Just Posted: Fujifilm X20 review

So they replaced the orbs with the green smudge. Way to go Fuji.

The cons
"Video quality not as good as other high-end compacts"

this camera has 60fps for video, which camera is high end that Dpreview mention?

also for me strength in "optics performance" x10 better then X20" (compare the result) both camera using same lens, but why X10 highest poin with x20

anyone can help to explain?

Re: Jpeg engine regress ...

I guess the situation might be salvageable by FW update. These are the problems wrt noise reduction:

- chroma denoising induces excessive chroma (esp. red) bleeding. This may be caused either by insufficiently careful calibration of the algorithm or its general undersophistication.

- luma noise NR seems hard-treshholded. It either obliterates any noise together with any details, or keeps the details (& noise) intact. This trait of the NR algorithm leads to both excessive smearing and the artifacts (especially in the form of blackpepper-like dots).

Looking at RAWs, there seems to be nothing to prevent the X20 to utilize similar NR routines that were present in X10.

I think part of the problem is that Fujifilm made some claims that the new X-Trans sensor would allow IQ similar to the RX100 and 12 mp m43 cameras. Much was also made of the video being upgraded to 1080p60 at 36 mbps.

I paid top dollar to get an X20 from abroad before they hit the stores here. The AF system and VF are huge improvements. X20 AF in low-light is about as fast and accurate as my Nikon V1. Terrific. The problem for me was RAW files were slightly noisy vs the X10 and the JPEG engine was a big step back from the totally usable JPEGs of the X10.

So sadly I sold it, and now have a Nikon P330, which is not quite as nice to shoot with, but is much smaller, and has wonderful IQ, basically the same files you'd get from the class leading P7700. So I'm happy in one sense, but also sad about the Fuji X P&S line. Had high hopes for the X20.

Retro fans look at the Pentax MX-1 which has stunningly good IQ for a compact, with great OOC JPEGs and clean, detailed RAWs.

Humm,
Was looking for it to upgrade my X10, because of the faster AF, and OVF overlay.

But disapointed with the pictures, even at 100 ISO textures are out, folliage, grass are bad ..
Perhaps more definition on a studio scene but in the pictures, I really prefer the look of the EXR's ones
It's nearly like "Sony P&S look" smearing and oversharpened :(

X20 is an exemplary case of manufacturer listening too carefully to their customers. X10 was often criticised for its limited resolving power, and since (in popular mind) Fuji owned the means to achieve the high resolution results - the X-Trans - people demanded X10's successor to be equiped with X-Trans.

While X-Trans worked for APS-C very well, in the (diffraction & noise limited) world of small sensors there are other contraints - besides OLP (AA) filter- in the way of achieving very high resolution results. And indeed, X20 yields no more lph than Bayers (such as G15 or XZ-2).

It is futile to hope for hi-res from small sensors. Here Fuji's EXR made much more sense, as it was quite successful in combating other small-sensor limitations: it extended DR considerably or provided somewhat better color separation in low-light situations.

Even if Fuji wanted to sacrifice the EXR benefits for resolution, why did it go the X-Trans instead of Bayer ?

Brilliant job with the noise reduction samples! It definitely gave a great impression of what JPEG shooters will need to tweak as they use this camera. I was worried, but the -2 NR shots were quite crispy in relation to the apocalypse-level fear spreading around the forums.

I don't know. Go to the RAW comparison studio shot. Replace the Olympus P&S there with an OM-D, or any cheap DSLR. They just clobber these P&S's, even at 100 ISO there is noticeably better resolution. With used NEX-3's and 5's going for $250-$350, or (like I saw the other day) a Panasonic G3 open box with lens for $275, I'd be hard-pressed to spend $599 on a P&S.

dpreview rating system is quite messed up. I just don't understand how the 77% points come up for X20.

If comparing X20 against Nikon J1. They are in the same price range(even considering J1 price 2 years ago, now J1 is half of the initial list price).

J1 has bigger sensor 1" vs 2/3"
J1 has much faster AF, especially continuous AF system.
J1 has better video quality.
J1 better picture quality at low ISO and high ISO with its default kit lens.
J1 is half of X20 price now

J1 only got 67% rating. What a joke!

Based on X20 current price, X20 should be compared against J3(same price range), which has faster AF, higher MP than J1. I am not sure when J3 is reviewed by dpreview. what the rating will be given to J3 ? Shouldn't be well above 80% if X20 got 77% now.

For me the X20 is some kind of a mixed bag: The ergonomics are great for a compact camera, also like the versatility of the zoom lens.

I can accept that due to the shutter type it only offers 1/1000 s at F2. So in bright light conditions at the beginning I rather worked with "P" until I found out that in P the aperture is closed down to F8 or F9, e. g. P selects F9 at 1/800s while F5 and 1/2500s would still be possible. And I think beyond F5.6 diffraction starts to be an issue. So I tried out which are the shortest possible times at certain apertures and calculated the exposure value:

F2.0 + 1/1000s = EV 12
F2.8 + 1/1200s = EV 13,2
F4.0 + 1/2000s = EV 15
F5.0 + 1/2500s = EV 15,9
F7.1 + 1/3000s = EV 17,2
F9.0 + 1/4000s = EV 18,3

Another issue is IQ, especially in JPEGs, RAW results with Silkypix and/or LR4.4 are ok, but definitely not better than from my Pentax Q or Ricoh GRD4, to say the least. Would love to see a FW update for the JPEG output and the P-line.

