Interesting, and probably true.
The X10 did well on this scene. The URL is below if you want to look at the 4000x3000 image. Unfortunately the position is a bit different so you cannot see the tower and palm trees. But I believe the X10 might be superior to the F200, except for orbs etc.
So would I, although I do not plan to buy an XF1, so don't expect it from me.
The X10 is not really in the same class as F200, it is much bigger and has less zoom range. I also don't think the X10 looks any better here, too many blown areas ("new" Fuji metering style). For the difference in time between the releases, price and upscale packaging of X10, I would expect more. In the context of 2009 and how well it stacks up even today, I consider F200 a true classic of Fuji F line.
Yes, exactly.
The F200 lens is sharper on the right, because the F750 lens is badly defocused on the right.
There is only more shadow detail because that one is slightly over-exposed. It's a shame you didn't shoot DR400 in M size to get a better result (no clipped highlights).
Both shots were M size DR 400% as you can tell from the pixel dimensions or by looking at the EXIF. Hard to say exactly what is over-exposed for this image. Many cameras including Olympus M4/3 show total highlight clipping with no blue at all in the sky.
My apologies for rushing to judgment without looking closely. No one else shoots DR400!
The F200 will always be crisper because the lens on the F750 is misaligned and soft, very soft on the RHS especially.
Yes, those who do not shoot DR400 are in the minority, and their results always make it pretty obvious with lots of blown highlights ...
Posting was broken all day yesterday, so I could not reply until this morning.
The test, were it run properly, would be very useful. So it is not the test I do not like, but the inconsistency of the lighting and the exposures that I do not like. It renders results shot at different times meaningless when compared, which is what this thread tries to do.
An interesting comment. So you feel that snow in bright midday sunlight against a background of dark woods is somehow less of a challenge than a canyon with white water or trees against blue sky? By the way, we have trees and blue skies too.
Larger sensor and no taking advantage of RAW also makes a difference.
Yes, the perennial compromise is between zoom range and overall lens quality, especially at wide angle.
It's one thing to use DR 400% most of the time and another to glue the settings to DR 400%. There are days and times of the day when the scene's DR is extremely narrow, and for those photo opportunities, using DR 200% and higher will only reduce the image quality. wymjym's recent "XS1 -- into the mist" photos are good examples of photos that would benefit from using DR100%. Unfortunately, the DR settings were Photoshopped out of the EXIF data. They're still good photos even if DR400% was used, but even if so, DR100% would have been optimal.
I agree ... when you have the time and the lighting is very soft, very specific settings get better image quality. But of course, I also advocate using more camera too when you have the time
