X100 Norweigan Hands on preview with high ISO samples!!!!

Aetius said:

PAUL TILL said:

Aetius,

I'm a bit puzzled why Fuji let the camera out in such an unfinished state, cant see it being ready in a month. You must have asked them this question yourself!

Click to expand...

Never look a gift horse in the mouth!

Click to expand...

I was going to add "or were you just great-full to get your hands on it"

Member said:

Seriously though, a condition for being allowed to borrow it and put it through its paces was that we'd clearly state that the firmware was FAR from finished. I poblished the pictures, and evaluated them, as a way of saying that the image quality will be at least this good, and probably a lot better.

Click to expand...

Lets hope for better.

Member said:

Member said:

I can see you did the best you could with such a buggy tool but I feel your test has only damaged Fujis reputation.

Click to expand...

I don't agree at all. I think the X100 looks promising, and considering the state of the firmware, that just about all you can tell too.

Also, I wouldn't buy the X100 for studio use or other situations where image quality on the pixel level is critical. For that I'd use my 5D2 or buy a Hasselblad or something. If (when?) I buy an x100, it'll be as a smaller camera for candid shots in the street, and such. Of course my skills are not comparable to his, but I never heard anybody complaining that Henri Cartier-Bressons shots weren't sharp enough, or not correctly exposed (he didn't meter the light, but winged it from experience instead).

When I did the D7000 review that I took the motherboard-shots from, I also shot comparison shots with the D90, long considered an excellent camera. Here's a comparison between D90, X100 and D7000, the latter two bein g the same pics as in the hands-on:

Click to expand...

I have just sold my D90 I was not very impressed with it's JPEG output, Had to shoot RAW for decent results. The X100 needs to be a lot better to compete with the latest cameras.

Both Nikon sets look out of focus to me or did you focus on another part of the motherboard and this is crop from one corner?
It looks like you focused on the TCX resistor with the X100 though.

Member said:

As before, JPGs at best quality, everything else at default settings.

If you want to have a look at additional pictures shot under the same conditions in our lab, have a look at this page from my D7000 review: http://www.akam.no/artikler/nikon_d7000/79249/5

(It's in Norwegian, but you should manage. What's what should be clearly labeled)

--
My blog: http://everythingphoto.net/

Click to expand...

--

Thanks so much for the review, results look really impressive. Sorry to hear the jog dial was not connected nor the AF impressive. I hope that does improve by finish.

Did you have a chance to weigh the camera? Did you see an auto-ISO setting in the unfinished menu?

--
http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com

X100fan said:

X100fan said:

2) The X100 we borrowed had an extremely immature firmware which neccessitated a reboot of the camera (most often via the on/off-switch, but sometimes the battery had to come out too) for just about every shot, at which point the camera would reset to default settings. We're talking time, date, quality, ISO, the works.

Click to expand...

LOL. Why would Fuji provide a camera like that?

Click to expand...

Because they are inept? Makes no sense to give away a camera that hardly works for a review. However you look at it, that's just not a great idea.

poopinmymouth said:

Did you have a chance to weigh the camera? Did you see an auto-ISO setting in the unfinished menu?

Click to expand...

Nope, we did not weigh the X100, unfortunately. Just didn't think of it in time. If felt reassuringly heavy though, for its size.

There was no auto-ISO in the ISO-setting range, that much I can say, but there might be an auto-ISo-function hidden somewhere in the menus, for all I know.

--
My blog: http://everythingphoto.net/

PAUL TILL said:

Both Nikon sets look out of focus to me or did you focus on another part of the motherboard and this is crop from one corner?

Click to expand...

They're not, it's just the rather soft JPG-conversion. All were shot with RAW+JPG, and the RAWs are much sharper. Take a look at the link I gave to the D7000-review. You'll find the corresponding RAW-files (well, PNG-filed from the RAWs, really) for both D90 and D7000 there.

The crop is from just above the centre frame of our testboard.

PAUL TILL said:

It looks like you focused on the TCX resistor with the X100 though.

Click to expand...

Most often we shoot the testboard from 3-5 feet away, though the X100 was a tad closer due to its 23mm lens. With crop we usually use 50mm, and 85mm with FF. Focus is through AF, and is at the circle in the center. The motherboard stands out a few mm, but not enough to matter.

You can see the full frames from the motherboard shots with the X100 here:

(These are straight from the camera, and have just been renamed. Still Fine JPG etc)
200: http://images.gfx.no/787/787627/fujifilm_x100_hk_00200.jpg
400: http://images.gfx.no/787/787628/fujifilm_x100_hk_00400.jpg
800: http://images.gfx.no/787/787629/fujifilm_x100_hk_00800.jpg
1600: http://images.gfx.no/787/787630/fujifilm_x100_hk_01600.jpg
3200: http://images.gfx.no/787/787631/fujifilm_x100_hk_03200.jpg
6400: http://images.gfx.no/787/787632/fujifilm_x100_hk_06400.jpg
12800: http://images.gfx.no/787/787633/fujifilm_x100_hk_12800.jpg

--
My blog: http://everythingphoto.net/

Aetius said:

Seriously though, a condition for being allowed to borrow it and put it through its paces was that we'd clearly state that the firmware was FAR from finished. I poblished the pictures, and evaluated them, as a way of saying that the image quality will be at least this good, and probably a lot better.

Click to expand...

Did you tell them that you be clearly stating that in Norwegian ?

I have no problem with what you have done, but the people at Fuji that let you have the camera, they might have made a mistake. This is sometimes how new cameras get bad reputations.

The photos show up everywhere, with lots of forum people saying, "they're awful", but the text about it being early firmware, that gets shuffled out of the picture. From there it is an uphill battle to repair the early damage to the reputation.

The D90 did look a little out of focus at first glance but I can see that it could be just overly soft. Looking at this though (to me) it looks like the X100 wins across the board for sharpness.

Thanks for all the samples that you have provided.

...

Aetius said:

PAUL TILL said:

Both Nikon sets look out of focus to me or did you focus on another part of the motherboard and this is crop from one corner?

Click to expand...

They're not, it's just the rather soft JPG-conversion. All were shot with RAW+JPG, and the RAWs are much sharper. Take a look at the link I gave to the D7000-review. You'll find the corresponding RAW-files (well, PNG-filed from the RAWs, really) for both D90 and D7000 there.

The crop is from just above the centre frame of our testboard.

Member said:

It looks like you focused on the TCX resistor with the X100 though.

Click to expand...

Most often we shoot the testboard from 3-5 feet away, though the X100 was a tad closer due to its 23mm lens. With crop we usually use 50mm, and 85mm with FF. Focus is through AF, and is at the circle in the center. The motherboard stands out a few mm, but not enough to matter.

You can see the full frames from the motherboard shots with the X100 here:

(These are straight from the camera, and have just been renamed. Still Fine JPG etc)
200: http://images.gfx.no/787/787627/fujifilm_x100_hk_00200.jpg
400: http://images.gfx.no/787/787628/fujifilm_x100_hk_00400.jpg
800: http://images.gfx.no/787/787629/fujifilm_x100_hk_00800.jpg
1600: http://images.gfx.no/787/787630/fujifilm_x100_hk_01600.jpg
3200: http://images.gfx.no/787/787631/fujifilm_x100_hk_03200.jpg
6400: http://images.gfx.no/787/787632/fujifilm_x100_hk_06400.jpg
12800: http://images.gfx.no/787/787633/fujifilm_x100_hk_12800.jpg

--
My blog: http://everythingphoto.net/

Click to expand...

according to : http://twitter.com/fujiguys

X100 review from Norwegian website is unauthorized by Tokyo.

I am referring to the photo Paul mentioned and the photo of the birdhouse ? mailbox? These are heavily blownout.
The strength of this camera had to be a PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY.
These photo's demonstrate the opposite.

Regards,
Guussie

Darrell Spreen said:

Guussie said:

The snow is one big highlight. It's a shame !

Click to expand...

I don't see this problem on my monitor -- maybe it's time for you to recalibrate.

--
Darrell

Click to expand...

dmartin92 said:

Aetius said:

Seriously though, a condition for being allowed to borrow it and put it through its paces was that we'd clearly state that the firmware was FAR from finished. I poblished the pictures, and evaluated them, as a way of saying that the image quality will be at least this good, and probably a lot better.

Click to expand...

Did you tell them that you be clearly stating that in Norwegian ?

I have no problem with what you have done, but the people at Fuji that let you have the camera, they might have made a mistake. This is sometimes how new cameras get bad reputations.

The photos show up everywhere, with lots of forum people saying, "they're awful", but the text about it being early firmware, that gets shuffled out of the picture. From there it is an uphill battle to repair the early damage to the reputation.

Click to expand...

For an untweaked camera and subjects shot in a dull day in snow I don't see much to complain about with these samples. In fact it handled the conditions well. The motherboard comparison gives you an idea of its untweaked IQ for the moment.

But I understand your concern and I agree with your sentiment.

...

I'm a Canon guy, so maybe I'm deprived, but the 3200 samples are beautiful and the 6400 samples are fully usable. The 12,800 samples I'd put in the usable in a pinch class.

for a preproduction camera it's really something.

I'm imagining shooting at f2 @6400 and I can't think of many lighting situations that it couldn't handle.

Count me in.

Tom

http://www.kachadurian.com
http://www.kachadurian.com/blog

Guussie said:

I am referring to the photo Paul mentioned and the photo of the birdhouse ? mailbox? These are heavily blownout.
The strength of this camera had to be a PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY.
These photo's demonstrate the opposite.

Regards,
Guussie

Darrell Spreen said:

Guussie said:

The snow is one big highlight. It's a shame !

Click to expand...

I don't see this problem on my monitor -- maybe it's time for you to recalibrate.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't have a horse in this race, but...

On what are you basing that this camera "had" to have "PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY?"

• Fujifilm PR?
• FTF member exhuberance?
• Other? Please specify.

I have a camera whose body-only price exceeds the expected release price of the X100, many of us do:

• Should my/our camera provide "PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY." It would be "nice to have," especially since the body alone costs more than the X100, but it's by no means a mandate as you stated, and it's also not yet achievable as far as I know.
• How about any of my cars and trucks? They are much more than the price of the X100.
• Should my "Ultimate Driving Machine" provide the "PERFECT RIDE?"
• Should my $1,000,000+ house provide the "PERFECT SHELTER?"

What is your base case for "PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY?"

• The human eye's sensitivity to light and DR?
• Something else, if so, what and why?

And you are basing this on the results of a challenging-to-use, by no means polished, pre-production model's JPG's? DNG's?

And in the context of snow?

THAT's what your basing this on? When the firmware is set in the production model, and when the camera's RAW converter supports the camera's RAW format, and when adjustable NR (if at all) is adjusted, and when a workflow is developed including shadow lifting, highlight dial downs, micro contrast, sharpening, then we'll know more.

In the meantime, please:

• define "PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY"

• list cameras which DO produce "PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY," with examples supporting your assertion.

• list cameras which DON"T produce "PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY" but nevertheless for some reason you've found grounds to give them a 'pass.' Perhaps IMPERFECT cameras which you've nevertheless seen fit to own and use. Please also give the rationale for giving such a pass to them, but not the X100.

I think your view would be a profound help to people like me who are hesitant to jump to conclusions in either direction.

RoysLaw said:

dmartin92 said:

Aetius said:

Seriously though, a condition for being allowed to borrow it and put it through its paces was that we'd clearly state that the firmware was FAR from finished. I poblished the pictures, and evaluated them, as a way of saying that the image quality will be at least this good, and probably a lot better.

Click to expand...

Did you tell them that you be clearly stating that in Norwegian ?

I have no problem with what you have done, but the people at Fuji that let you have the camera, they might have made a mistake. This is sometimes how new cameras get bad reputations.

The photos show up everywhere, with lots of forum people saying, "they're awful", but the text about it being early firmware, that gets shuffled out of the picture. From there it is an uphill battle to repair the early damage to the reputation.

Click to expand...

For an untweaked camera and subjects shot in a dull day in snow I don't see much to complain about with these samples. In fact it handled the conditions well. The motherboard comparison gives you an idea of its untweaked IQ for the moment.

But I understand your concern and I agree with your sentiment.

Click to expand...

I do note that the board on the lower left looks notably softer than the one in the center.

dmartin92 said:

Aetius said:

Seriously though, a condition for being allowed to borrow it and put it through its paces was that we'd clearly state that the firmware was FAR from finished. I poblished the pictures, and evaluated them, as a way of saying that the image quality will be at least this good, and probably a lot better.

Click to expand...

Did you tell them that you be clearly stating that in Norwegian ?

Click to expand...

Heh, yeah, that was pretty much a given, as we are a Norwegian language only. We did publish a review of the Oly E-3 in English a few years back, because David Angel wrote it for us, but that's the only one so far as I know.

dmartin92 said:

I have no problem with what you have done, but the people at Fuji that let you have the camera, they might have made a mistake. This is sometimes how new cameras get bad reputations.

Click to expand...

To review a camera as fairly and accurately is my job, and what we do. If there are strings attached to us borrowing a camera, we consider them, and if they are fair and without ethical problems, we accept, and if not we do not (and may borrow the camera from somewhere else, if possible).

In this case, we were told there were only two strings attached: 1) The camera isn't finished, so most aspects of it, if not all, will be improved in the finished products, and we agreed to say so in the article. 2) The battery wasn't as it would be in the finished product, and we had to use a charger meant for a different camera. We agreed to not put any emphasis on this, and we didn't.

We frequently receive advance info about camera stuff, and if we do, we NEVER break the NDA and/or agreement. We stand to lose WAY too much from that, compared to what we may gain. If we receive no advance info, however, there is no agreement to honour, and hence we will publish when and if we receive info we deem accurate.

If the person who loaned us the camera gets into trouble for doing so, it's too bad - especially since I don't agree that it will have hurt the Fujifilm in any way - but as we stuck to the agreement, it's not really our problem, at least in the immediate sense. Instead of looking for someone to blame for what may not be a real problem, Fujifilm should look at what they stand to gain from being more open with its enthusiastic followers (fans, if you will?).

dmartin92 said:

The photos show up everywhere, with lots of forum people saying, "they're awful", but the text about it being early firmware, that gets shuffled out of the picture. From there it is an uphill battle to repair the early damage to the reputation.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's accurate, at least not with a typical high-end camera like this. People who bother looking at the pictures will for the most part be hungry enough for information that they will also look through a google-translation, or at least what other prople write about it.

--
My blog: http://everythingphoto.net/

Related to the price of the camera (about $1.100,-) and the "limited" range of the lens the strength of the camera was: perfect IQ, much better than an average camera. So we were wondering: how much better will this camera perform than the avarage camera.

The samples shown do not show better performance than avarage at all. I am afraid it will turn out to be a toy for snobs.

Regards,
Guussie

dotbalm said:

Guussie said:

I am referring to the photo Paul mentioned and the photo of the birdhouse ? mailbox? These are heavily blownout.
The strength of this camera had to be a PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY.
These photo's demonstrate the opposite.

Regards,
Guussie

Darrell Spreen said:

Guussie said:

The snow is one big highlight. It's a shame !

Click to expand...

I don't see this problem on my monitor -- maybe it's time for you to recalibrate.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't have a horse in this race, but...

On what are you basing that this camera "had" to have "PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY?"

• Fujifilm PR?
• FTF member exhuberance?
• Other? Please specify.

I have a camera whose body-only price exceeds the expected release price of the X100, many of us do:

• Should my/our camera provide "PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY." It would be "nice to have," especially since the body alone costs more than the X100, but it's by no means a mandate as you stated, and it's also not yet achievable as far as I know.
• How about any of my cars and trucks? They are much more than the price of the X100.
• Should my "Ultimate Driving Machine" provide the "PERFECT RIDE?"
• Should my $1,000,000+ house provide the "PERFECT SHELTER?"

What is your base case for "PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY?"

• The human eye's sensitivity to light and DR?
• Something else, if so, what and why?

And you are basing this on the results of a challenging-to-use, by no means polished, pre-production model's JPG's? DNG's?

And in the context of snow?

THAT's what your basing this on? When the firmware is set in the production model, and when the camera's RAW converter supports the camera's RAW format, and when adjustable NR (if at all) is adjusted, and when a workflow is developed including shadow lifting, highlight dial downs, micro contrast, sharpening, then we'll know more.

In the meantime, please:

• define "PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY"

• list cameras which DO produce "PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY," with examples supporting your assertion.

• list cameras which DON"T produce "PERFECT IMAGE QUALITY" but nevertheless for some reason you've found grounds to give them a 'pass.' Perhaps IMPERFECT cameras which you've nevertheless seen fit to own and use. Please also give the rationale for giving such a pass to them, but not the X100.

I think your view would be a profound help.

Click to expand...

dotbalm said:

I do note that the board on the lower left looks notably softer than the one in the center.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is, but info on the optics is too scarce to conclude anything meaningful from that, I think. For all I know, the lens design may not be final yet.

All the motherboard shots were done at f/5.6 by the way, and shot from a tripod.

In any case, on a personal level, I'm not too bothered. Sharpness may be critical for Ansel Adams style pictures, but if that's what you buy the X100 for, you have misunderstood something important.

--
My blog: http://everythingphoto.net/

Aetius said:

dmartin92 said:

Aetius said:

Seriously though, a condition for being allowed to borrow it and put it through its paces was that we'd clearly state that the firmware was FAR from finished. I poblished the pictures, and evaluated them, as a way of saying that the image quality will be at least this good, and probably a lot better.

Click to expand...

Did you tell them that you be clearly stating that in Norwegian ?

Click to expand...

Heh, yeah, that was pretty much a given, as we are a Norwegian language only. We did publish a review of the Oly E-3 in English a few years back, because David Angel wrote it for us, but that's the only one so far as I know.

Member said:

I have no problem with what you have done, but the people at Fuji that let you have the camera, they might have made a mistake. This is sometimes how new cameras get bad reputations.

Click to expand...

To review a camera as fairly and accurately is my job, and what we do. If there are strings attached to us borrowing a camera, we consider them, and if they are fair and without ethical problems, we accept, and if not we do not (and may borrow the camera from somewhere else, if possible).

In this case, we were told there were only two strings attached: 1) The camera isn't finished, so most aspects of it, if not all, will be improved in the finished products, and we agreed to say so in the article. 2) The battery wasn't as it would be in the finished product, and we had to use a charger meant for a different camera. We agreed to not put any emphasis on this, and we didn't.

We frequently receive advance info about camera stuff, and if we do, we NEVER break the NDA and/or agreement. We stand to lose WAY too much from that, compared to what we may gain. If we receive no advance info, however, there is no agreement to honour, and hence we will publish when and if we receive info we deem accurate.

If the person who loaned us the camera gets into trouble for doing so, it's too bad - especially since I don't agree that it will have hurt the Fujifilm in any way - but as we stuck to the agreement, it's not really our problem, at least in the immediate sense. Instead of looking for someone to blame for what may not be a real problem, Fujifilm should look at what they stand to gain from being more open with its enthusiastic followers (fans, if you will?).

Member said:

The photos show up everywhere, with lots of forum people saying, "they're awful", but the text about it being early firmware, that gets shuffled out of the picture. From there it is an uphill battle to repair the early damage to the reputation.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's accurate, at least not with a typical high-end camera like this. People who bother looking at the pictures will for the most part be hungry enough for information that they will also look through a google-translation, or at least what other prople write about it.

Click to expand...

That's what I did - ran it through a translater. And I see this camera for what it is, a work in progress whose firmware at a minimum is far from finished. Heck, it may undergo multiple firmware updates post-release for all we know. I would not be surprised.

Maybe folks who aren't used to seeing an egg broken to make an omelette should probably avert their eyes from pre-production models.

It does beg the question in my mind as to why Fujifilm tried to get so in front of their release date - publicly - with X100 mockups and pre-prod models. I realize Japanese companies (Nintendo, etc.) have their own ideas about release periods and don't all cater to the Christmas shopping season, but it's as if they wanted folks to save some money for this cam. I don't know if that's the explanation for the early early publicity, or if it was Photokina 2010 that made this a PR-imperative.

Anyway, thanks for the info, I was tired of seeing nicked up plastic looking mockups. Even though I won't be buying this camera, I think (...uh oh, a crack in the ice is forming...) it's better to gnaw on a bone with a few shreds of meat on it than what we've been fed up to now.

Aetius said:

I don't think that's accurate, at least not with a typical high-end camera like this. People who bother looking at the pictures will for the most part be hungry enough for information that they will also look through a google-translation, or at least what other prople write about it.

Click to expand...

Yup, maybe you're right.

In any case, thanks for everything. It is interesting. Even to see what level of background blur the thing will be capable of. You have several shots that show that well. Thanks !

This could be a X100 photo with better firmware......

Regards,
Guussie

dotbalm said:

Aetius said:

dmartin92 said:

Aetius said:

Seriously though, a condition for being allowed to borrow it and put it through its paces was that we'd clearly state that the firmware was FAR from finished. I poblished the pictures, and evaluated them, as a way of saying that the image quality will be at least this good, and probably a lot better.

Click to expand...

Did you tell them that you be clearly stating that in Norwegian ?

Click to expand...

Heh, yeah, that was pretty much a given, as we are a Norwegian language only. We did publish a review of the Oly E-3 in English a few years back, because David Angel wrote it for us, but that's the only one so far as I know.

dotbalm said:

I have no problem with what you have done, but the people at Fuji that let you have the camera, they might have made a mistake. This is sometimes how new cameras get bad reputations.

Click to expand...

To review a camera as fairly and accurately is my job, and what we do. If there are strings attached to us borrowing a camera, we consider them, and if they are fair and without ethical problems, we accept, and if not we do not (and may borrow the camera from somewhere else, if possible).

In this case, we were told there were only two strings attached: 1) The camera isn't finished, so most aspects of it, if not all, will be improved in the finished products, and we agreed to say so in the article. 2) The battery wasn't as it would be in the finished product, and we had to use a charger meant for a different camera. We agreed to not put any emphasis on this, and we didn't.

We frequently receive advance info about camera stuff, and if we do, we NEVER break the NDA and/or agreement. We stand to lose WAY too much from that, compared to what we may gain. If we receive no advance info, however, there is no agreement to honour, and hence we will publish when and if we receive info we deem accurate.

If the person who loaned us the camera gets into trouble for doing so, it's too bad - especially since I don't agree that it will have hurt the Fujifilm in any way - but as we stuck to the agreement, it's not really our problem, at least in the immediate sense. Instead of looking for someone to blame for what may not be a real problem, Fujifilm should look at what they stand to gain from being more open with its enthusiastic followers (fans, if you will?).

dotbalm said:

The photos show up everywhere, with lots of forum people saying, "they're awful", but the text about it being early firmware, that gets shuffled out of the picture. From there it is an uphill battle to repair the early damage to the reputation.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's accurate, at least not with a typical high-end camera like this. People who bother looking at the pictures will for the most part be hungry enough for information that they will also look through a google-translation, or at least what other prople write about it.

Click to expand...

That's what I did - ran it through a translater. And I see this camera for what it is, a work in progress whose firmware at a minimum is far from finished. Heck, it may undergo multiple firmware updates post-release for all we know. I would not be surprised.

Maybe folks who aren't used to seeing an egg broken to make an omelette should probably avert their eyes from pre-production models.

It does beg the question in my mind as to why Fujifilm tried to get so in front of their release date - publicly - with X100 mockups and pre-prod models. I realize Japanese companies (Nintendo, etc.) have their own ideas about release periods and don't all cater to the Christmas shopping season, but it's as if they wanted folks to save some money for this cam. I don't know if that's the explanation for the early early publicity, or if it was Photokina 2010 that made this a PR-imperative.

Anyway, thanks for the info, I was tired of seeing nicked up plastic looking mockups. Even though I won't be buying this camera, I think (...uh oh, a crack in the ice is forming...) it's better to gnaw on a bone with a few shreds of meat on it than what we've been fed up to now.

Click to expand...

Guussie said:

Related to the price of the camera (about $1.100,-) and the "limited" range of the lens the strength of the camera was: perfect IQ, much better than an average camera. So we were wondering: how much better will this camera perform than the avarage camera.

The samples shown do not show better performance than avarage at all. I am afraid it will turn out to be a toy for snobs.

Regards,
Guussie

Click to expand...

Could be. And I totally agree that for the cost of a fixed prime cam it better be good. Where I disagreed was perfect IQ. I don't know if I'd know it if I saw it. When this cam was released I said I wouldn't buy it for over $500. Time will tell.

My point is simply these images, whether they turn out to be accurate indicators of production output or not, carry little weight because they are based on a pre-production model using a suboptimal output format (WRT JPG) in a somewhat challenging situation (low contrast snow, though not on a bright day) where systematically tweaking settings was inconvenient due to all the resets and perhaps limited loaner time. How many times has a good photographer picked up a DSLR and known that the initial output of that production model would get better as they got to know the camera. For me, that's always been true. Once I learn the tool, I improve at using it. Now take a pre-production model and a limited time to get to know it (I think), shoot in snow, etc. and I just think final IQ is an open question.

So I view these samples like writings in the sand at the beach or on an Etch A Sketch. Here today, gone tomorrow. I don't think there is much to hang one's hat on yet. Time will tell.

BTW, this was done only after several firmware updates: