Previous page Next page

Fujifilm X100S Review

July 2013 | By Barney Britton, Andy Westlake
Buy on GearShop


Review based on a production X100S with firmware 1.03

When Fujifilm announced its FinePix X100 retro-styled compact at Photokina 2010, it instantly captured the imagination of serious photographers. With its fixed 23mm F2 lens and SLR-sized APS-C sensor, it offered outstanding image quality, while its 'traditional' dial-based handling and innovative optical/electronic 'hybrid' viewfinder gave a shooting experience reminiscent of rangefinder cameras. On launch its firmware was riddled with frustrating bugs and quirks, but a series of updates transformed it into a serious photographic tool. Certain flaws remained, apparently too deeply embedded into the hardware to be fixable, but despite this, it counts as something of a cult classic.

The X100S sees Fujifilm revisiting the concept, but while the external design is essentially unchanged, it's a very different camera inside. It uses a 16.3MP X-Trans CMOS sensor similar to that seen in the interchangeable lens X-Pro1 and X-E1 models, but now with on-chip phase detection promising much-improved autofocus speed. This is supported by a new processor, the 'EXR Processor II', which includes a new 'Lens Modulation Optimizer' function. According to Fujifilm this 'overcomes' lens aberrations such as diffraction and peripheral aberrations, and should give improved image quality at the largest and smallest apertures. The electronic viewfinder has been upgraded to a higher-resolution 2.35M dot display (from 1.44M dot); however this isn't the OLED unit used in the X-E1, but an LCD instead.

Two additional manual focus aids are available when using the EVF or LCD - a focus 'peaking' display that outlines in-focus elements, and an all-new 'Digital Split Image focusing' display that uses phase detection data from the sensor, and is designed to offer a similar experience to manual focus film cameras. In addition, the movement sensor on the manual focus ring has been upgraded to detect movement with greater precision - which Fujifilm says will make it more responsive.

The user interface gains all the improvements Fujifilm has made in its X-series cameras over the past few years, including an onscreen 'Q' menu to access major settings, and a much-improved tabbed menu system.

Fujifilm X100S key features

  • Fujifilm-designed 16.3MP APS-C X-Trans CMOS II sensor
  • On-sensor phase detection autofocus
  • Novel color filter array designed to avoid color moiré, no optical low-pass filter
  • EXR Processor II image processor
  • Hybrid optical / electronic viewfinder with 2.35M dot LCD
  • Dedicated dials for shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation
  • Fixed 23mm F2 lens (same as X100)
  • Improved manual focus system (more responsive focus ring, focus peaking and split-image displays)
  • 2.8" 460k dot rear LCD
  • On-screen 'Q' control panel and tabbed menu system
  • Full HD 1080 60p/30p movie recording, (H.264 MOV - 36Mbps bitrate)
  • Socket for electronic remote release/stereo microphone

Aside from these headline features, Fujifilm is promising a whole host of smaller tweaks and improvements covering every aspect of the camera's design and operation - no fewer than 70 in total. Many of these address bugs and quirks highlighted by users and reviewers, demonstrating once again Fujifilm's laudable desire to listen to feedback and learn from it. Some controls have been subtly tweaked, movie mode is much improved, and small but important operability issues have been addressed.

Side-by-side with the Fujifilm X20

Here's the X100S side-by-side with the X20 that Fujifilm announced at the same time (we reviewed it earlier this year). The two cameras are very different beasts, of course, but share a lot of common features, and the family resemblance is obvious.

Here's the X100S alongside the co-announced X20 zoom compact. Both cameras feature X-Trans CMOS sensors with on-chip phase detection AF, optical viewfinders with detailed information overlays, and lots of external controls. Their on-screen user interfaces and menu systems are very similar too. The big difference is that the X20's fast (F2-2.8) 28-112mm equivalent zoom is coupled to a much smaller, 2/3"-type sensor.

Compared to Sony Cyber-shot RX1R

The X100S's most natural peer (forgetting the massive price difference) is Sony's RX1R, which offers a full-frame 24MP CMOS sensor and a similar 35mm (equivalent) F2 lens as the X100S.

The X100S is slightly taller and wider, but on the plus side, it has a better-defined grip, and of course that unique Fujifilm built-in hybrid viewfinder. Given that the RX1R is packing a full-frame sensor inside it though, the Cyber-shot is impressively compact.
From behind, its the X100S's viewfinder that represents the main difference between the two cameras. The rear control cluster on both models is pretty standard, but the RX1R does have a larger display (which partly makes up for the lack of a finder).
From the top, it is very obvious just how big the RX1R's lens is compared to the almost pancake design of the Fujifilm's 23mm F2. Both cameras have manual aperture rings, and external exposure compensation dials, but the X100S also offers a manual shutter speed dial. The RX1R features an exposure mode dial, in the same position.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2013 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
889
I own it
620
I want it
214
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 487
1234
Jack Simpson

With all the negative points in the conclusion, I find difficult to believe that X100s scored higher than Ricoh GR :o Although, I will admit that the X100s looks prettier in the classic rangefinder appearance :)

0 upvotes
Heinz Lepahe

Great review. I have been looking at this for a while, and will be ordering it. A great alternative to the bulk of my Nikon DSLRs for travel, street photography etc

2 upvotes
jxp

I have just bought one, I love it. My DSLR will be on ebay some time soon.

0 upvotes
RichRMA

From now on, when people comment, they should say that they own the particular camera or its predecessor so we can then guess whether an opinion response is tainted or not. :)

10 upvotes
VictorTrasvina

By the way thanks Barney ! Great review ! Very detailed and informative !

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Esoz

Guess what,I bought the X100S right after I read the review XD

3 upvotes
David Hardaway

I just reviewed the sample images that Barney took with the original x100. Night and day difference. The x100 images are very good and with good color and detail. X100s is clearly not an award winning camera so why is the dpreview gold being awarded to a jpg snapshot camera that is grossly overpriced?

5 upvotes
Kevin Patrick

They should change the website name to DHReview. LOL.

3 upvotes
Barney Britton

David, you've made that point several times in the comments already, and you've also sent me three personal emails about the same matter. I respect your opinion, but at this point you're just trolling, whether you realise it or not.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
32 upvotes
ScottD1964

All this negativity coming from someone who's back up camera is an EOS-M. The camera that's one of the biggest dogs of an ILC to come down the pike in years? The camera that Canon lowered the price to $299.00 with a lens? The camera that they're giving you the body for free when you buy the lens just to get it out of their inventory because it's so bad? That's what you use as your basis to slam the images and quality of the X100S? Really?

20 upvotes
Tee1up

Ease off the throttle Davey-boy. Take a card to your favorite camera shop, shoot a bit at the counter and then take it home and play with the images. I was not optimistic either until i did this.

The camera is really beautiful, the AF changes fixed all the things I hated about the X100 and it take a great photo. Saving up for one as I write this.

3 upvotes
zodiacfml

I agree with David which I believe has something to do with the blown out highlights or default exposure of the S.
I believe the x100s has to be underexposed or used with the DR expansion to maintain those highlights. It's as though Fujifilm moved the DR of this camera to the shadow regions.

1 upvote
sarkozy

I'm of the opinion that the image quality of the X100 is still the no. 1. Nevertheless, the X100s earns the gold medal.

1 upvote
DDWD10

@ zodiacfml

I realize that the default tone curve is a bit different on my X-Pro1, but I only seem to encounter "bad" blown highlights shooting at the expanded ISO 100. This is effectively "DR50" as it loses a stop of highlight detail vs the native base ISO of 200.

That said, I have no problem shooting at DR200 or DR400 since there really isn't any shadow noise to speak of at ISO 800, as the review mentions.

0 upvotes
JackM

Douche.

0 upvotes
EduardoJB

I owned the X100, gave it to my daughter when I received the X100S. My main rant with the X100 is that it was slow to focus. I also have an Olympus OM-D and a 5D3. The slowest is the X100S, HOWEVER, the image quality is so good, even at high ISOs (I can use it at night, outdoors, with light from poles, stores and such), that it keeps amazing me. And, I own a Retina Mac, so I can see the quality. The Olympus is also incredible for its size, but is different and hard to describe. It's quite sharp, but the Fuji has a strange combination of sharpness and "creaminess". Now I don't go out with just one camera: it's either the Olympus or the Canon AND always the Fuji. BTW, the ND filter in itself is the great bonus. I live in the Caribbean, without that filter, things would have been different.

1 upvote
xeriwthe

yes, it seems most people don't appreciate the subtlety of the quality of rendering from x-trans cameras. dpreview test images from other cameras may show more 'detail' than the x-100s but there is more to an image than seeing details in sharp relief.

with that said, it seems most people on flickr shoot the x100s jpgs with default NR and shadow settings and as a result there are a lot of kind of the water color smeared detail images that x-trans is apt to produce

0 upvotes
FlickTek

Sample shots on dpreview are always run of the mill. I would never go by those. It is an amazing camera with the best color and dynamic range period.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo

It's comic the number of people on here who haven't used the camera who are slating it. But then this is the internet... A well deserved result for a great camera with amazing image quality.

6 upvotes
David Hardaway

I have owned and used xtrans. Xtrans is horrible.

3 upvotes
dengx

And that's exactly why people use it with great results.
Seriously.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
sgoldswo

Only if you don't know how to process it. Are you seriously suggesting there is anything wrong with these?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/9296275448/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/9196635382/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/9339130632/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/8666783660/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/8664446522/

0 upvotes
dengx

You absolutely need to post it a few more times and send Barney a few more emails. People immediately will stop using Fujifilm cameras or start producing crappy images with them.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
sgoldswo

Does not compute, does not compute... Fatal error.

Sorry David, you sounded a bit like a computer there for a second...

3 upvotes
DDWD10

From David's own listing selling his X-E1:

"...takes fantastic images and video."

Hmm...

4 upvotes
David Hardaway

Unbelievable. This is the first time I have seen such a terrible review. All of the samples are random snaps most likely in auto or program mode and the results are not matching the conclusion. Another point is that the conclusion pros / cons are of little actual value to the reader. Jpegs are excellent? really. A $1,300 camera that is given a Gold Award no less says excellent jpgs. WOW. and that isn't even correct. I looked closely at every single sample image and they are terrible. Same old issue especially the mushiness. I am beside myself with disbelief that the reviewer has any real experience and knowledge in this field. I am sorry to say this because it's not "nice" but this has to be said.

4 upvotes
Kevin Patrick

Wow. Beside yourself with disbelief? Hyperbole much? All for a camera that you have never touched. Too funny.

15 upvotes
sgoldswo
4 upvotes
jdu_sg

Conveniently ignoring the studio comparison shots, are you ? Too lame.

4 upvotes
ScottD1964

Are you just upset that the X100S is as good as it is and you are using an EOS-M or are you upset that you paid full price for your EOS-M before the bottom fell out on the price of a true "dog" of a camera. Sounds like equipment envy.

Anyone who has actually used an X100S at this point will know which portions of the review are acceptable as fact, which are nit picking issues and which (like using inferior RAW processors for your sample images) have no merit at all.

17 upvotes
IchiroCameraGuy

Scott you don't find it hilarious that you need to buy third party software to get what X-Trans fans are saying is proper results? It is already a very expensive camera that does not match the $299 EOS-M in still image or video quality. What is the main purpose of a camera?

All the buttons, dials, hybrid viewfinder, cool styling in the world does not mean anything if their use doesn't provide superior result.

Many people shoot RAW + JPEG and discard RAW file if the exposure is good - Fujifilm has a history of great JPEG on and off but it needs to be on for a $1,000+ camera and it is not. X100S JPEG has almost lost some detail at ISO 800 that the cheap, fail EOS-M has at ISO 3200!

X100S and X-E1 should have better detail than they do with JPEG, bundled software, and Adobe. Still, I am hoping to see a posted source of images converted from the recommended third party software listed all over the comments here - or it is only smoke and mirrors.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
VictorTrasvina

Im sorry but … Why are you: “hoping to see a posted source of images converted from the recommended third party software listed all over the comments here” when you clearly hate this camera as much as you do ? Its just hard to understand why someone would obsess over an item they consider beneath their skill level ?
I did have to buy Apple’s Aperture since i like the way it handles my files a little more than Lightroom but quite frankly i was more than happy to do so as i just consider it an investment but for some estrange reason that seems to bother you more than me… And mind you not a penny ever came out of your pocket … I just don’t get it

0 upvotes
sgoldswo

IchiroCameraGuy... FUD...

Be happy with your EOS-M. Take some pictures. Don't lose the plot...

0 upvotes
VictorTrasvina

Well i think you have said it plenty of time oh almighty one ! Thanks for sharing some of your infinite wisdom upon us puny mortals and PLEASE feel free to move on with your life and grace other forums with your presence and wisdom while millions of us enjoy our false fantasies here… LOL

2 upvotes
ScottD1964

Who's buying third party software for what? Really, for Xtrans results? How about everyone else that shoots RAW on any camera that has a Bayer or Foveon sensor too? Or did Canon/Nikon and all the other manufacturers purchase Adobe, Apple and all the other manufacturers of RAW processing software so they are no longer third party?

Other than Iredient for Mac (which from what I've read trumps just about everything else available for processing X trans files) I've had good results with Silkypix that comes with the camera from Fuji. Never really used the others so I'm not all that concerned with how much better workflow is with the other options. Silypix works fine for me.

Maybe if more people would actually use Silkypix for it's intended purpose rather than complaining about how the workflow isn't as smooth as what they do importing into one program, then working the image in another then complain that the images look muddy or plastic there wouldn't be all this issue.

1 upvote
ScottD1964

Fuji has a great RAW processor for Xtans packaged with the camera. They gave all the needed algorithems to the other software manufacturers. You or anyone else choosing to use a subpar RAW processing program put out by another software company is Fuji's fault in what way?

People should try what is known to work correctly or quit complaining.

As far as video is concerned, Fuji ain't Canikon. They have obviously intended their cameras to be for still images with the option to shoot video. They aren't selling a $1300 camcorder. If I want to shoot video for personal use I'll buy an HD camcorder.

Leica just added video to the new "M" for the first time. How many Leica shooters do you think give two hoots about having video in that camera or said "Oh, I just bought a Leica M9 and I'm so upset because I can't shoot video".

Go play with your EOS-M or NEX for video and let the grown ups enjoy a "real" camera.

2 upvotes
samhain

Lol @ the Canon M. I wouldn't use one if it was free.
The x100/x100s is a work of art that has yet to be copied. That hybrid viewfinder is one of the greatest camera inventions in the past 20 years.

2 upvotes
SETI

Way too hard, man...

0 upvotes
Alejandro del Pielago

Thank you so much, it was very fast...

Wow the results are very exciting!!!

And very funny the photographic apology of Barnaby Britton, but the apology some guys are expecting should be about the no-REVIEWS of Canon EOS-1D X (waiting since 2011) and Nikon D4 (waiting since 2012). If someday those stuff appears, then Barnaby smile will shine twice...

2 upvotes
Tandua

I bought x100s 6 months ago...i like 35mm (equivalent FF) lens

but...I would like x-pro1 + 23 1.4 instead f2 on x100 les(s)

fastest lens on best x-trans DR in the market

IMHO x100s has no future when this combo (or x-e1 + 23 1.4) will be available

0 upvotes
km25

I may get this camera to help round out my Fuji X system. It is a fine "35mm" lens and can double for a point and shoot.

0 upvotes
diforbes

Just some editing quibbles: I see several instances of the mistaken mention of the "S" model when you meant the non S model. FYI.

0 upvotes
JKP

Looks quite interesting. Low noise, even if sharpness is brought to the same level as competition by unsharp mask:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6371254956/photos/2643723/comparison-fuji?inalbum=pics

Chroma noise is almost absent.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled

unsharp mask is called smudging the detail or aggressive noise reduction which is apparent in all of the files from this camera.

0 upvotes
JKP

Well, whatever it is, it does reveal some crispness that is buried under Fuji-fog. Here, X100S has been contrast enhanced and US 0.1/~50% in PhotoScape. Other cameras have been kept untouched.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6371254956/photos/2643836/comparison-fuji3?inalbum=pics

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6371254956/photos/2643837/comparison-fuji2?inalbum=pics

0 upvotes
samhain

Nice review. Maybe I missed it, but- it didn't earn any 'pros' for good high iso?

0 upvotes
TurboElephant

A gold star ey? For a $1300 camera with lacklustre video performance...mmm no wonder this thread in the forum was locked:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51878415

1 upvote
CFynn

I suspect most of those interested it this kind of camera camera don't care much about shooting video.

1 upvote
joe6pack

Apology accepted!

0 upvotes
Tandua

the hype of these x-trans ...seems going to end after this review

too many cons, too many doubts and too many negative Opionons

81% score?...canon eos 100d 78%?

gold award?..silver imho is correct

5 upvotes
dengx

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from making your own review website and giving it silver award by yourself.

9 upvotes
DanielFjall

Imagine the controversy that would follow by giving this camera a silver award.

1 upvote
Boris F

OMD EM-5 is look better on the studio comparison. Take, for example word "IRISH" from the scene.

3 upvotes
dengx

This is because the EM-5 output from Adobe is quite sharpened by default. X100s Adobe defaults on the contrary is like a watching something via a muddy window.

3 upvotes
Barney Britton

Well, and the fact that we're shooting the X100S much closer to the scene, and it's a 35mm wideangle, not a short telephoto...

2 upvotes
Bamboojled

So then what is the excuse for the Nikon A and Ricoh GR looking better?

They are both 28mm lenses vs. 35mm so according to your statement they should look even worse than the Fuji.

3 upvotes
dstate1

We irish can be a bit fuzzy at times.

8 upvotes
Boris F

Barney, what is the FL used for the OMD studio shots? Why DPR don't use same FL for all cameras? FL 35mm is inside all standard zooms.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
lazy lightning

You must not have read the reviews conclusion. The Ricoh GR and Nikon A are merely "pretenders". I think dpreviews GearShop must be getting a good resellers deal on the X100s.

2 upvotes
Kali108

While I can completely understand why dpreview uses a "standardized" process for reviewing products...an industry standard no less in the case of ACR...unfortunately for some products, this truly kills their performance capabilities. The Fuji X Trans cams are such a product.

ACR / LR is quite poor for RAW conversion with the Fuji cams. If you value the DAM capabilities of LR over image quality and want a one app workflow solution, fine, but you are sacrificing a LOT in IQ.

Evidence:
http://www.thevisualexperience.org/web/camera-image-quality-why-dpreview-may-be-sometimes-wrong/

If dpreview gave a score of 81 via ACR, then they will fall in love with the images via Iridient Developer.

Again, I understand dpreview can't spend hours testing numerous raw converters for the best results and it would arguably skew comparisons between products, but in the case of the X trans cams....justice is not being served.

This is why people love the in-camera jpegs vs ACR raws. Well, duh.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Bamboojled

So, what all are saying is disregard the soft files that are part of the test because this is not indicative of the performance...

Don't other brands perform better with other processors?

Disregard the fact that the test was not performed with the new center to edge sharpness target which was used in the Ricoh Gr and Coolpix A test...

Wouldn't this be a very relevant test based on the stellar performance of the Ricoh GR and Coolpix A?

Disregard the fact that the dynamic range is lower than both the Ricoh GR and the Nikon A (As Barney Britton stated in his review it's more than enough because Fuji said so)...

You don't need to shoot Raw as per Barney Britton because the Jpegs are so good, even though this is not seen in the samples (since when did Ken Rockwell take over DPReview)...

There seems to be a lot of disregarding in this test, in favor of the FujiX100s

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Kevin Patrick

Or maybe just sour grapes?

0 upvotes
Bamboojled

Maybe,
but it doesn't change the facts does it?

Hey, if your content with holding a $1200 camera to a lower standard than an $800 camera, that's cool...

3 upvotes
Kali108

Oh Bamboojled. Not sure what your agenda is here, seems to be mindlessly raging against the Fuji cams. Whatever turns you on dude.

My agenda is this: If using a particular software *dramatically* worsens the final images from *any* camera, I would want to know about it. And the reverse is also true, if using a $75 piece of software (Iridient Developer) would *dramatically* improve the final images from *any* camera, I would want to know.

For comparisons, we can't cripple a product's potential by refusing to use a different RAW converter. If after trying ID with Fuji raws, you still prefer the Ricoh...great. Just don't base your rage and reviewer conspiracies on using ACR for the Fuji images, cuz it sucks.

Proof vs your mindless rants? Here ya go:
http://www.thevisualexperience.org/web/camera-image-quality-why-dpreview-may-be-sometimes-wrong/

If working with X Trans images isn't worth the trouble for you..fine.. no need to unfairly attack those of us to whom it is.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Bamboojled

No agenda,
don't own either Nikon A nor Ricoh Gr.

Interested in all 3, but when stringent testing is done on 2, and not so on the 3rd (Fuji) one has to ask questions, don't they?

When one shows dramatically smudged images that lack detail by comparison to the others, one has to ask questions, especially when the Fuji is rated as good or better than the other 2.

1 upvote
Kali108

Bam...then stop ignoring the answers and solutions provided to you. It makes you appear quite disingenuous. Fuji x100s didn't get a "free pass" on dpreview or any other review I'm aware of. Stop fabricating delusional conspiracies against Dpreview. Don't like their reviews?... go elsewhere.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled

Look, real simple.

If a review supplies images that are completely opposite to what the reviewer is claiming, I'M GOING TO CALL IT AS I SEE IT!

If you feel that the reviewer should have used different software in his review then that is your issue, I AM COMMENTING ON THE REVIEW, THE IMAGES SUPPLIED AND WHAT THE REVIEWER STATES!

The fact that the reviewer didn't say, (The images I have included suck by comparison to the competition, but if you go out and get different software it is much better) speaks volumes to my point and case...I can only comment on what is said and supplied by the reviewer.

There is no conspiracy, nor have I said there was.
What I did do is point out the inconsistencies in the Review.

Namely, crappy smudging of detail at all ISO's in the RAW samples by comparison to the competition.

Lower Dynamic range against the competition, which was said to be no big deal

Lens sharpness and corner resolution not tested with new test chart, even though this test was used on the Ricoh and Nikon test, despite the fact that the Fuji was almost a month later and that the reviewer said that he was shooting this camera for almost 2 weeks exclusively.

3 upvotes
calking

I know that certain spec heads will never be able to get this concept, but an excellent product is often the average of all its pros and cons. Some of you guys that want to take the X100s on a toe-to-toe witch hunt against every other camera out there based on this spec or that sample image on some review website can and will never be able to appreciate the end result of actually shooting with a camera like this because you are trapped by analysis paralysis. You are the seekers of the Holy Grail who never leave the castle because you don't yet have the finest sword ever made by man and you fail to realize you never will.

Here is all you and anyone else need to know, ever: the competition makes a swell product too. Go there, then, and frolic in the knowledge that your this or that brand has better DR than this or that other thing, or is sharper, or lighter, or cheaper. The X100 is something you actually have to use to fully appreciate, and it has all the character one ever needs.

0 upvotes
geejay101

In the studio comparison the x100 raw files look better that the x100s raws. But in jpeg the x100s looks much better. Either the raw processing software was sub-optimal with the x100s or the in-camera processing of the x100s is very good.

It seems with this camera one must shoot jpegs.

0 upvotes
dengx

Again - this is due testing procedures of dpreview and the default unsharpened output of Adobe products.
In real life you can use other RAW converters like Aperture, C1, dcraw or just sharpen the output and it looks much better.

Just download the trial of C1, the RAF files from dpreview and see for yourself.

1 upvote
Kali108

As dengx said, if one wants to see what the x100s, Xpro1, etc is capable of in terms of IQ, you MUST avoid ACR at this time. It's getting better...slowly... but still sucks.

Iridient Developer (Mac Only) is the best imo, followed by Capture One Pro 7, followed by Aperture. Windows users, download the C1P7 trial...you will be shocked at the difference compared to ACR.

2 upvotes
schaki

Not a word on the conclusion page about the detail-smudging and that have probably been the major complain among the owners of the X100 which bought the X100S as well or looked close at sample images.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Kali108

The color smearing, etc is due to ACR. Try Iridient Developer (ID), C1P7 or Aperture and voila...goes away. I've needed ID's CA removal to a small degree on some shots..otherwise the images are very impressive.

If you and others don't want to be bothered with trying new workflows to see the full potential of the Fuji cams...ok, I understand, but that's not the camera's fault.

4 upvotes
Bamboojled

Actually is it is the camera's fault if the camera does not work well with the standard processor for the industry.

But then can't anyone use other processors for their cameras to get ultimate quality.

So your recommendation is to start trying out other processors until you find one that allows it to perform as good as the Ricoh or the Nikon does with ACR.

Or like Ken Rockwell says, I mean Barney Britton, just shoot Jpegs...

1 upvote
dengx

We've heard that all before.
But the truth is that ACR does a vey good job, but not at its standard settings. And to be honest I can't see anyone using only the default RAW output of any RAW converter because it just doesn't make any sense.

Moreover C1 and Aperture are as much as industry standard as ACR, and only ACR default output looks bland.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
bgbs

How does DR feel in RAW, anybody know?

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
0 upvotes
tinpusher

Nice review
It's so much better than my X100 ; even the lens at F2 is reasonably sharp.

I change cameras like others change socks but not this one ; for the first time I've paid for a 4 year warranty.

Dropping Highlight tone -2 might help with the Fuji colours particularly blue skies.

1 upvote
Priaptor

Congratulations to all who now feel better that DPREVIEW have validated their purchases.

6 upvotes
sarkozy

Cong. FUJI for Gold - awesome Camera

0 upvotes
eiffair

The detailed score at the end of the review shows a strange conclusion: if you select the X100 in order to compare its score to the X100s you'll see that the X100 has a better Metering and focus accuracy score than the X100s!
How is it possible?

1 upvote
JackM

Those scores are only relative to the other cameras in the same market at that time.

1 upvote
sarkozy

why not - for me, the X100 has a gold medal

1 upvote
retro76

Honestly, I think this is a brilliant camera, but why I am underwhelmed with Fuji color ? Everyone states how amazing Fuji color is, but honestly I think it looks a bit flat, maybe a tad off hue.

5 upvotes
JackM

I like to shoot mine with color +1. I don't find the color "off" either. My X100S shots go nicely in the same album as my 5D3 shots.

1 upvote
g7star

Imho, usually Fuji color is not that vibrant just as if there’s very slight silver tint. For this, it gives better-than-real skin tone and many times, tender color overall. Still it makes better color than most of others do (greenish tint, unbalanced color etc.)

0 upvotes
calking

I'd say your conclusion is a matter of personal opinion. You can always adjust the color settings in any modern camera to taste.

2 upvotes
timo

It is odd that the Ricoh GR is not among the default comparisons. And it performs very well comparatively. Better, maybe, than the Sony.

0 upvotes
Naydooner

Bought one a few weeks ago after owning the original model.
Where the original 100 fell down was in shooting my grand kids:
the pic I was expecting... was not the one I got. I was that disappointed that I sold my X100 and just on the strength of the first reviews, quickly bought the new S model. Guess what? Same problem! There's an inherent shutter lag here: that shows markedly when taking pics of the fleeting facial expressions of children. The cam missed the shot a good 9 out of 10 times. Not like my Sony A77 or my Sony A900! For that reason alone I took the X100S back to the sellers.
Perhaps the next iteration will fix this: that criticism aside I loved the camera and for everything else including my passion... landscapes, it worked superbly.
For shooting active kids...NO! For everything else... incomparable! Like I said; I am eagerly awaiting the third iteration of the X100!

4 upvotes
JackM

On the contrary, I find the shutter lag to be very small. Perhaps you are not pre-pressing the shutter button halfway first.

3 upvotes
calking

Or your settings were wrong, using too slow a shutter speed or aperture, etc. What's interesting is that hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of street shooters and experienced photographers ae able to capture moving subjects indoors and out without this issue.

Neverthelss, after an infinite number of online reviews that have been done on the x-series cameras it is really common knowledge that these aren't (and never were) intended as replacements for DSLR cameras like your two Sonys when it comes to "action" and sports photography. Still, children aren't always running and photographers who have good anticipation skills can take sharp photos with the x100s -- witness Ken Rockwell's review of the camera and how he shoots his own kids with it.

Why someone thinks they need to ditch perfectly fine camera gear just because it doesn't "do it all" is beyond me. I have a Nikon DSLR, Fuji XE-1, and a Sony RX100. When I am not shooting fast action or extremes I prefer the Fuji or Sony. Easy.

3 upvotes
Roger Nordin

Interesting. I find that using the OVF, I many times think I just missed the expression when pressing the shutter, the image taken has just captured (can be seen already in the brief preview that flashes by in the viewfinder as the shot is taken) is that fleeing expression, just as if the camera took the shot before I pressed the shutter almost. I guess that is one clear advantage with an OVF compared to EVF. Maybe you were using the EVF or LCD? Try the OVF optical view instead? I find it works really well actually photographing my daughter, and trust me, she can sometimes have many different expressions in just a couple of seconds...lol

0 upvotes
GURL

To B. Britton or A. Westlake

"This is our standard studio scene comparison shot taken from exactly the same tripod position."

This sentence is probably carved in the stone of your studio scene frame but inaccurate for non-zoom non-removable-lens cameras like this one: I doubt you silently cropped the resulting image...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Simon Joinson

ah boilerplate text...

0 upvotes
happypoppeye

The only problem is the price.

X100S / 35mm equivalne: $1299
EOS-M / 35mm equivalnet: $299

...not saying the M is better, but I've used both and the X100S certainly isn't $1000 better (for me).

4 upvotes
carlos roncatti

It seems from some reports that the 22mm from the canon is a very good lens...is that correct? how do you feel about AF speed afetr the firmware? thanks.

1 upvote
happypoppeye

Carlos ...the 22 is a good lens. Not perfect but for the size and price very good.

AF speed is still slow ...but better. Don't plan on shooting fast moving subjects kind of slow.

For $299, IQ wise, it may be the best out there relative to price.

2 upvotes
IchiroCameraGuy

EOS M 22mm lens is better than most $500 lenses - camera is free in my view. It is a very good lens for video especially and very sharp at F2 besides very outer corners

1 upvote
JackM

I suppose I paid $1000 for the aperture ring, shutter speed dial, and the wonderful OVF. When you put it that way it sounds ridiculous, but yet I still have no regrets. If you got your start with a Pentax K1000 or if you've spent time with a Leica, the manual controls are invaluable.

4 upvotes
Edgar Matias

I don't think it's reasonable to compare the X100S to a camera out of the bargain bin (the EOS-M).

People actually like and want the X100S. The EOS-M was clearly a mistake. Canon is losing money selling it to you for $299. They're just trying to cut their losses.

1 upvote
Vignes

So you're saying the $1000 Fujifilm produces better IQ compared to a $299 Canon, Hmm... I have played with EOS-M with 22mm lens. it's a fine camera. I don't own both cameras but I also played with the 100s. it's alright but not worth the price. People say it's pricy because it's made in japan and so does EOS-M. EOS-M lacks direct interface, viewfinder but solid built and has touch screen plus touch focus. But at $300, it's a bargain.

0 upvotes
arndsan

I love the camera and everything about it. just took some shots wit the x100 so far. good stuff - but i have the feeling that the lens is good but not outstanding like the rest. If the the next generation get THE LENS (F1.4) i will forget that i already have a very good camera : )

0 upvotes
w. coyote

if only they'd make a black version....

thnx for the fine review!

0 upvotes
InTheMist

Thanks for the review. It mirrors my personal experience entirely. I have to say though that if I liked EVSs (which I don't) I would probably have gone with the Olympus OM-D as my every-day camera to compliment my Nikon stable.

The OOC JPEGs never fail to impress. Some of my all-time favorite images were taken with the X100S that you'll find in my user review. But you have to be patient, it's not a run-and-gun camera, IMO, compared to a DSLR.

EDIT: I usually shoot RAW+JPEG, and usually throw away the RAW except in tricky exposure situations.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
D200_4me

What's all the whining and fussing about? Complaints about single focal length lens....X-Trans no good, bla, bla, bla. Well, fortunately there are many choices these days for cameras, so you can buy what makes you happy ;-). Me personally, I'm in love with my X100S AND its X-Trans sensor (shooting RAW and processing in LR too - OMG!, say it ain't so). But I also keep a Nikon D600 with a few lenses for any time when a 35mm focal length won't do.

:-)
http://www.openbloom.com/CAMERAGEAR/Fuji-X100S-Gallery/30483531_HnS7cs

7 upvotes
bseng

A camera that shoots at only one focal length? No thanks.

0 upvotes
InTheMist

That certainly is the populist view, but many, including myself, won't agree.

8 upvotes
Felts

I LOVE the fixed 35mm view. I find it liberating, not restricitve. You can see the shot prior to raising the camera to your eye.
Horses for courses...

3 upvotes
liquid stereo

Beyond foolish is your reply.

0 upvotes
David Hardaway

I always shoot RAW. I actually spent several days perfecting SilkyPix to get results out of RAW that were same as jpg. I developed a process to export TIFF from SP that demosaiced the RAF perfectly then used lightroom for editing. I respectfully disagree with anyone who says its simply an algorithm. the simple fact is pseudo random and excessive green pixels require more interpolation in the demosaic process and the results will always be mushy. Color will also never be as true compared to Bayer. Bayer requires less and more balanced interpolation. It's just a fact. There is no way anyone that knows good image quality can say that any of these images provided in the dpreview of the x100s are good. If they do it's complete denial. And frankly I am concerned that DPReview would rate this camera so high while leaving requiring more "read between the lines" in the conclusion. I have been a dpreview fan since the first days with Phil Askey and could trust the conclusions with my wallet.

