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...

cptrios wrote:

I know je ne sais quoi is sort of a ridiculous thing to say - not entirely dissimilar to something like "Zeiss 3D pop." It's obviously a completely subjective thing, and I'm sure there are loads and loads of people who dislike the X100's output. I'll try to describe it as best I can without photos, as I don't have my library with me. There are two major things that set the X100's IQ apart from other cameras as far as I'm concerned:

(These are only relevant for RAWs, mind you. The X100's JPEG engine is quite good, but it's still...well, a JPEG engine.)

1. The combination of that lens and that sensor produces a level of detail and microcontrast that rivals some extremely expensive glass. They remind me quite a bit of images from the original 13MP Canon 5D, which was a uniquely "sharp" camera. One thing I particularly like is the falloff between the focal plane and OoF areas.

2. RAW colors. This is where the je ne sais quoi comes in. Even at very small sizes, I can immediately tell images from my X100 apart from images from my NEX-7. This is most obvious when shooting people in good natural light. Skin tones just look good, and I can't exactly describe why. I'll often shoot some portraits and candids at, say, a barbecue with my X100 and then have the results shock me when I load them up on my computer later. My reaction is almost always "I wouldn't have been able to get my photos to look like that in PP without a ton of work."

#1 should be the same with the X100s. It's #2 that I worry about. Everyone's always talking about "Fuji Colors," and they're typically referring to the S-series cameras with CCD sensors. That, in my opinion, is just as subjective as what I'm talking about...but indeed if you look at the photos those cameras have produced, the colors are definitely unique. I'm guessing that the Bayer-patterned CMOS X100 is already removed enough from those colors (though clearly Fuji made a strong effort to keep a lot of that quality), and my concern is that the X-Trans will be even further away.

Really, I have no doubt that the IQ of the X100s is generally better. Better DR, certainly better resolution, much better high ISO performance. If I had the money to spend, I doubt my hesitations toward buying one would last very long. Actually, if someone deposited $1300 in my bank account just this instant, those hesitations would last exactly as long as it'd take to place an order with B&H. I'd just like to be more confident that it'd have that same immediately-identifiable quality.

Very clear. A lot of good information. Absolutely agree. X100s IQ is definitely better. Colors ARE NOT. Yesterday I was watching a lot of night scenes with street lights and yellows are totally different. Everything trend to get a yellowish tone. In the same scene with an X100 you get a lot more. But, you also get less definition and the sensor is less sensitive.

And as you say, people in natural light get skin tones that are difficult to get from another camera. For sure you don't get it from the X100s.

Again, X100s is better. But I'm not sure I'm keeping it.

 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