The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions
aleS.
Forum MemberPosts: 76
Like?
The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
Mar 25, 2013

­I have been shooting with my X100 for a year and a half. I bought an XE-1 with the 18-55 six months ago and realized that it wasn’t the photographic experience I would enjoy. I took me back to my SLR and the world of changing lenses. And that’s what the X100 did. It made me approach photography in a total different way. Besides, I didn’t like the rendering that the RAW files gave me compared to what I was getting from my X100 using Lightroom as my workflow.

I bought the X100S now and I was playing with it all weekend. I shot RAW + fine Jpgs.

Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream.

Image quality, amazing. To me, besides how much I liked the look of the camera, bottom line it was all about the image quality. It’s soooo much about image quality that sometimes I prefer the X100 look than what I can get from a Nikon D800. A matter of taste.

But.

Is the IQ of the X100s better than the X100?

No. It’s not.

Is it worse?

No. It’s not worse. It’s just different. And the way I had to approach the correction in Lightroom is different.

You have to approach sharpening in a different way. If you abuse, like with any other camera, you get artifacts.

The jpgs OOC are very good by the way.

So. Is it a keeper?

I still have to see. I love so much my X100 and what it gives me that makes me think. On the other hand, what I could do this weekend with the X100s was a lot more versatile that what I would be able to do with my old X100.

Time will tell. So far, I’m keeping both and gonna give a good ride to the X100s this week in a trip to NY.

Cheers.

A.

Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X100S Nikon D800
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
sgoldswo
Senior MemberPosts: 3,391Gear list
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to aleS., Mar 25, 2013

aleS. wrote:

­I have been shooting with my X100 for a year and a half. I bought an XE-1 with the 18-55 six months ago and realized that it wasn’t the photographic experience I would enjoy. I took me back to my SLR and the world of changing lenses. And that’s what the X100 did. It made me approach photography in a total different way. Besides, I didn’t like the rendering that the RAW files gave me compared to what I was getting from my X100 using Lightroom as my workflow.

I bought the X100S now and I was playing with it all weekend. I shot RAW + fine Jpgs.

Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream.

Image quality, amazing. To me, besides how much I liked the look of the camera, bottom line it was all about the image quality. It’s soooo much about image quality that sometimes I prefer the X100 look than what I can get from a Nikon D800. A matter of taste.

But.

Is the IQ of the X100s better than the X100?

No. It’s not.

Is it worse?

No. It’s not worse. It’s just different. And the way I had to approach the correction in Lightroom is different.

You have to approach sharpening in a different way. If you abuse, like with any other camera, you get artifacts.

The jpgs OOC are very good by the way.

So. Is it a keeper?

I still have to see. I love so much my X100 and what it gives me that makes me think. On the other hand, what I could do this weekend with the X100s was a lot more versatile that what I would be able to do with my old X100.

Time will tell. So far, I’m keeping both and gonna give a good ride to the X100s this week in a trip to NY.

Cheers.

A.

I've already sold my X100, for me at least the X100S was the better camera. However, I can see that if you preferred the image quality of the X100 to the X-E1 why you might hold the views you've set out. However, it isn't as simple as bayer vs x-trans, the (great) lens is the same, the resolution is better, the camera is faster, the jpegs are better, the MF improvements are great.

What I would say is that the RAW image quality isn't a finished article yet (but then LR 4.4 is a release candidate not a final version). What you've referred to as artefacts seems correlated to the use of the details slider rather than normal sharpening.

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Olympus E-M1 Nikon Df Nikon D810
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
holyfan
Forum MemberPosts: 98
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to aleS., Mar 25, 2013

Having also owned the X100 and X100S, I agree that the OOC jpeg renderings are slightly different between the X100 and X100S.  From my observation, the X100S (when using the same jpeg setting) photos have slightly less contrast (more dynamic range) than the X100.

When I was using the X100, I would tune the highlights to -1 (medium soft) sharpness +1 while keeping everything else as default.  I used Astia for people and Velvia if I wanted more vibrant photos of a scene.