5 upvotes
xMichaelx

" It's just a fact. There is no way anyone that knows good image quality can say that any of these images provided in the dpreview of the x100s are good."

Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, but I won't bother offering any evidence of my viewpoint at all except anecdata.

6 upvotes
IchiroCameraGuy

What David is saying is plain as day unless you romance what the Fuji cams are producing.

2 upvotes
sgoldswo

David, you've clearly not processed an image in Capture One, Aperture or Irident

1 upvote
steven_k

David, if you had just hanged on a little longer with you X-E1 and shot RAW, Iridient Developer transformed the X-Trans sensor into a real gem IM HO

2 upvotes
David Hardaway

I had the X-E1 for a short while. Moved to EOS M. The X-Trans is the issue for this camera. All shots included above, especially the young lady outside look sick. Flat, unsharp, and no detail. I use 5DMIIs for paid work, but for family and vacation shots I would be very upset to come back from long vacation to see all my photos looking anything like those in the examples. Fuji should ditch the X-Trans and refund people their money or send replacement camera with Bayer sensor. The X100 with Bayer sensor was the best. They should have stuck with that. Anyone else, in my opinion, that believes that the images in the test look good for $1k camera is in denial.

10 upvotes
Bijankc

I really wanted to buy X100s but am holding back. I hear Fuji is going release a new model in X-line( maybe Fuji X-A1) with a Bayer sensor ...
I strongly believe that X200 will be without this X-Trans Sensor ...

1 upvote
TheDreamingWatchman

The picture with the woman in the blue tracksuit was shot at ISO 2000!
The other woman is ISO 6400!!
Did you just miss these facts or are you in denial?

Pictures taken with any(!) Canon APS-C Camera at these ISO values look just pathetic compared to the X-Trans sensor.

5 upvotes
Kali108

David, if you're correct, then I must be utterly blind. Not to mention other numerous pro photogs raving about the Fuji cams on the inter webs :)

Also, if someone is using ACR/LR for raw conversion or even SilkyPix, you are completely missing the boat. Iridient Developer (!) or Capture One Pro 7 are far, far superior. If someone had shown me images from the Fuji cams via ACR, there's no way in hell I would have bought a Fuji kit.

4 upvotes
whawha

Fantastic camera for street photography, now that the problems with the legacy model have been ironed out its very, very tempting.

2 upvotes
M Lammerse

Well, it's well worth the read and conclusions, thanks!
It's not a 'have to use' camera for me, as it is for I think most people. It's a 'want to haver' for sure.

The 100(S) gets quite a bit of attention here in Japan, and I've seen already many of them in the field and it can be found often placed at large stores close to the RX1, and GRX cameras'

I found that the AF especially under artificial lighting got quite a bit 'confused' several times

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Nigel Clifford

Thanks for the review I enjoyed reading it and agree with most of your comments.
A small point about the command control dial. It also serves as full zoom button in playback mode and toggle between Focus Peaking and Digital Split Image in manual focus mode. I agree though it would be nice if you could assign custom functions, I currently use the function button to toggle between still/movie and I know a lot of people use the function button for ND filter, it would be nice to have both options, function ND filter, command control stills/movie.

Nigel

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cgarrard

Lol Barney! :)

C

P.S. What's up with Cane below asking the same question about 5 times? ;)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Joe Talks Photo Gear

The only competition to the X100S is another X camera but my basic stripped down EOS M 22 f2 lens at a cost of $299 gives me amazing image quality that takes in same field of view.

3 upvotes
Craig Atkinson

I think the only comp is the Ricoh GR. The RX1 is too expensive to compare

0 upvotes
IchiroCameraGuy

EOS M with 22mm lens, 11-22mm IS lens, EOS adapter, and one of several 50 to 100mm Canon EF primes under $500 = all together same or less price as Fuji X100S by itself.

Think of like this. If offered two 60" television sets - one is $800 with better image quality and more modern , sleek look - other is $1,800 with more buttons on the remote and more bulky, retro styling - who going to pick the $1,800 set?

What else but cameras will people still jump all over the second scenario. Nevertheless, I am glad it is helping keep Fujifilm strong.

4 upvotes
GXRuser

True:
The issue in the US is that Canon may NOT release any future EOS-M cameras. They are not importing or supporting the wide angle zoom.
With the improved AF with the new firmware, the EOS-M with the 22mm is a superb camera.
My issue is that I prefer cameras with viewfinders. I wand an EOS-M variant with an integrated EVF.

0 upvotes
Mcmx

@IchiroCameraGuy I'd like you to expand your dubious analogy to the missing viewfinder. How about: no option to change the volume?

0 upvotes
Craig Atkinson

The only 'problem' now is:
x100s is £1000.
Xpro 1+ 35mm f.14 + 18mm f2 is £1200.
Ricog GR is £600

I find it hard to choose between fixed 28, fixed 35 and the option of lenses. I'd keep them all if I could! Have used all three for a long time. Favourite is prob x100s overall. Ricoh snap + IQ + size and price is amazing, and wider angle. Xpro1 feels so nice to use. Lovely size and weight and some great lenses...

Real life first world problems!

5 upvotes
WingoWong

Why not release the review after the product being discontinued, then X100s could raise the price at 2nd market rocket high! This is not first time that Dpr release late product review for brands except C/N!

2 upvotes
AngryCorgi

Really wish Fuji would go back to bayer filters on their sensors. At the very least offer ONE interchangeable bayer option for its really sweet X system. The IQ of RAW files with this idiotic xtrans filter still is way behind bayer-filtered 16MP sensors. Cameralabs.com illustrates this very well with their X-M1 review and resolution results. The EP-5 and GF6 even blow it away in JPEG and RAW. Please, Fuji, see the light and bring us a "B" camera that uses your "X" mount!!

6 upvotes
sgoldswo

I prefer X-trans and I wouldn't use Fuji X cameras if they went back to bayer sensors wholesale (I think Fuji will offer a bargain bucket option with a bayer sensor). The output from x-trans clearly gets very close to full frame sensors and exceeds the image quality of bayer sensor cameras when properly processed from RAW. When properly processed from RAW using a good RAW converter the results exceed all bayer sensor cameras (including all you mention) other than full frame or greater sensors.

9 upvotes
TheDreamingWatchman

Are you kidding? Or just trolling?

Cameralabs conclusion (comparing X-M1, E-P5 and GF6): "Regardless of the technicalities the X-M1's sensor comes out of this comparison a winner by a clear margin."

And comparing X-E1 and the EOS-M (same sensor size) they conclude: "This is a fairly emphatic win for the X-E1 over the EOS M."

Did you even read the review at Cameralabs???

3 upvotes
IchiroCameraGuy

DreamingWatchman, if you look at cameralabs page on the X-E1 review comparing the X-E1 to EOS M you will see plain as day that the EOS M always has more detail and resolution. Not sure how he decided it was the opposite - it is not by a nose but obvious.

You have to go back few years to find a Canon APS-C with lower detail and resolution than X-E1 or X100/S.

Remember EOS M is the one on the right side -
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Fujifilm_X-E1/outdoor_resolution.shtml

3 upvotes
TheDreamingWatchman

@IchiroCameraGuy: This page compares JPEGs.
If you compare JPEGs you compare the processing (e.g. sharpening) done in camera. You do not compare the camera or the sensor.

Look at the noise comparison an you will see that the EOS-M does not stand a chance.

I have had a Canon 7D for years and I never knew how noisy and mushy my 7D is - until I got a X-E1.

1 upvote
Boxbrownie

Looking at those results I think you are mistaking contrast for sharpness. There appears to be more fine detail in the Xe-1 files.

2 upvotes
Kali108

The only thing that's idiotic about the X Trans are the people who use LR / ACR to process the images. ACR is hideous with X Trans de-mosaic interpolation. Iridient Developer (ID) is night and day better.

I got curious and tried ID for for my D800 files...a nice improvement over ACR as well, though not nearly as dramatic as with the Fuji files.

1 upvote
AngryCorgi

dreaming: when I read a review, I don't simply skip to the end and read the summary of someone ELSE's opinion, I look at the evidence at hand. In both the X-M1 and X100S reviews on CameraLabs, the JPEG & raw both were inferior to bayer comparisons at base sensitivities. You are welcome to your opinion, but responding to everyone rudely really doesn't help build a framework of rational discussion.

I find the X-trans sensored images to be lacking in fine detail. To each his own, but the evidence is pretty bluntly clear to me that neither the JPEG or raw output from these cameras has the fine per pixel detail as bayer rivals.

1 upvote
IchiroCameraGuy

"Looking at those results I think you are mistaking contrast for sharpness. There appears to be more fine detail in the Xe-1 files."

No mistaking anything - there is details of objects in the EOS M images that are completely missing in the X-E1 images.

It is like some people have a type of spell put on them by the hype and retro cool of these Fujifilm cameras.

Someone mentioned sharpening - EOS M has very low sharpening by default for JPEG file. This is like some type of strange religious debate where imaginations equal fact.

These new Fuji APS-C cameras do not have good detail period.

1 upvote
Mcmx

Well, the guy to whose comparison pictures you refer disagrees with you. From your link:

"The EOS M shares the same sensor as the T4i / 650D and in terms of processing the crops look typical of those from a Canon consumer model, which is to say that they've been processed for a 'consumer-friendly' look, nice and contrasty with crisp edge detail. But I don't see quite the same level of detail in the EOS M crops as in those from the X-E1."

If you want a concrete example: in the last picture in your link, right in the centre of the crop, you can clearly see a white antenna in front of the big red roof in the X-E1 picture. In the EOS M crop, there's just a grey smudge.

Maybe someone's put a spell on you.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Cane

Does everyone that buys a fixed lens camera like this primarily focus on street shooting? I don't fill my hard drive with pictures of strangers I spied, so I just can't see how to be happy without UWA, portrait, and and a little reach.

2 upvotes
D200_4me

Many people do, but I don't. I primarily shoot nature with my X100S, because that's what is around me every day.

2 upvotes
Kglass77

IT's my everyday camera. When with the family or when I know I may want to take some quick shots but know I don't feel like lugging my D600+lenses and know that I will still get great IQ.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Cane

Does everyone that buys a fixed lens camera like this primarily focus on street shooting? I don't fill my hard drive with pictures of strangers I spied, so I just can't see how to be happy without UWA, portrait, and and a little reach.

0 upvotes
chlamchowder

Not everyone does street shooting, but a fixed 35mm lens can be used for a lot of things in addition to street shooting. I guess I'd personally find it limiting, but if I used it for a while, I'm sure I'd get used to it and work with what 35mm gives me.

On another note, if you post a message and don't see it immediately, but there's no obvious error or failure, it's a good idea to wait a few minutes just in case the server on the other end is just being slow. And it's perhaps a good idea for the server to warn ("are you sure?" kind of thing) when suspected duplicates are detected.

4 upvotes
sdribetahi

I got a strange error message that the server was full, and it said to refresh and try to post at a later time, so I tried it again. Sorry.

0 upvotes
tinternaut

Not often I make the time to play about with the comparison images. Thoughts:

- Surprised how my own latest and greatest does (an E-PM2) in many parts of the test photo (and not surprised where it is weaker).

- Raw: preferred the output of the Ricoh GR

- JPEG: Fuji all the way, leaving Olympus trailing in distant second.

1 upvote
Total comments: 487
1234