit more details. But thanks so much. I'll be patient like everyone else.

All the best, and thanks again,

Kindest regards, Markus

Hello Markus,

I understand your point on RX100, I just was giving my opinion based on use of all 3 cameras.

I shoot the X20 at -2.0 NR.

The Jpeg out of camera are actually very similar to the RAW I have converted with the in-camera RAW converter.

I hope my answers help you, as this was only reason I made account today to try to give information for other X20 fans.

Regards,

Suteishi

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads