The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP aleS. Forum Member • Posts: 93
Re: The X100s is far a better camera than the X100, but...

sgoldswo wrote:

aleS. wrote:

­I have been shooting with my X100 for a year and a half. I bought an XE-1 with the 18-55 six months ago and realized that it wasn’t the photographic experience I would enjoy. I took me back to my SLR and the world of changing lenses. And that’s what the X100 did. It made me approach photography in a total different way. Besides, I didn’t like the rendering that the RAW files gave me compared to what I was getting from my X100 using Lightroom as my workflow.

I bought the X100S now and I was playing with it all weekend. I shot RAW + fine Jpgs.

Wow. What a better camera it is. Faster in every possible way. AF now caught my kids as fast as any camera. Manual focus is a dream.

Image quality, amazing. To me, besides how much I liked the look of the camera, bottom line it was all about the image quality. It’s soooo much about image quality that sometimes I prefer the X100 look than what I can get from a Nikon D800. A matter of taste.


Is the IQ of the X100s better than the X100?

No. It’s not.

Is it worse?

No. It’s not worse. It’s just different. And the way I had to approach the correction in Lightroom is different.

You have to approach sharpening in a different way. If you abuse, like with any other camera, you get artifacts.

The jpgs OOC are very good by the way.

So. Is it a keeper?

I still have to see. I love so much my X100 and what it gives me that makes me think. On the other hand, what I could do this weekend with the X100s was a lot more versatile that what I would be able to do with my old X100.

Time will tell. So far, I’m keeping both and gonna give a good ride to the X100s this week in a trip to NY.



I've already sold my X100, for me at least the X100S was the better camera. However, I can see that if you preferred the image quality of the X100 to the X-E1 why you might hold the views you've set out. However, it isn't as simple as bayer vs x-trans, the (great) lens is the same, the resolution is better, the camera is faster, the jpegs are better, the MF improvements are great.

What I would say is that the RAW image quality isn't a finished article yet (but then LR 4.4 is a release candidate not a final version). What you've referred to as artefacts seems correlated to the use of the details slider rather than normal sharpening.

I agree. RAW image quality is not a finish article yet. I was working with LR 4.4 but just for a few hours. I took in consideration what you said about the details slider. Still I don't think that it fixes the sharpening issues. If there's any.

 aleS.'s gear list:aleS.'s gear list
Fujifilm X100S Sony RX100 III Sony RX1R II Sony RX10 III Nikon D5300 +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow