Previous news story    Next news story

Studio comparison pages added to Fujifilm X100S Preview

By dpreview staff on Mar 27, 2013 at 22:58 GMT

We've just added three pages of studio test data to our preview of the Fujifilm X100S, following the publication of a gallery of real-world samples, last week. The X100S is the successor to the popular X100, and offers a fixed 35mm (equiv.) F2 lens, and a version of Fujifilm's APS-C format X-Trans sensor with hybrid phase-detection AF. A host of other, smaller improvements should make the X100S a considerably more appealing camera than its predecessor. Click through for a link to the updated preview to see for yourself how it compares to its peers in our studio.

Click here to see the X100S compared to its peers in our studio comparison widget
762
I own it
626
I want it
183
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 76
zinedi
By zinedi (Apr 2, 2013)

For me this the first mirrorless camera worth the bucks. X100 was a pubescent child, but did me a lot of pleasure too. The IQ is excellent, top-class member, useless effort is to compare it with microscope, when there are many other factors for sex-appeal of every PHOTOGRAPHIC camera.
In fact - it is incomparable untill there is another competitor that will be able to produce similar hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinder mirorrless digital range-finder.
Competitors' mirrorless cameras are mostly blind viewfinderless and slow optic Wifi/Hifi/Eyefi gadgets. But Fuji is dedicated to photographers' needs and desires. Thanks to Fuji.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
GeekyGal
By GeekyGal (Apr 18, 2013)

Despite it's high price tag, it seems to be worth it with all the features you get. If you take a look at the comparison chart here http://www.squidoo.com/fujifilm-x100s-review, you can see how the x100s stack up against similar and (not-so-similar) competing cameras.

The only downside is when you want flexibility in terms of lenses. If you do, then better get an interchangeable lens camera. But for those who want to travel light (like me), the x100s is gold.

0 upvotes
CeleryBeats
By CeleryBeats (Mar 29, 2013)

This Camera is so going to get a gold award!

5 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Mar 29, 2013)

About half the comments find the photos the best thing since sliced bread and the other half find them mediocre to awful.
Which proves once again that you simply cannot assess photographs posted to the web with any degree of credibility. There are too many variables, starting with the calibration or lack of it of the viewer's monitor.
This kind of posting -- and the comments -- are useless.

0 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 29, 2013)

The first paragraph was spot on, thereafter you lost me. This thing trances any Canon full frame, any Nikon Full frame except the D4 - any one who can't see that just thinks the lack of string on the lens cap is a deal breaker.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 29, 2013)

D800 looks quite good, too...

Basically I agree with the OP, but the varying opinions are not facts, but usually partisan/fanboy comments from people for whom photography is more brand religion, source of insecurity from possibly buying decisions and safe way to went anger caused by meaningless life. Go out and make art with the tools you have, and meditate...

2 upvotes
austin design
By austin design (Apr 1, 2013)

digby, do you really mean "trances" (vs. trounces)?

The reason I ask is because it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that the X100S trounces "...any Nikon Full frame (sic) except the D4". Consult one of the best test-points of the comparison tool, the pink dots within the feathers at the lower right of the test scene; @ ISO-100, the D800 undeniably "trounces" the X100S -- precisely as we would expect it to.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
d3xmeister
By d3xmeister (Mar 28, 2013)

Comprison widget, and gallery slideshow not compatible with iOS. really dpreview, are you in 2013 or 2006 ?

2 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Mar 28, 2013)

you've got it backwards again. iOS needs to support Flash.

5 upvotes
PhotonZ
By PhotonZ (Mar 28, 2013)

Flash is consistent across multiple platforms but lets hope DPR can adapt the widget to HTML5.

If Flash ran on iOS, then forget about good battery life.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Stephen_C
By Stephen_C (Mar 29, 2013)

I used have that problem with Flash, then I got an Android.

4 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (Mar 29, 2013)

@Stephen, most recent versions of Android also come sans Flash. Granted, you can manually sideload it and it will work with some (not all) browsers but that's something that normal user won't have expertise and inclination to do.

0 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 29, 2013)

It's 2013.

0 upvotes
fz750
By fz750 (Mar 29, 2013)

yes, 2013 and Apple still does not support flash...

1 upvote
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Mar 29, 2013)

Flash is a third-party application that is cr*ptastic on all other platforms than Windows, with various excuses why. It's a third-party product, so of course Apple is not "supporting" it any more than e.g. Microsoft or Google is. It's Adobe's choice to port it to whatever platforms they see fit. Just switch to HTML5 already.

0 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (Mar 29, 2013)

Actually Adobe, the Flash maker, announced last year that they stopped Flash development and support for all mobile platforms including Android. Rabid but uninformed Apple haters should take a notice.

0 upvotes
d3xmeister
By d3xmeister (Apr 3, 2013)

Or is dpreview not supporting the by far most used mobile browser: Safari on iOS. Lots of blind haters and this is the proof.

0 upvotes
chrisalpen
By chrisalpen (Mar 28, 2013)

Here is the link to a new X100S Review on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AujMwTKFO7s

1 upvote
SRT3lkt
By SRT3lkt (Mar 28, 2013)

no english subs?

0 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (Mar 28, 2013)

A one hour video review!

I think I know just about everything about this camera there is to know
If you can understand German, and you're curious about the x100s, strongly recommended.

Thanks, Chris.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
chrisalpen
By chrisalpen (Mar 30, 2013)

@SRT3lkt Sorry, german only, but the test photos speak every language. Find the link below the video :-)

But I know, there are a lot of germans, following this site, so I thought it might be interesting for them.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
entertainment
By entertainment (Mar 28, 2013)

Fujifilm X100S has the disadvantage of having a fairly high price but the quality is the appointment

1 upvote
xMichaelx
By xMichaelx (Mar 28, 2013)

It looks like English, but the words seem to be chosen randomly...

6 upvotes
SoulPedro
By SoulPedro (Mar 28, 2013)

Everybody can't study at Oxford. Or even be english or american.

1 upvote
SRT3lkt
By SRT3lkt (Mar 28, 2013)

or could just be another form of entertainment.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 29, 2013)

little quality/value (cost-performance) as a camera.
some value as a fashion item (depending on your taste).

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Pablo4
By Pablo4 (Mar 28, 2013)

To my eyes, at base ISO (where I shoot 90% of shots) the camera produces mushy RAW pictures. There is definitely some NR going on, or the sensor/lens isn't that great as fanboys would like. Just look at it and compare to the NEX 5N, 7, Olympus XZ-1 or M5. All cameras I had are sharper. Yuck, no thanks.

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Mar 28, 2013)

Have you taken the DoF into account? A 35mm must be shot closer to the scene, which gives a shallower DoF. Since the test setup isn't flat, you get larger areas out of focus.

3 upvotes
Chris Crevasse
By Chris Crevasse (Mar 28, 2013)

"Have you taken the DoF into account? A 35mm must be shot closer to the scene, which gives a shallower DoF. Since the test setup isn't flat, you get larger areas out of focus."

Not true, unless the aperture varies. Given the same aperture, framing (without cropping), and sensor size, the DOF of all focal lengths is the same.

3 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Mar 28, 2013)

@Pablo:
Wrong impression. You need to read the whole review. A simple RAW comparison cannot tell the truth about the true performance.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Zdman
By Zdman (Mar 28, 2013)

@Chris Yes you're right but objects that are behind the focal point will appear larger on a longer focal length and seem more our of focus even though they are blurred by the exact same amount as the short focal length. It shouldn't make much of a difference here though and its most likely some field curvature.

1 upvote
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Mar 28, 2013)

A lot of the mushiness is due to Adobe's rendering of the X-Trans sensor. A different sharpening method is needed, so "standardized" tests fall apart. If you apply a starting point of 35/.9/45 to the X100S, it becomes incredibly sharp. But DPRs methods take out ACR sharpening, and go with a base Unsharp Mask.

2 upvotes
wexie
By wexie (Mar 28, 2013)

As per R. Butler down below:

"Bear in mind the wide lens on the X100S means we have to shoot very close to our test target, so depth-of-field is shallower than for most cameras."

0 upvotes
Chris Crevasse
By Chris Crevasse (Mar 28, 2013)

R. Butler is mistaken. DOF is the same, within small percentages, for all focal lengths given the same aperture, framing, and sensor size. If anything, a wider lens shot close to a target will give slightly greater DOF than a longer lens shot farther away from the target. This can be confirmed by the DOF calculator of your choice. I agree with Zdman that the background and foreground will appear different with different focal lengths, but the DOF will effectively be the same.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Mar 28, 2013)

You're right - I'd somehow not taken into account the fact we're doing our best to mimic the framing of the scene. The issue is the rendering of the out-of-focus regions, not the depth of field.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Paul Guba
By Paul Guba (Mar 28, 2013)

After some comparison of raw files it seemed pretty evident that for less money you can find a camera that will give you very comparable results in the m 4/3 format and have access to some very nice quality lenses. My aging Olympus is not as good clearly but its not so much worse that I would want to buy this camera.

2 upvotes
joe talks photography
By joe talks photography (Mar 28, 2013)

Comparable results? Sure, you can compare them, but this camera as superior output potential than current top end m43.

0 upvotes
Pablo4
By Pablo4 (Mar 28, 2013)

Maybe at ISO6400 that no sane person cares for eitherway... m4/3 cams have IBIS that gives you at least 2 stops. Still want to compare ISO1600 from m4/3 to ISO6400?

1 upvote
Paul Guba
By Paul Guba (Mar 28, 2013)

Pull up the E-P3 or the even my old E-P1. Not remarkably different or better. Keep in mind the Olympus test was shot with the kit lens which is actually quite good but not stellar. I am thinking you put the Panasonic 20mm on and your neck and neck. Yeah the Fuji might be better but it is twice the price and I can't change lenses. Personally could care less about high iso rarely shoot in caves. Your free to part with your money any way you wish.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 28, 2013)

20/1.7 isn't a good lens. it's a good m4/3" lens.

0 upvotes
photofan1986
By photofan1986 (Mar 28, 2013)

yabokkie continuing his ridiculous 4/3 crusade...

1 upvote
CeleryBeats
By CeleryBeats (Mar 28, 2013)

To my eye it looks cleaner then the RX-1 in RAW-6400iso. That's just amazing.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
1 upvote
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 29, 2013)

It is; especially as the x100s is 1/2 the price, smaller and beautifully built.

1 upvote
SRT3lkt
By SRT3lkt (Mar 28, 2013)

APS-C sized sensors without LP filter, fewer pixel count than D7100, fast fixed focal length lens etc... should perform really good, otherwise nice looking marginal camera.

1 upvote
joe talks photography
By joe talks photography (Mar 28, 2013)

it is really interesting to read takes like yours. Marginal indeed for some, however, for those wanting a camera of this sort, it is hardly marginal.

1 upvote
SRT3lkt
By SRT3lkt (Mar 28, 2013)

If the camera perform really good (IQ wise) then I think it is good camera, I'm not judging so the sentence is conditional.

0 upvotes
mauro paillex
By mauro paillex (Mar 28, 2013)

got it! an absolute upgrade! Great camera, great menus and great image quality! But the autofocus sometimes continues to fail!!!!!

1 upvote
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 28, 2013)

Looking at the Kodak model's lips and bottom eye lashes the raw files are a bit more saturated and detailed at iso6400 with the X100s than the older x-trans/exr processor cameras, Fuji never stop still. Impressive.

ps. I like the way you do your test shots Mr Butler, respect.

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Mar 28, 2013)

I choose K-5IIs to compare and I see K-5IIs is simply better.

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
1 upvote
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 28, 2013)

I am pleased for you.

5 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Mar 28, 2013)

Good job, you successfully compared a compact rangefinder to a DSLR and have concluded that they are very different cameras

5 upvotes
avicenanw
By avicenanw (Mar 28, 2013)

Comparing images isn't comparing cameras. Both cameras have APS-C sized sensors and without AA filter. The Fuji X100s is better than most APS-C DSLRs. Pentax K-5IIs may be sharper but more prone to moire in certain situations than the Fuji X100s.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
joe talks photography
By joe talks photography (Mar 28, 2013)

I loved my K5 and have followed the IIs. Pentax doesn't handle red very well. Great detail though and great camera that is under appreciated. Not same kind of camera, right?

0 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Mar 28, 2013)

I chose the K-5 IIs as the closest competitor and I think they are extremely close when it comes to image quality. I think statements like "K-5 II is simply better" is not possible, just like the opposite statement. X100s is generally one of the best APSC cameras (if not the best) and only a couple of others can compete (e.g. the K-5 II) and it is really close to FF (the difference between X100s and 5D Mk. III is minimal) and whether the X100s gets 80% by DxO or 81% is irrelevant.

1 upvote
Cheezr
By Cheezr (Mar 28, 2013)

How are you converting the RAW files? Or should I only be looking at the JPEG's?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Mar 28, 2013)

It's explained at the top of the Raw comparison page:

Load RAW file into Adobe Camera RAW (Auto mode disabled)
Match Exposure and White Balance
Set Sharpness and Noise Reduction to 0
Open file to Photoshop
Apply a Unsharp mask: 100%, Radius 0.6, Threshold 0
Save as a JPEG quality 11 for display and download.
1 upvote
RStyga
By RStyga (Mar 28, 2013)

You do apply an unsharp mask of 100% 0.6 radius?? And X100S' RAW still looks that soft?? Oh boy...

By the way, wouldn't it be better to apply sharpness before opening it to Photoshop, i.e., in the ACR window?

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
bpatient
By bpatient (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Butler, I think that these files demonstrate the clear limitations of your Raw comparison procedures.

3 upvotes
Cheezr
By Cheezr (Mar 28, 2013)

I guess i am just surprised by the poor quality of the raw files compared to other aps-c cameras. Thus, my questions meant, are these final raw quality or is it a beta convertor or are the raw files just that lousy?

1 upvote
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Mar 28, 2013)

It's pretty clear that the X-Trans sensor when developed by Adobe, requires a different sharpening strategy. Base settings for Bayer sensors is 25/1.0/25 I believe. X-Trans responds well to something like 35-50/0.5-0.9/50-100, depending on tastes.

0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Mar 28, 2013)

The X100S JPEG engine is phenomenal. I cannot remember any camera, irrespective of category, producing JPEG images with equal amount of detail to its RAW counterpart. X100 is almost as good in this respect but I feel this one pushed it even further. Impressive!!

1 upvote
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Mar 28, 2013)

Who was it, Ryan Brenizer I think, who shot with the X100 for a while and found that he was pleased enough with the JPEGS; their detail, color rendering and ISO performance, that he ended up shooting mostly JPEGs during a wedding. Now with a better sensor and awesome AF it's just asking to be my second camera~

2 upvotes
Arcade Original
By Arcade Original (Mar 27, 2013)

Hey R Butler, curiously when can we see the official DPreview x100s review?

Thx kindly,
AO

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Mar 28, 2013)

I'm afraid I'm not writing the review, so I don't know. It's still in its early stages but it is being worked on.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Mar 28, 2013)

Soon.

3 upvotes
joe talks photography
By joe talks photography (Mar 27, 2013)

Maybe it's my monitor but I didn't pick up on the issue noted at the low end of the ISO range for JPEGs. I can see a certain lack of detail on some items. I am ready to push to 'buy' button and adjust to shooting with a fixed lens for output like this appears capable of.

0 upvotes
DonSantos
By DonSantos (Mar 27, 2013)

Until dpreview can control their lighting and account for iso overstating these comparisons are useless.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Mar 27, 2013)

Our lighting is pretty consistent, just not consistent enough to conduct an ISO accuracy test with (and this scene wouldn't allow that, even if it was).

Secondly, ISO mis-stating is not particularly common and is very rarely more than 1/3rd EV. We cover it in the review, but is simply isn't very important in this shot - showing one shot 1/3rd darker wouldn't suddenly tell you significantly more.

4 upvotes
xeriwthe
By xeriwthe (Mar 27, 2013)

Hi Mr. Butler,

Regarding ISO, from what I can tell the ISO is overstated by 1 stop at high ISO. For example, at an exposure of 1/500s f/8.0, the X100s is at ISO3200, while the NEX7 is at ISO1600. The images appear to be the same brightness, so wouldn't this be a 1 stop ISO inflation?

Not that I don't think the X100s is still better in some ways at ISO1600 vs ISO3200 on the NEX7, but it seems to be a significant difference in ISO reporting

4 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Mar 28, 2013)

The X100S is using the same shutter speeds as the X-Pro1, which we measured as being between 1/3rd and 1/2 EV under-sensitive, whereas the NEX-7 we measured as being around 1/3rd over-sensitive, so around a 1EV difference (with some drift in the lighting and a +/- 1/6th margin of error), sounds about right.

However, what these shots show is what your images will look like if you aim for the same brightness at any given ISO. The required shutter speed to achieve this is something we'll cover in the full review.

Our forthcoming test scene will address some of these issues but it won't be an ISO test (mainly because it isn't how ISO is measured - where measurable).

6 upvotes
DonSantos
By DonSantos (Mar 28, 2013)

I would rather have a chart that compares similar exposures than iso number.

Set aperture to f8 always. Instead of comparing iso numbers we can compare shutter speeds. If you have to do f11 in a test you can assign an exposure number to each exposure.

f8 1/60 = #1
f8 1/125 = #2
f8 1/250 = #3
f8 1/500 = #4
f8 1/1000 = #5

f11 1/30 = # 1
f11 1/60 = #2
f11 1/125 = #3
f11 1/250 = #4
f11 1/500 = #5

1 upvote
smatty
By smatty (Mar 28, 2013)

Everyone needs to take the lens T-Stop value of the lens into account! It can make a 2/3 f-stop difference, too.

I saw this for myself when I compared tow 35mm lenses on the X-Pro 1:

http://www.fujixfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-good-is-fuji-xf-35mm-f14-r-lens.html

2 upvotes
Rob P
By Rob P (Mar 27, 2013)

Why does the link unnecessarily open in a new tab/window? Please stop doing this, DPReview.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (Mar 28, 2013)

So you can go back to the main dpreview site easily. This allows greater flexibility and options. You can easily close the other site if it bothers you.

4 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Mar 28, 2013)

Far out.

0 upvotes
Rob P
By Rob P (Apr 2, 2013)

You can go back using the browser's Back button, that's why it's there. Or using a keyboard shortcut. Or a mouse gesture. Or, god forbid, using the navigation links at the top of the site! That's why they're there as well.

Occasionally there is a good reason for doing it, but in this case there isn't.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 76