How can this come so close to the mighty RX100? - 77% vs 78%
And why can it not be compared to the RX100? they are the same category and similar price ranges

Nikon D600 still better image quality at ISO 6400 than X20 at 100.
That is what you get. Much closer to my phonecam than anything. Doa.

Thank you DPR for reviewing a relevant camera and in a timely fashion! :-)

I realize both reviews were done by different people, but I don't understand why the comparison tool (on the conclusion page) shows much better IQ - especially in raw - and better video for the X20 than the G15, when this is clearly not the case even from reading your review.
Is that why the X20 got a better % score???

I don't really understand why this review didn't mention one very obvious issue with X20: you can't use shutter faster than 1/1000 when using aperture 2.0 or similar. This is a big problem when taking pictures in a sunshine.

Odd thing is that Fuji's marketing PROMISED the X20 to be superior in DR and SNR to both the G1X and RX100...and it lags pretty far behind both.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3378827

Thanks again for not popping up the link to the review in a new tab. It's good to see you as a responsible net publisher!

Poor Greens and smeary jpegs are why I returned the X20.
If Fuji issues a firmware fix then I'll buy another but until then I'm sticking to the X10 and RX100 as my compact choices.

Lovely camera to use though ; just a shame about the jpegs.
RAWs were fine and look great on LR4.4

I just don't get how anyone would get a camera that doesn't produce a decent RAW conversion from the typical software. Any of the current competitors like the Canon G15, the Oly or the Nikon P7700 produce much better results.

Same lens, but the X-10 scores higher in the optics department.
Same flash, but the X-10 scores lower in the flash performance department.
Worse and more aggressive noise reduction at high ISO, but the X-10 scores MUCH higher in low-light/high ISO performance.
Also, the X-20 has a faster burst rate, faster focusing and shorter lock-up times, and yet the X-10 scores higher in the performance (speed) department.

Hmmm... curious indeed.

Other than that, nice review of a very beautiful camera!

From the "Conclusion-Pros":"Solid build quality with retro design".
How can "retro design" (a personal preference) be considered a "Pro"?

...and I find it now an established Fujifilm characteristic that their cameras have problems reproducing blues and reds.

Firetruck-red is definitely NOT that shade.

Disappointing IQ. I don't know much about RAW converters, so I'm wondering if any one thinks the X20 could match the G15 in IQ with better RAW conversion? it seems like a great camera to use, if only the output could match that standard.

Hmm, a bit to much copy and paste for my liking. Ex. the Raw download states:

"... and judge the capabilities of the D7100 for yourself."

Say what?

I really like what Fuji have done with this design. The X10 was a joy to operate, but had sub-par image quality in my opinion.

Now along comes this. Side by side, it's still a great body design.

But seeing the images along side the LX7 is disgraceful--the LX7 ROMPS this for image quality at every ISO. Sure makes XTrans seem like a joke.

Fascinating X10-X20 comparison shots on page 8.

I resized from 4000 to 2000 pixel baseline, nudged the X10 contrast up by 20%. The images then looked identical to me. I would say, also, that at 100% full resolution the smudging artifacts were worse for the X20 than for the X10.

In all, I can't say I'm sold on X-trans for this sensor size at least.

I think it's a good review, and it looks like Fuji have addressed one of the weaknesses of the x10 - AF speed and accuracy. However, the loss of EXR mode (especially the DR benefits) probably doesn't make up for it, for me.

My view of the samples is that IQ is fractionally behind competitors (at low ISO), but basically in the same range.

If there's one thing I've learned, it's that small differences in IQ in 100% crops just aren't a major issue when selecting a camera. AF, viewfinder, ergonomics (inc. menus etc) can make the difference between a shot ruined/missed, and a shot that's good. After that, a small difference in IQ just isn't that much of a big deal.

At the price, it's not worth trading in my X10 for, but it looks like a good camera for many enthusiasts. The manual zoom alone makes up for the slight softness IMO.

There was one single test that I cared about and that was to see how the Dynamic Range of the small X-Trans sensor in the X20 compared to the EXR sensor in the X10.

And while dpreview tested DR in the X10 it was omitted in the X20 review. WHY?

The result is real junk...XZ-2 is far better.

The RAW output is very soft, quite strange for a sensor with no AA filter.

One of the most powerful features of the X10 and X20 series is the ability to capture four rapid shots of a darkly lit scene at one press of a shutter button, and the camera interpolates the 4 images into 1 image with less noise and faster shutter speeds than normal.
What normally would be a very dark and noisy image is rendered bright and clean by the camera engine.
This, and combined with a very fluid manually operated zoom lens, make this intrepid midget a powerhouse journalistic mojo.

.

RAW quality appears to be worse than all of the competition! The output is simply soft. This is clearly apparent using the studio comparison tool. This should be clearly stated in the conclusion of the review. I could never consider such a camera, even though in other respects the camera is interesting.