X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison

Started Apr 12, 2013 | Discussions
yellodog
Senior MemberPosts: 1,169Gear list
Like?
X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
Apr 12, 2013

This is the jpg SOOC. Note the ugly noise that looks like blackheads.

This is a processed RAW file (note editing isn't my strongest side), sort of soft, but for a small sensor at 3200 ISO and no flash it's usable for the family album.

Fujifilm X20
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Photofreak7
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,703
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to yellodog, Apr 12, 2013

What NR setting was the jpg shot in? With my 'old' X10 I have gotten ISO3200 shots in caverns with even less light that are notably sharper ... this just shows me that jpg to jpg the X10 is better based on my experience. For me personally processing RAW on a P&S camera on every shot to get decent results is a pain. But the X20 may be a RAW shooter for most owners I guess ... sorry but for $600 one should be able to shoot jpg with decent results even in low light. In it's defense I have seen some ok jpgs posted here and for normal sized prints the X20 would likely still do well shot jpg with proper settings.

-- hide signature --

Don't feed or mess with the crazy person ... just take a photo and walk away ... just walk away man!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Photofreak7
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,703
Like?
yellodog ...
In reply to yellodog, Apr 12, 2013

... it's buggin me ... does your username come from the movie Funny Farm or is it a coincidence?

-- hide signature --

Don't feed or mess with the crazy person ... just take a photo and walk away ... just walk away man!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Grobb
Senior MemberPosts: 1,229Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to yellodog, Apr 13, 2013

That's because this camera was only designed to take pictures in RAW at ISO 400 or less, and PP'ed extensively to get any detail out of them. If you like to take JPEG images and do not like PP every image extensively, you should NOT own or use this camera. I have never seen a high end camera that is not capable of taking JPEG images that look so bad and costs $600!!! Even images taken at ISO 400 look extremely noisy and full of grain. If you are still able to return it, do yourself a favor before it is too late and get any camera for less money that can take JPEG image that have much better IQ! Why should anyone be forced to take only RAW images and PP them to death that are still only half way presentable? There are soooo many other cameras available for $600 (or less) that take much better pictures, why settle for less if you don't need to? Life it way too short to put up with substandard cameras when there are so many others that are so much better, and cost less.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tazmac
Regular MemberPosts: 360Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to Grobb, Apr 13, 2013

tron555 wrote:

That's because this camera was only designed to take pictures in RAW at ISO 400 or less, and PP'ed extensively to get any detail out of them. If you like to take JPEG images and do not like PP every image extensively, you should NOT own or use this camera. I have never seen a high end camera that is not capable of taking JPEG images that look so bad and costs $600!!! Even images taken at ISO 400 look extremely noisy and full of grain. If you are still able to return it, do yourself a favor before it is too late and get any camera for less money that can take JPEG image that have much better IQ! Why should anyone be forced to take only RAW images and PP them to death that are still only half way presentable? There are soooo many other cameras available for $600 (or less) that take much better pictures, why settle for less if you don't need to? Life it way too short to put up with substandard cameras when there are so many others that are so much better, and cost less.

troll555 make yourself a favor and leave!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nukunukoo
Regular MemberPosts: 353Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to Grobb, Apr 13, 2013

The poster apparently was happy with he picture at worst case so the argument against it was kinda moot. I agree I expected more on the JPEGs. What does puzzle me is your reply to this:

Why should anyone be forced to take only RAW images and PP them to death that are still only half way presentable?

To what measure do you make this claim? I have the impression that you misunderstand the dynamics and properties of the RAW characteristics of this particular camera. A person not having such a unit and not have shown any evidence of working with RAWs (well, at the very least, this one in particular), can only say that claim you just said in an extremely subjective and assumptive manner. You earlier challenged me for examples and I happily obliged. Whether you are satisfied or not has no importance to me as long as I and many others here are happy with the results.

I have posted several examples as per your request, as many have, and I still look at them objectively and not bother with the pixel-peeping, because after all that, 100-200% crops are not that critical to many images from any camera in the end.

I do agree that for the JPEG shooter, this camera requires a higher than average skills in control (I love it!), and the X20 is not for you. Especially with such an unremarkable JPEG output. However, again, having said that, I wished I waited a wee longer since the price have started dropping (and on the D7100 as well!). But compared even to the G12 and G15 with a smaller sensor whose noise characteristics is not better than the X20 (okay, I can only vouch for the G12, never touched the G15), the controls, focus speed, manual zoom, ability to attach external microphones, lens filters for 52mm with the hood and great OVF make up for the extra 100.

The sharpness is also uncanny, see my cat pix for that!

The retro-ness is an added bonus for me. But like I said, the OP is quite happy, why keep discouraging contented people around here? What's your point? People choose and it does not need any approval from us so I say again, please contribute something of substance coz we already have critics a dime a dozen! Peace!

Liz.

 Nukunukoo's gear list:Nukunukoo's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Nikon D300S Nikon D800E Nikon D7100 Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC APO OS HSM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
toto435
Junior MemberPosts: 38Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to Nukunukoo, Apr 13, 2013

I will add that I never printed bigger than the A4 format. As the ENORMOUS majority of people buying compact camera I think... And that there is no compact camera that can do "good" 3200ISO picture.

