lawamainn: Way too expensive, limited usage (fixed 23mm), low resolution.....Compared to, say, A6000, it seems pretty miserable! Why did Fuji make this camera?
No, I haven't read any of your posts above. Just responding to your comment that the x100t can't print larger than 16x10 at 300 dpi. It can, but any print larger than this will have to have its pixels mathematically interpolated from the original 16MP of course. But do we really need one pixel per dot to have a sharp image? Whether or not putting more pixels on the same size sensor can help depends on the quality of the pixels. Sampling the sensor more finely reduces the quality of each sample, though they are getting better every year. Can you interpolate to 27x20 and be "pin sharp" as mentioned? I don't know. I guess it depends on what one considers sharp. Some people think 4K video is sharp. That's only about 8MP per frame, and often on a display that's 60 inches wide. Go figure?
Actually, at 300 dots per inch linearly (90,000 dots per square inch) a 16x10 image would be 14.4 Megapixels. The X100T has over 16 MP, so more than necessary for a 16x10 print. Why do you think more MP would help here?
Squirrel7: I just downloaded the RAW studio test image for the X-T1 and X100T to investigate this further and what I see is that they are identical in the center but the X100T is much softer around the whole perimeter. I would have thought you got a bad sample, but the X100S seems the same. Then I noticed that the X-T1 image was shot at 56mm whereas the X100 is of course 23mm, so you must have been much closer to the target. I know that the X100 does not do well at close distances wide open, but these shots were at f/5.6. It is hard to believe there is so much edge softness at this aperture. I wonder is this normal for 23mm? Are there some other cameras listed that were captured at this focal length for comparison?
I agree. It is not good to compare one camera at 56mm and the other at 23. The camera is in a completely different position. I wonder how the X100 lens compares to other 23mm lenses at this distance? Have you seen a comparison?
I have owned the a6000 and x100t, and the only way I could get images from the a6000 that approached the IQ of the fuji was in RAW, and even then I liked the fuji slightly better because the lens is better than the kit a6000 lens at 23mm. Fuji has an excellent sensor, and if you put a good lens on it it should easily be able to out perform the x100t, but even then I would have had to exclusively shoot in RAW in order to get around Sony's jpeg limits (I could not balance sharpening and noise reduction in a way I liked). It's nice to not always have to shoot RAW and do the associated pp that goes along with that. That is one of the benefits of the fuji for some people. SO to answer the question why did Fuji make this camera, I think it was to put all the best features possible together in as small a package as they could with the understanding that there will be only one focal length. For people who hold IQ and size paramount above zoom or ICL it can be an excellent choice.
What was the actual distance from camera to target for the X100T/S shots?
I just downloaded the RAW studio test image for the X-T1 and X100T to investigate this further and what I see is that they are identical in the center but the X100T is much softer around the whole perimeter. I would have thought you got a bad sample, but the X100S seems the same. Then I noticed that the X-T1 image was shot at 56mm whereas the X100 is of course 23mm, so you must have been much closer to the target. I know that the X100 does not do well at close distances wide open, but these shots were at f/5.6. It is hard to believe there is so much edge softness at this aperture. I wonder is this normal for 23mm? Are there some other cameras listed that were captured at this focal length for comparison?
When I compared the test images of the X100T with the E-M5 and a few others I was disappointed at first because the X100T images looked soft. This surprised me because I own the X100T and the Nikon D7100 and I find the X100T's images are about equal in IQ when viewed at the same size, so I know the X100T performs better than these samples suggest. Then I downloaded your RAW file for the the studio test shot with the X100T and when I opened it in LR with Camera Standard profile it looked better than the E-M5 (jpeg) except in the corners. Still not sure why the E-M5 should ever look better. I think something may be a little off in the comparison process somewhere. For example, the E-M5 RAW seems to have significantly more sharpening applied to it than the X100T RAW on this site. Anyway, something seems to be out of balance in the comparison. I noticed the same on the X100S, yet the X-T1 looks sharper. These have the same sensor and the X100T lens is extremely good at f/5.6 as shoot. Hmm.
RickPanoply: They can have my Capture NX-2 with Color Efex 3 addon, both with Control Points/paintbrush masking, for selective D-lighting (or other filters) control on the NEF file when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Everything else is "make do with Photoshop" vs "have access to the camera settings on the NEF file" + 3rd party software eg, Color Efex, etc.
Capture NX-D is one giant leap backwards, and View NX is no improvement.
I agree wholeheartedly. There is no substitute for Capture NX2 in my opinion. I am so sad that the new D7200 will not be usable with NX2. I was going to buy one, but now I will probably buy a D7100 since it is the last camera to be supported in NX2. What a shame. I guess the only other option is to try to edit in NX-D or move to LR, but I so enjoy being able to basically adjust all the camera's settings in post with the same algorithms Nikon is using, and of course to start with the in-camera jpeg, and the wonderful format of storing change lists inside the original NEF file rather than in sidecar files is brilliant! As is the updated embedded jpeg. Why abandon this?