Studio comparison pages added to Fujifilm X100S Preview

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.

Mar 29, 2013permalink

Petka

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...

Mar 29, 2013permalink

austin design

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.

Apr 1, 2013*permalink

d3xmeister

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

JackM

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

PhotonZ

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.

Mar 28, 2013*permalink

Stephen_C

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

Mar 29, 2013permalink

klopus

@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.

Mar 29, 2013permalink

It's 2013.

Mar 29, 2013permalink

fz750

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

Mar 29, 2013permalink

JadedGamer

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.

Mar 29, 2013permalink

klopus

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.

Mar 29, 2013permalink

d3xmeister

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

Apr 3, 2013permalink

chrisalpen

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

no english subs?

Mar 28, 2013permalink

InTheMist

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.

Mar 28, 2013*permalink

chrisalpen

@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.

Mar 30, 2013*permalink

entertainment

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

xMichaelx

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

SoulPedro

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

or could just be another form of entertainment.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

yabokkie

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

Mar 29, 2013*permalink

Pablo4

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Revenant

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Chris Crevasse

"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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Michael_13

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

Mar 28, 2013*permalink

Zdman

@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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Asylum Photo

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

wexie

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."

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Chris Crevasse

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

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.

Mar 28, 2013*permalink

Paul Guba

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Pablo4

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?

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Paul Guba

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

yabokkie

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

photofan1986

yabokkie continuing his ridiculous 4/3 crusade...

Mar 28, 2013permalink

CeleryBeats

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

Mar 28, 2013*permalink

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

Mar 29, 2013permalink

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

mauro paillex

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

ogl

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

Mar 28, 2013*permalink

I am pleased for you.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Nishi Drew

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

avicenanw

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.

Mar 28, 2013*permalink

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?

Mar 28, 2013permalink

iudex

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Cheezr

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

RStyga

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?

Mar 28, 2013*permalink

bpatient

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Cheezr

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?

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Asylum Photo

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

RStyga

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!!

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Nishi Drew

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~

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Arcade Original

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

Thx kindly,
AO

Mar 27, 2013permalink

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Barney Britton

Soon.

Mar 28, 2013permalink

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.

Mar 27, 2013permalink

DonSantos

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

Mar 27, 2013permalink

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.

Mar 27, 2013permalink

xeriwthe

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

Mar 27, 2013permalink

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

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).

Mar 28, 2013permalink

DonSantos

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

Mar 28, 2013permalink

smatty

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:

Mar 28, 2013permalink

Rob P

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

Mar 27, 2013*permalink

raztec

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.

Mar 28, 2013permalink