The X20 is probably the best whole package now. Good IQ (yes, not the best), superb handling (probably the best), 1st class finition, great looking camera...

You are obliged to shot in RAW with all the brand if you are very complainant. Nikon? In you shot JPEG, you have ultra soft pictures, even with the dslr. Panasonic? If you shot JPEG above 400ISO you have ultra sharpening artifact everywhere, etc.

I really don't like the "Nikon images" but I don't pass my time on Nikon forum, annoying everyone...

 toto435's gear list:toto435's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
yellodog
Senior MemberPosts: 1,169Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to Grobb, Apr 13, 2013

There are not "So many cameras" that take better pics at 3200 with a small sensor. Price doesn't have anything to do with it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
yellodog
Senior MemberPosts: 1,169Gear list
Like?
Re: yellodog ...
In reply to Photofreak7, Apr 13, 2013

To the best of my knowledge I haven't seen that film but the name must have come from somewhere...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
yellodog
Senior MemberPosts: 1,169Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to Photofreak7, Apr 13, 2013

NR = 0

The shot was handheld so, at 1/10 of a second, you have to factor in movement blur.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pookeyblow
New MemberPosts: 19
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to yellodog, Apr 14, 2013

I'm tired of these haters who haven't even tried the camera themselves.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 14,138
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to Grobb, Apr 14, 2013

tron555 wrote:

That's because this camera was only designed to take pictures in RAW at ISO 400 or less, and PP'ed extensively to get any detail out of them. If you like to take JPEG images and do not like PP every image extensively, you should NOT own or use this camera. I have never seen a high end camera that is not capable of taking JPEG images that look so bad and costs $600!!! Even images taken at ISO 400 look extremely noisy and full of grain. If you are still able to return it, do yourself a favor before it is too late and get any camera for less money that can take JPEG image that have much better IQ! Why should anyone be forced to take only RAW images and PP them to death that are still only half way presentable? There are soooo many other cameras available for $600 (or less) that take much better pictures, why settle for less if you don't need to? Life it way too short to put up with substandard cameras when there are so many others that are so much better, and cost less.

Wow, quite a resounding slam based on a single photo.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Grobb
Senior MemberPosts: 1,229Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to Midwest, Apr 14, 2013

More like 200 plus pictures!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CAcreeks
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,816
Like?
Re: yellodog ...
In reply to yellodog, Apr 15, 2013

Definite improvement with Lightroom! Looks like you used primarily luminance noise reduction. The X20 JPEGs show an unfortunate amount of black spotting.

yellodog wrote:

To the best of my knowledge I haven't seen that film but the name must have come from somewhere...

There is also the "yellow dog Democrat" meaning a US Democratic party member who often votes with the Republicans.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Photofreak7
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,703
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to pookeyblow, Apr 15, 2013

pookeyblow wrote:

I'm tired of these haters who haven't even tried the camera themselves.

I don't hate the X20 ... in fact Fuji has been innovative in the last few years. However for the price of the X20 I'm simply saying that I expect better OOC results but otherwise is looks great. If the jpgs were better (and video) and the price were $499 then I'd be onboard. And no I don't own one but I've seen and heard enough from owners on this forum to not get one at this point.

-- hide signature --

Don't feed or mess with the crazy person ... just take a photo and walk away ... just walk away man!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nukunukoo
Regular MemberPosts: 353Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to Grobb, Apr 15, 2013

Playing with imaginary numbers again. Exaggerate much?

 Nukunukoo's gear list:Nukunukoo's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Nikon D300S Nikon D800E Nikon D7100 Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC APO OS HSM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Grobb
Senior MemberPosts: 1,229Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to Nukunukoo, Apr 15, 2013

Are you saying I could not possibly have viewed at least 200 images from taken from the X20 on not only DPR and many other review websites and forums on the Internet to make my determination?

PS, are you stalking me now?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nukunukoo
Regular MemberPosts: 353Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to Grobb, Apr 15, 2013

No.

 Nukunukoo's gear list:Nukunukoo's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Nikon D300S Nikon D800E Nikon D7100 Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC APO OS HSM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
max metz
Senior MemberPosts: 2,644
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to yellodog, Apr 15, 2013

Viewed at original size it's easy to see the benefit of your processing mate. Good stuff. I imagine the rather handsome young man takes after his mother! lol Best to you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Absolutic
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,745Gear list
Like?
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison
In reply to Grobb, Apr 16, 2013

tron555 wrote:

More like 200 plus pictures!

Did not I post a bunch of low light JPEG photos taken in JPEG with X20 a while back?  Like this for example:

ISO1000

ISO1250

ISO1600

These were JPEGS I took casually in low light restaurant, these are not converted RAWS and they are at at ISO1000-1600.   Not good enough for you?  Or you choose to inglore these in your assessment?

 Absolutic's gear list:Absolutic's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Fujifilm X-T1 Sony a6000 Sony Alpha 7 II Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads