X20 Full-size ISO 400 images

Started Feb 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
New Full-sized samples (see below)

Rachotilko wrote:

marike6 wrote:

As far as I can tell from Kamerakazi samples, the X20's JPEGs in many cases, actually look worse than the X10. Tons of NR artifacts obscuring details when viewed at 100%.

Not very happy with this development, and need to decide what I'm going to do about my pre-order. My problem is I'm a RAW shooter. But if the X20's X-Trans RAWs have conversion issues with LR and others, and we don't get great OOC JPEGs like the X10, then what is the purpose of spending over 700 USD (once I get the lenshood/filter set)? It's a pretty camera, but...

I can get the same blotchy high ISO images with a less expensive 1/1.7" camera like the MX-1. And I won't have to wait for RAW conversion issues to be resolved.

I have a pre-order at B&H. Might change it to an MX-1 or go nuts on a D7100.

Anyway, thanks again to Kamerakazi for the wonderful sample set.

Well, I think right now the choices in the enthusiast compact segment are definitelly not limited to Fuji & Pentax. If I were to long for such a device right now, I'd go for X10, XZ-2, P7700 or G15.

Regarding this X20 situation:

I remember the early X-S1 days, when Fuji claimed that its lens are a unique design, how many aspherical elements it employs, etc. We all believed it. Then the shock came in form of substantial softness in the official Fuji samples. Many of us wanted the cam to be good, so there was an unanimous consensus that "Fuji samples are usually pretty bad, real photographers will make it work better". Well, we know the rest of the story.

Then I remember HS30EXR launch. Fuji claimed 30% reduction in noise compared to the HS20EXR. We all believed it ! Then came the photonumeric.fr comparison with HS20EXR and it revealed that sensor performed basically the same - the only tweaks done were in the form of slightly different metering and JPEG processing.

And then I remember X10. And I remember all the lies that orbs were in fact an ordinary blooming and it's all within tolerances.

I agree with everything you've said up to here. The fact is we just don't know that the X20 performs worse than the X10. For one, we haven't seen a single RAW image from the X20. It's not wise to judge ANY camera on JPEGs, especially on JPEGs with NR set to -2.0 like the samples in this tread.

Without a doubt these images the OOC JPEG image here look much better some of the others we've seen, so setting may have a lot to do with the output various new X20 users are getting.

Nice tilt-shift or Miniature Effect Filter

X20 New 35 Image Flickr Gallery (Full-Sized JPEGs, as far as I can tell)


Whether Fuji overstated things by claiming a 30% IQ boost with X-Trans hasn't been determined yet. I was surprised at the IQ of some of the images that the OP linked, but the fact is, AFAIK, not a single Finepix forum users has seem any X20 RAW files. Some cameras have great JPEGs engines some don't. Whether the X20 RAW files look significantly better than the OOC JPEGs with -2.0 NR like images from the OP links or OOC JPEGs at the default settings is anybody's guess. But I've seen some great looking X20 images, and some not so great looking X20 images. But all I have seen are JPEGs. I will say that the X10 seems to have a slightly more efficient JPEG engine than the X20, but at ISO 100, I think the X20 images look better, with much better DR and colors that are at least as good. And no blooming issues.

We'll see...

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow