OK, here we go - side by side comparison X100/S
OK, here we go - side by side comparison X100/S
Apr 2, 2013
I have had a few folks write to me on 'that other site', requesting I do some side by side pic's and send to them. I think a lot of people are interested in this, so if I stick it up on here, you can all benefit from that.
A disclaimer first.
# I do not shoot JPEG's - so please do not ask for OOC JPEG's. I only shoot RAW - these are all shot in RAW - then turned into JPEG files on L/R4.4. I am an artist and want total control over each of my images so I can make each one a unique piece of 'art' - I do not have that depth of control with JPEG files. I liken RAW vs JPEG's to a guy having the option to date one of two sisters - one is a bit chumpy and not so good looking, the other is slim and lovely. He then goes and dates the chumpy one - I rest my case!
# My X100S has firmware 1:01
# I am sorry these are not exact side by side comparisons - I did the best I could. My two lovely daughters have grown up now and have better things to do that stand around and model for dad (like they used to), and my Fiance is overseas at the moment - so I had no 'victim' to practice on. I had to use poor hapless, unsuspecting folks at the local market. If you see your face splattered all over the Universe - I am sorry, for I have sinned!
# I am not up for a fight, so if you don't agree with my assumptions, that is fine - they are only my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with anything I say on here (or my sad jokes)! Please don't attack me or any other person who comments on here, we want to keep this a nice experience for all, PLEASE. I was asked to do this, and am not trying to one-up myself by doing so.
# In each case - the first in the pairs of pictures to be compared - is from the X100S, the second one obviously is from the old X100.
OK - here we go. These are straight from RAW files, just converted to JPEG so they could be viewed by all on here. I have not changed anything. Normally - I would have altered the exposure a bit on a few of them, cropped a bit maybe, saturated the blacks a bit and played around with a few of the sliders. You can zoom them in close if you wish to 100%, so you can see the detail. They are all just as they came from the camera.
This is my conclusion. If I knew then, what I know now, I would not have bought the X100s, simple as that! To me the files from the X100 are much easier for me to get 'that look' that I am seeking. Seems to me that if I start to sharpen the images from the S, or bring up my 'clarity' 'saturation' and 'vibrance' sliders, they start to take on a horrible plastic look that I don't see with the old 100. That is only my opinion, but I certainly would NOT buy this camera for the 'improvements' in the image quality. I mostly prefer the look of my old X100, and it is much much easier for me to attain that look from L/R.
Will I be keeping the S, yes? The S has some lovely things that I like a lot. I wear glasses now and my eyes aren't what they used to be. The bright setting for sunlight is marvelous - I can read the screen so clearly now in bright light. I love to be able to move the focus square with my right hand, and I love now that I can take 6FPS, without the camera locking up for a long time.
My X100 is my second body that I rely on when I travel in Asia for 6 months of each year. It is my workhorse, so for me these improvements are major. I am going to have to put up with the 'change' in the image quality and continue to work on that, and wait for changes from Adobe. Having said that though, I still maintain what I said before, if I knew then what I know now, I would have saved the $1,353.
If you are a casual user, or an amateur who just wants to use this camera for fun, or weekends or as a hobby - I strongly suggest you do not sell your old X100, or rush out and buy the S. Think about it seriously - if you can live with a slightly slower camera, and a few quirks (that have been removed on the new one), save a lot of money and keep your old 100.
I hope this helps those who requested?
Thank you for taking the time out and effort to create this thread. I agree, I do prefer the X100 'look' myself, more in line with why I bought the camera in the first place.
That chap in the series sure knows how to have fun!
Yes we have just had a three day street festival in Perth for Easter. They brought buskers from all over the world to perform there. I saw those two guys do their act twice - they were absolutely fantastic (I think they sounded French). There was a very good atmosphere there and I think that is why people were happy for me to take photos, nobody seemed to mind. Oh, one lady told me off for pointing the camera close to her kid - we are a bit paranoid in Western countries now. That is why I travel Asia for six months of every year, I can photograph anything there and the people are lovely, they don't mind at all.
Thanks for sharing. Guess I'm in the non-believers camp, since the X100s photos (apart from the fill-in shot with that great fellow and yellow ball, if it is fill-in...) look better to my eyes. I was actually surprised checking the exifs - first I looked at the pictures (and read your post at the end) and I thought it was the other way around.
Perhaps that's because I have no X100, and for last 5 years were shooting Nikon DSLR. If one is used to certain output and look, it's easy to prefer it over something new, especially coming from half-baked RC. Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts and pictures.
Thank you for information,i want to ask Fuji X100 have issue SAB(Sticky Aparture Blade)? after 3000 shot or No?
If Yes What S/N have issue SAB?Because SAB i don't want to buy Used X100.
What the Last Firmware for Fuji X100?
What S/N & Firmware you used in x100 Now?
Buy used Fuji X100 for $700 or New Fuji X100s for $1299?
I appreciate your post and effort.
I am looking at the pictures from an uncalibrated monitor, so I may be missing some subtleties, but is it possible the problem is one of metering rather than IQ?
The X100S pictures mostly seem underexposed, which could well be a component of the observable difference.
Interesting comparison, thanks for posting. The X100s shots definitely have a better white balance--you can see a magenta tinge to most of the X100 shots, especially in the skies, whereas the X100s white balance looks excellent.
--Mark van Dam
Supardiman - my X100 is one of the early ones - 12m13510. It packed a sad shortly after I bought it and had to send it to Fuji for SAB repair. That was nearly 18months ago, and it has worked flawlessly since then. I would not hesitate to buy a second hand one off ebay or whatever you use in your country (looks as if you are not a Native speaker of English), European??
I have had very good experiences on ebay, and if my wonderful Nikon D700 got stolen, I would just buy one off ebay and have that serviced at my camera shop, and it would be like a new camera again. Do a search on here and find out when people think that Fuji fixed the SAB problem, and buy a unit that was manufactured after that - you should be fine.
Skule123/Pasaguy - yes I think you are correct. I double checked the settings of both cameras that day. The ex comp was on zero, flash was used on both shots, or not at all on both shots. As I said, those are RAWS, so as you know other settings (film simulation, color balance etc), don't apply anyway. They should look the same, so don't know why the S seems to be underexposing.
Anyway, I don't think that is the problem. When I fiddled around on L/R, I twiddled with the exposure and other stuff and in every case the old X100 looked much better. I really think it gets down to the X sensor!!
I am afraid I will have to agree with Sebit, I actually like the X100s images better, the white balance seems to be more accurate and to me the exposure, to my eye, is more pleasing.
Having said that, I have an X100 and I could not make a case for me to 'upgrade' to the X100s. I haven't had any problems with focus speed or accuracy and have been very pleased with the images that I get, but then I tend to really appreciate the OOC JPEGs which work quite well for a lot of the stuff that I shoot these days.
Thanks for taking the time to put this comparison together! I know how much work and time that it takes, I appreciate your efforts to help us all understand the worth of the new 'improvements'!
Edit... and while I am not going to upgrade my X100, I think I will now wait for the X-P1s/P2 before buying into the interchangeable lens X series. My X100 and D2x will hold me until then...
Show Low, Arizona
Refreshing to see this post. I agree 100%. Have spent hours with all the "X" cameras including the X100s. Unfortunately, no longer have my original X100 to do the comparison you did. Differences especially noticeable in the vegetation detail in the background. The X100 has a certain detail rendering that is lacking in the X100s. Some folks I think are mistaking the "smearing" inherent in the X-Trans sensor as "smoothness". Not the same. As far as color, contrast, etc. That is all easily altered and has little significance in terms of IQ.
Bottom line is, IMO, the X-Trans technology was a bold step in the right direction, but not ready for prime time. I'm still very happy with my X cameras in many ways, but I think I would have been a lot happier if they had given me a 16MP APS sensor based on the Bayer array sensor used in the original X100, but left off the low pass filter altogether. That would have been the winner, IMO. Instead we've been saddled with a on-going RAW conversion challenge that still has not been resolved to the level it needs to be. Doesn't match the marketing hype yet.
Tony Bonanno Photography, Santa Fe, New Mexico
ASMP General member
It's pretty subjective as to which looks better but they definitely look different. Looking at the last 3 comparison pics, the blue sky with the x100s looks kinda cyan/blue whereas the x100 just looks blue. The skin tones of the x100s look slightly redder to my eyes. Overall I think the x100 looks a little more natural but then i just bought a x100
What metering modes were used?
I have the X100s and have never had the X100 but from my limited use of the camera to date I find that Average metering tends to underexpose more than Multi and Spot.
I actually liked the x100s better (I thought the X100 shots were the S ones based on the description until I looked at the exif).
I think the vegetation detail is just due to the X100 choosing a lower shutter speed and higher aperture on each shot compared to the S.
I had assumed the second picture (in each case) would be the X100s - i.e. logical progression theory.
Without referring to EXIF throughout, I looked at all and thought the second set rendered scenes 'better' than first, assuming them to be 'new, improved Fuji version' ....
Genuine double blind test then - result: I obviously felt the X100 has better image process.
Unbiased IMO only viewpoint - not interested in debating it!
Thanks for posting. A health warning, this is all my opinion, but:
In line with earlier comments elsewhere, I disagree with your conclusions and I'm glad I sold my X100. Even in these shots the colour transitions in the X100 files are harsher and more digital looking to my eye. They very strongly resemble the output from the E-M5 with Oly 17mm mounted.
I think my biggest point here would be the RAW processing - each camera does need different LR settings to get the best out of it. I don't know what settings you used for each camera.
But needing to process RAWs differently doesn't mean the camera or sensor are fatally flawed or not ready for primetime as others have said. As an X-Pro1 user for a while now and a very happy new X100S owner I know that a great deal more detail is present in the output from the X100S even if the RAW processing isn't quite there yet.
I have to strongly disagree with those who think the camera would somehow have been better with a 16mp bayer sensor. It wouldn't, it would have been just another 16mp camera with a sony sensor.
The most significant point here is that the X100S RAW support is available in a beta format as it stands. It will get better, or Capture One will provide better support than LR.
Anyway, no harm to you personally, not wanting to argue - I just have a very different view and would have no hesitation in telling X100 users to upgrade.
PS I'm working on a blog post of shots with the WA adaptor mounted (a fiery ball in the sky showed up over London Monday and Tuesday - wasn't sure what it was at first). They are looking very good indeed...
Even in these shots the colour transitions in the X100 files are harsher and more digital looking to my eye.
Can you point out some examples in the posted photos?
I think my biggest point here would be the RAW processing - each camera does need different LR settings to get the best out of it. I don't know what settings you used for each camera...
The most significant point here is that the X100S RAW support is available in a beta format...
Good points. We are looking at raw files as rendered at default settings by the LR 4.4 release candidate, which likely does not exploit the full potential of the X100s raws.
Also, the photos were taken at different apertures, which can affect resolution and DOF. For example the X100 shot of the singer was taken at f/2.8 and the X100s version at f/5.6.
Thanks for doing this comparison, even though it is not exactly scientific in nature. I have to agree with the others who prefer the X100s output – to me it the white balance and color generally is more accurate. Also, the shots where the X100s looks underexposed seem to either have had negative exposure comp dialed in (compared to the X100 shot) or were shot with a wider aperture, so lens vignetting probably played some part. All told, the difference is not really all that great. The X100 seems to generally end up with warmer colors, but if you prefer that look it's a pretty simple tweak in LR.