For the X100S, using the same setting I find my photos not as punchy (lesser contrast) so now I adjusted the highlights to 0.  Now I use Astia for environmental portraits, Pro Neg Hi for more upclose portraits (avoid yellow skin tone) and Velvia for pure environmental shots for more color.  With mostly default jpg setting (noise reduction -1, sharpness +1) I find my photos pretty good as a starting point.  If I do need to do make any changes for more dramatic effects I can do so without any problems.

aleS. wrote:

­I have been shooting with my X100 for a year and a half. I bought an XE-1 with the 18-55 six months ago and realized that it wasn’t the photographic experience I would enjoy. I took me back to my SLR and the world of changing lenses. And that’s what the X100 did. It made me approach photography in a total different way. Besides, I didn’t like the rendering that the RAW files gave me compared to what I was getting from my X100 using Lightroom as my workflow.

I bought the X100S now and I was playing with it all weekend. I shot RAW + fine Jpgs.

Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream.

Image quality, amazing. To me, besides how much I liked the look of the camera, bottom line it was all about the image quality. It’s soooo much about image quality that sometimes I prefer the X100 look than what I can get from a Nikon D800. A matter of taste.

But.

Is the IQ of the X100s better than the X100?

No. It’s not.

Is it worse?

No. It’s not worse. It’s just different. And the way I had to approach the correction in Lightroom is different.

You have to approach sharpening in a different way. If you abuse, like with any other camera, you get artifacts.

The jpgs OOC are very good by the way.

So. Is it a keeper?

I still have to see. I love so much my X100 and what it gives me that makes me think. On the other hand, what I could do this weekend with the X100s was a lot more versatile that what I would be able to do with my old X100.

Time will tell. So far, I’m keeping both and gonna give a good ride to the X100s this week in a trip to NY.

Cheers.

A.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sulis2
Senior MemberPosts: 1,035
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to sgoldswo, Mar 25, 2013

I too have just got an X100S, and it's definitely not a huge leap IQ-wise.

Not able to use the RAF files yet (haven't decided whether to go Lightroom or Capture1), but it will take some time to work out the best balance of settings to get the right JPEG files out of it... The inbuilt noise reduction is too aggressive, for sure (slight plasticy look).

Focusing is better, but still not 100%. I don't agree with the EM-5 comparisons - it's not that good - but in good light it's a huge improvement. It still hunts in low light, which is understandable, and can still do that infuriating Fuji thing of focusing on everything but the thing you're trying to capture. If you know what I mean.

Manual focus is way better, but again still not foolproof. The focus peaking is fine for some subjects, too distributed for others. The MF assist (zoom in) sometimes makes it hard to frame the shot, so I ended up turning it off. But the fly by wire MF works so much better than the X100.

I definitely appreciated being able to focus so much closer when not in Macro mode - I only used MF on my X100 because the crossover was so restricting!

But... I suppose I was expecting to adore the X100S, rather than just appreciating it. If anything, it's made me realise how good the X100 was, faults and all. I'm really not sure whether I'll be keeping the X100S now - but I've got a few more days before I have to decide, so I'll give it a chance for now...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
aleS.
Forum MemberPosts: 76
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to sgoldswo, Mar 25, 2013

sgoldswo wrote:

aleS. wrote:

­I have been shooting with my X100 for a year and a half. I bought an XE-1 with the 18-55 six months ago and realized that it wasn’t the photographic experience I would enjoy. I took me back to my SLR and the world of changing lenses. And that’s what the X100 did. It made me approach photography in a total different way. Besides, I didn’t like the rendering that the RAW files gave me compared to what I was getting from my X100 using Lightroom as my workflow.

I bought the X100S now and I was playing with it all weekend. I shot RAW + fine Jpgs.

Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream.

Image quality, amazing. To me, besides how much I liked the look of the camera, bottom line it was all about the image quality. It’s soooo much about image quality that sometimes I prefer the X100 look than what I can get from a Nikon D800. A matter of taste.

But.

Is the IQ of the X100s better than the X100?

No. It’s not.

Is it worse?

No. It’s not worse. It’s just different. And the way I had to approach the correction in Lightroom is different.

You have to approach sharpening in a different way. If you abuse, like with any other camera, you get artifacts.

The jpgs OOC are very good by the way.

So. Is it a keeper?

I still have to see. I love so much my X100 and what it gives me that makes me think. On the other hand, what I could do this weekend with the X100s was a lot more versatile that what I would be able to do with my old X100.

Time will tell. So far, I’m keeping both and gonna give a good ride to the X100s this week in a trip to NY.

Cheers.

A.

I've already sold my X100, for me at least the X100S was the better camera. However, I can see that if you preferred the image quality of the X100 to the X-E1 why you might hold the views you've set out. However, it isn't as simple as bayer vs x-trans, the (great) lens is the same, the resolution is better, the camera is faster, the jpegs are better, the MF improvements are great.

What I would say is that the RAW image quality isn't a finished article yet (but then LR 4.4 is a release candidate not a final version). What you've referred to as artefacts seems correlated to the use of the details slider rather than normal sharpening.

I agree. RAW image quality is not a finish article yet. I was working with LR 4.4 but just for a few hours. I took in consideration what you said about the details slider. Still I don't think that it fixes the sharpening issues. If there's any.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hexxthalion
Contributing MemberPosts: 526Gear list
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to aleS., Mar 25, 2013

i've read somewhere that X100S files don't work properly in LR4.4 and bring back water color issue, C1 doesn't recognise the files.

 hexxthalion's gear list:hexxthalion's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sgoldswo
Senior MemberPosts: 3,391Gear list
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to aleS., Mar 25, 2013

aleS. wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

aleS. wrote:

­I have been shooting with my X100 for a year and a half. I bought an XE-1 with the 18-55 six months ago and realized that it wasn’t the photographic experience I would enjoy. I took me back to my SLR and the world of changing lenses. And that’s what the X100 did. It made me approach photography in a total different way. Besides, I didn’t like the rendering that the RAW files gave me compared to what I was getting from my X100 using Lightroom as my workflow.

I bought the X100S now and I was playing with it all weekend. I shot RAW + fine Jpgs.

Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream.

Image quality, amazing. To me, besides how much I liked the look of the camera, bottom line it was all about the image quality. It’s soooo much about image quality that sometimes I prefer the X100 look than what I can get from a Nikon D800. A matter of taste.

But.

Is the IQ of the X100s better than the X100?

No. It’s not.

Is it worse?

No. It’s not worse. It’s just different. And the way I had to approach the correction in Lightroom is different.

You have to approach sharpening in a different way. If you abuse, like with any other camera, you get artifacts.

The jpgs OOC are very good by the way.

So. Is it a keeper?

I still have to see. I love so much my X100 and what it gives me that makes me think. On the other hand, what I could do this weekend with the X100s was a lot more versatile that what I would be able to do with my old X100.

Time will tell. So far, I’m keeping both and gonna give a good ride to the X100s this week in a trip to NY.

Cheers.

A.

I've already sold my X100, for me at least the X100S was the better camera. However, I can see that if you preferred the image quality of the X100 to the X-E1 why you might hold the views you've set out. However, it isn't as simple as bayer vs x-trans, the (great) lens is the same, the resolution is better, the camera is faster, the jpegs are better, the MF improvements are great.

What I would say is that the RAW image quality isn't a finished article yet (but then LR 4.4 is a release candidate not a final version). What you've referred to as artefacts seems correlated to the use of the details slider rather than normal sharpening.

I agree. RAW image quality is not a finish article yet. I was working with LR 4.4 but just for a few hours. I took in consideration what you said about the details slider. Still I don't think that it fixes the sharpening issues. If there's any.

I agree the detail slider isn't a total fix for the issues with RAWs - it's more that it makes the issue worse if you use the detail slider. Without it the image at 100% looks like an image  taken at a low shutter speed whereas at full screen size it looks so sharp you can see individual hairs.

Hopefully one that gets fixed in the final LR 4.4 implementation or in C1's implementation (note that C1 isn't currently compatible with X100S RAWs).

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Olympus E-M1 Nikon Df Nikon D810
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
palincss
Contributing MemberPosts: 752
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to aleS., Mar 25, 2013

I don't get it.  In view of this: "Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream." why wouldn't it be a "keeper"?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cptrios
Senior MemberPosts: 1,347
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to palincss, Mar 25, 2013

palincss wrote:

I don't get it. In view of this: "Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream." why wouldn't it be a "keeper"?

Not worth all of the extra money, perhaps? It costs around twice as much as a used X100 right now...definitely not chump change.

I too am a bit reluctant toward the X100s in IQ terms. The X100's RAW files have a bit of unquantifiable "magic" that the X100s's (OK seriously, they should have chosen a different letter than "s!") lacks. The X100s's IQ is definitely better in plenty of other ways - high ISO being the biggest - but the prospect of giving up that je ne sais quoi is kind of sad. The X100s is undeniably a better camera mechanically, though.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ricky1981
Junior MemberPosts: 27
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to palincss, Mar 25, 2013

palincss wrote:

I don't get it. In view of this: "Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream." why wouldn't it be a "keeper"?

These are the main reasons I have upgraded to the X100S and I love it!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
aleS.
Forum MemberPosts: 76
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to cptrios, Mar 25, 2013

cptrios wrote:

palincss wrote:

I don't get it. In view of this: "Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream." why wouldn't it be a "keeper"?

Not worth all of the extra money, perhaps? It costs around twice as much as a used X100 right now...definitely not chump change.

I too am a bit reluctant toward the X100s in IQ terms. The X100's RAW files have a bit of unquantifiable "magic" that the X100s's (OK seriously, they should have chosen a different letter than "s!") lacks. The X100s's IQ is definitely better in plenty of other ways - high ISO being the biggest - but the prospect of giving up that je ne sais quoi is kind of sad. The X100s is undeniably a better camera mechanically, though.

Palincss, it wouldn't be a keeper (still not sure) for the reasons Cptrios explain. Exactly that je ne sais quoi. It lacks that but in any other respect is a much better camera, including IQ.

What I'm questioning myself is if I'm willing to loose that "thing" that made my photos special, for me. Or if it just another animal and I just need to learn how to domesticate it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
aleS.
Forum MemberPosts: 76
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to sgoldswo, Mar 25, 2013

sgoldswo wrote:

aleS. wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

aleS. wrote:

­I have been shooting with my X100 for a year and a half. I bought an XE-1 with the 18-55 six months ago and realized that it wasn’t the photographic experience I would enjoy. I took me back to my SLR and the world of changing lenses. And that’s what the X100 did. It made me approach photography in a total different way. Besides, I didn’t like the rendering that the RAW files gave me compared to what I was getting from my X100 using Lightroom as my workflow.

I bought the X100S now and I was playing with it all weekend. I shot RAW + fine Jpgs.

Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream.

Image quality, amazing. To me, besides how much I liked the look of the camera, bottom line it was all about the image quality. It’s soooo much about image quality that sometimes I prefer the X100 look than what I can get from a Nikon D800. A matter of taste.

But.

Is the IQ of the X100s better than the X100?

No. It’s not.

Is it worse?

No. It’s not worse. It’s just different. And the way I had to approach the correction in Lightroom is different.

You have to approach sharpening in a different way. If you abuse, like with any other camera, you get artifacts.

The jpgs OOC are very good by the way.

So. Is it a keeper?

I still have to see. I love so much my X100 and what it gives me that makes me think. On the other hand, what I could do this weekend with the X100s was a lot more versatile that what I would be able to do with my old X100.

Time will tell. So far, I’m keeping both and gonna give a good ride to the X100s this week in a trip to NY.

Cheers.

A.

I've already sold my X100, for me at least the X100S was the better camera. However, I can see that if you preferred the image quality of the X100 to the X-E1 why you might hold the views you've set out. However, it isn't as simple as bayer vs x-trans, the (great) lens is the same, the resolution is better, the camera is faster, the jpegs are better, the MF improvements are great.

What I would say is that the RAW image quality isn't a finished article yet (but then LR 4.4 is a release candidate not a final version). What you've referred to as artefacts seems correlated to the use of the details slider rather than normal sharpening.

I agree. RAW image quality is not a finish article yet. I was working with LR 4.4 but just for a few hours. I took in consideration what you said about the details slider. Still I don't think that it fixes the sharpening issues. If there's any.

I agree the detail slider isn't a total fix for the issues with RAWs - it's more that it makes the issue worse if you use the detail slider. Without it the image at 100% looks like an image taken at a low shutter speed whereas at full screen size it looks so sharp you can see individual hairs.

Hopefully one that gets fixed in the final LR 4.4 implementation or in C1's implementation (note that C1 isn't currently compatible with X100S RAWs).

Well, there have been a great improvement already. Let's hope the final LR 4.4 makes things better.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
itairom
Regular MemberPosts: 430
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to cptrios, Mar 25, 2013

cptrios wrote:

palincss wrote:

I don't get it. In view of this: "Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream." why wouldn't it be a "keeper"?

Not worth all of the extra money, perhaps? It costs around twice as much as a used X100 right now...definitely not chump change.

I too am a bit reluctant toward the X100s in IQ terms. The X100's RAW files have a bit of unquantifiable "magic" that the X100s's (OK seriously, they should have chosen a different letter than "s!") lacks. The X100s's IQ is definitely better in plenty of other ways - high ISO being the biggest - but the prospect of giving up that je ne sais quoi is kind of sad. The X100s is undeniably a better camera mechanically, though.

I'd like to see a comparison that demonstrates this difference. So far, I haven't seen one. I'm not saying that it's not true, just that I wonder how much of this is simply nostalgia and how much is really a visible difference in the images. The use of terms like je ne sais quoi leads me to wonder if it's really just nostalgia. The X100 was a remarkable camera that revitalized photography for a lot of people, so I'm not surprised that people find they still love it even after its 'replacement' hit the market. That kind of emotional connection tends to manifest itself in ways that are hard to quantify. It's still a great camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
aleS.
Forum MemberPosts: 76
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to itairom, Mar 25, 2013

itairom wrote:

cptrios wrote:

palincss wrote:

I don't get it. In view of this: "Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream." why wouldn't it be a "keeper"?

Not worth all of the extra money, perhaps? It costs around twice as much as a used X100 right now...definitely not chump change.

I too am a bit reluctant toward the X100s in IQ terms. The X100's RAW files have a bit of unquantifiable "magic" that the X100s's (OK seriously, they should have chosen a different letter than "s!") lacks. The X100s's IQ is definitely better in plenty of other ways - high ISO being the biggest - but the prospect of giving up that je ne sais quoi is kind of sad. The X100s is undeniably a better camera mechanically, though.

I'd like to see a comparison that demonstrates this difference. So far, I haven't seen one. I'm not saying that it's not true, just that I wonder how much of this is simply nostalgia and how much is really a visible difference in the images. The use of terms like je ne sais quoi leads me to wonder if it's really just nostalgia. The X100 was a remarkable camera that revitalized photography for a lot of people, so I'm not surprised that people find they still love it even after its 'replacement' hit the market. That kind of emotional connection tends to manifest itself in ways that are hard to quantify. It's still a great camera.

First of all, I'm not saying I'm right. This is totally subjetive. It's my opinion and I could be totally wrong. Though, it's very difficult to show that feeling. But many of the people here are artists and they can see things beyond something that could be measure (and I'm not saying I'm one of them).

To me the exercise is simple. Go to this two links and watch the first 150 pictures of each.

I can see it there.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/x100/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/fujifilmx100s/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
caver3d
Contributing MemberPosts: 688Gear list
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...IT'S THE IQ
In reply to aleS., Mar 25, 2013

aleS. wrote:

­I have been shooting with my X100 for a year and a half. I bought an XE-1 with the 18-55 six months ago and realized that it wasn’t the photographic experience I would enjoy. I took me back to my SLR and the world of changing lenses. And that’s what the X100 did. It made me approach photography in a total different way. Besides, I didn’t like the rendering that the RAW files gave me compared to what I was getting from my X100 using Lightroom as my workflow.

I bought the X100S now and I was playing with it all weekend. I shot RAW + fine Jpgs.

Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream.

Image quality, amazing. To me, besides how much I liked the look of the camera, bottom line it was all about the image quality. It’s soooo much about image quality that sometimes I prefer the X100 look than what I can get from a Nikon D800. A matter of taste.

But.

Is the IQ of the X100s better than the X100?

No. It’s not.

Is it worse?

No. It’s not worse. It’s just different. And the way I had to approach the correction in Lightroom is different.

You have to approach sharpening in a different way. If you abuse, like with any other camera, you get artifacts.

The jpgs OOC are very good by the way.

So. Is it a keeper?

I still have to see. I love so much my X100 and what it gives me that makes me think. On the other hand, what I could do this weekend with the X100s was a lot more versatile that what I would be able to do with my old X100.

Time will tell. So far, I’m keeping both and gonna give a good ride to the X100s this week in a trip to NY.

Cheers.

A.

For me, it is all about IQ.  And, as you say, the IQ of the X100s is not better than the X100.  That's why I am staying with my X100.

caver3d

 caver3d's gear list:caver3d's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1 Canon EOS M Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sgoldswo
Senior MemberPosts: 3,391Gear list
Like?
However, for some of us the IQ of the X100S does beat the X100...
In reply to caver3d, Mar 25, 2013

For me, it is all about IQ. And, as you say, the IQ of the X100s is not better than the X100. That's why I am staying with my X100.

caver3d

I should stop posting on this thread, but...

It is fine that some people really like the output from their X100. Some people even preferred it to the X-Pro1 and X-E1. I didn't.

In honesty I was a bit disappointed with the X100 sensor - while it was capable of great output, it lacked resolution and was too sensitive to exposure. It was clearly the same sensor I had in my A700 a few years back. The output had a habit of turning out a little too digital looking for my taste, less graduated colour transitions, lower resolution, closer to a M43s camera (particularly the E-P3) in output. The lens was excellent above F4 however and the overall package meant that I tolerated the weaknesses of the sensor.

The X100S addresses what I consider the weaknesses of the X100 sensor in every way. As far as I'm concerned the IQ is superior before you even factor in that the RAW support for the X100S isn't quite there yet. It's just that bit less digital looking to me.

Does all that mean I hate the X100? No, I liked it, but I did recognise its weaknesses. Are people allowed to prefer the X100 output? Of course, but none of us should assert our opinions as fact - they are after all merely subjective opinions.

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Olympus E-M1 Nikon Df Nikon D810
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
caver3d
Contributing MemberPosts: 688Gear list
Like?
Re: However, for some of us the IQ of the X100S does beat the X100...
In reply to sgoldswo, Mar 25, 2013

sgoldswo wrote:

For me, it is all about IQ. And, as you say, the IQ of the X100s is not better than the X100. That's why I am staying with my X100.

caver3d

I should stop posting on this thread, but...

It is fine that some people really like the output from their X100. Some people even preferred it to the X-Pro1 and X-E1. I didn't.

In honesty I was a bit disappointed with the X100 sensor - while it was capable of great output, it lacked resolution and was too sensitive to exposure. It was clearly the same sensor I had in my A700 a few years back. The output had a habit of turning out a little too digital looking for my taste, less graduated colour transitions, lower resolution, closer to a M43s camera (particularly the E-P3) in output. The lens was excellent above F4 however and the overall package meant that I tolerated the weaknesses of the sensor.

The X100S addresses what I consider the weaknesses of the X100 sensor in every way. As far as I'm concerned the IQ is superior before you even factor in that the RAW support for the X100S isn't quite there yet. It's just that bit less digital looking to me.

Does all that mean I hate the X100? No, I liked it, but I did recognise its weaknesses. Are people allowed to prefer the X100 output? Of course, but none of us should assert our opinions as fact - they are after all merely subjective opinions.

Well, you just did that, didn't you:

"but none of us should assert our opinions as fact - they are after all merely subjective opinions."

I have as much right to my opinion as you do yours, correct?  And I respectfully and completely disagree with you regarding the output of the X100.

caver3d

 caver3d's gear list:caver3d's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1 Canon EOS M Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sgoldswo
Senior MemberPosts: 3,391Gear list
Like?
Re: However, for some of us the IQ of the X100S does beat the X100...
In reply to caver3d, Mar 25, 2013

caver3d wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

For me, it is all about IQ. And, as you say, the IQ of the X100s is not better than the X100. That's why I am staying with my X100.

caver3d

I should stop posting on this thread, but...

It is fine that some people really like the output from their X100. Some people even preferred it to the X-Pro1 and X-E1. I didn't.

In honesty I was a bit disappointed with the X100 sensor - while it was capable of great output, it lacked resolution and was too sensitive to exposure. It was clearly the same sensor I had in my A700 a few years back. The output had a habit of turning out a little too digital looking for my taste, less graduated colour transitions, lower resolution, closer to a M43s camera (particularly the E-P3) in output. The lens was excellent above F4 however and the overall package meant that I tolerated the weaknesses of the sensor.

The X100S addresses what I consider the weaknesses of the X100 sensor in every way. As far as I'm concerned the IQ is superior before you even factor in that the RAW support for the X100S isn't quite there yet. It's just that bit less digital looking to me.

Does all that mean I hate the X100? No, I liked it, but I did recognise its weaknesses. Are people allowed to prefer the X100 output? Of course, but none of us should assert our opinions as fact - they are after all merely subjective opinions.

Well, you just did that, didn't you:

"but none of us should assert our opinions as fact - they are after all merely subjective opinions."

I have as much right to my opinion as you do yours, correct? And I respectfully and completely disagree with you regarding the output of the X100.

caver3d

I guess it comes down to the language used - my opinions are strong but hopefully it was clear from the use of language like "to me", "as far as I'm concerned", "for my taste", "I didn't" etc that they were my opinions rather than fact...

 sgoldswo's gear list:sgoldswo's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Olympus E-M1 Nikon Df Nikon D810
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nawknai
Contributing MemberPosts: 943Gear list
Like?
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...
In reply to itairom, Mar 25, 2013

The hell is wrong with caver3d?  Getting a bit worked up over a reasonable post.

itairom wrote:

I'd like to see a comparison that demonstrates this difference. So far, I haven't seen one. I'm not saying that it's not true, just that I wonder how much of this is simply nostalgia and how much is really a visible difference in the images. The use of terms like je ne sais quoi leads me to wonder if it's really just nostalgia. The X100 was a remarkable camera that revitalized photography for a lot of people, so I'm not surprised that people find they still love it even after its 'replacement' hit the market. That kind of emotional connection tends to manifest itself in ways that are hard to quantify. It's still a great camera.

Exactly. Once I saw the phrase, "Je ne sais quoi", I couldn't take that opinion seriously anymore.

I've been an owner of the X100 for 2 years, and it's my favourite camera. I also own an X-Pro 1, so I have some experience with X-trans. I would be crazy if I said that I don't think the X100s is a better camera. If you ignore image quality for a second, the X100s will focus better, which means you'll miss fewer shots, fewer moments. The settings are easier to change due to the Q menu, and will cost you less time when you need to do so quickly. Similar camera body, but with improved control layout.

Then there's the image quality. The lens is the same, and the sensor is better in every metric except "je ne sais quoi".

The ONLY situation in which the X100 may be better than the X100s is if you were shooting RAW on the X100, and JPEG on the X100s. However, every few months, there seems to be fewer and fewer reasons not to shoot using RAW when using an X-trans camera. If you shot RAW with both cameras, the X-Trans output would be exceptional, or at least as good as the OG X100's sensor.

 nawknai's gear list:nawknai's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-Pro1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
aleS.
Forum MemberPosts: 76
Like?
Re: However, for some of us the IQ of the X100S does beat the X100...
In reply to sgoldswo, Mar 26, 2013

sgoldswo wrote:

caver3d wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

For me, it is all about IQ. And, as you say, the IQ of the X100s is not better than the X100. That's why I am staying with my X100.

caver3d

I should stop posting on this thread, but...

It is fine that some people really like the output from their X100. Some people even preferred it to the X-Pro1 and X-E1. I didn't.

In honesty I was a bit disappointed with the X100 sensor - while it was capable of great output, it lacked resolution and was too sensitive to exposure. It was clearly the same sensor I had in my A700 a few years back. The output had a habit of turning out a little too digital looking for my taste, less graduated colour transitions, lower resolution, closer to a M43s camera (particularly the E-P3) in output. The lens was excellent above F4 however and the overall package meant that I tolerated the weaknesses of the sensor.

The X100S addresses what I consider the weaknesses of the X100 sensor in every way. As far as I'm concerned the IQ is superior before you even factor in that the RAW support for the X100S isn't quite there yet. It's just that bit less digital looking to me.

Does all that mean I hate the X100? No, I liked it, but I did recognise its weaknesses. Are people allowed to prefer the X100 output? Of course, but none of us should assert our opinions as fact - they are after all merely subjective opinions.

Well, you just did that, didn't you:

"but none of us should assert our opinions as fact - they are after all merely subjective opinions."

I have as much right to my opinion as you do yours, correct? And I respectfully and completely disagree with you regarding the output of the X100.

caver3d

I guess it comes down to the language used - my opinions are strong but hopefully it was clear from the use of language like "to me", "as far as I'm concerned", "for my taste", "I didn't" etc that they were my opinions rather than fact...

It's very interesting what you said Sgoldswo. Probably what you see as weaknesses is what I like. I understand that you are not saying that the X100 sensor is bad. But I see that sensitiveness to exposure and it's probably the same sensor the A700 had. Nonetheless there's something, maybe because of that, that makes it different.

Having said that, I just want to convince myself that I can live with this new "look" since the camera let me do thing that I couldn't with the X100.

It's a matter of taste, again. Nobody should get offended.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads