Why the x100s files are lacking

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
mr moonlight Senior Member • Posts: 1,789
Re: Struck a defensive nerve?

photoreddi wrote:

mr moonlight wrote:


What this means is that if for whatever reason, you need to use a certain aperture and shutter speed (to stop motion or to get a wider depth of field), to get the same exposure, the Fuji cameras would have to use a higher ISO. It's only a difference of almost one stop, but it's hard to say that this is insignificant when the same persons that say this might have once been amazed at how the X100 produced as clean or cleaner images at ISO 3200 than brand X APS-C cameras did at ISO 1600. Maybe some of that super ISO was just due to the way Fuji calibrated their ISO values. Here's the exposure data I got from the downloaded studio images.

X100S : ISO 0200 : 1/30 @ f/8.0
X-Pro1 : ISO 0200 : 1/30 @ f/8.0
D7100 : ISO 0200 : 1/50 @ f/8.0
D7000 : ISO 0200 : 1/40 @ f/9.0
K-5 II : ISO 0200 :  1/40 @ f/8.0
GH3 : ISO 0200 : 1/80 @ f/6.3
T4i : ISO 0200 : 1/60 @ f/8.0
OM-D E-M5 : ISO 0200 : 1/50 @ f/6.3
X100S : ISO 6400 : 1/1000 @ f/8.0
X-Pro1 : ISO 6400 : 1/1000 @ f/8.0
D7100 : ISO 6400 : 1/1600 @ f/8.0
D7000 : ISO 6400 : 1/1600 @ f/9.0
K-5 II : ISO 6400 :  1/1250 @ f/8.0
GH3 : ISO 6400 : 1/2500 @ f/6.3
T4i : ISO 6400 : 1/2000 @ f/8.0
OM-D E-M5 : ISO 6400 : 1/1600 @ f/6.3

Again, in case you've forgotten, Fuji's cameras aren't at any disadvantage if there's no penalty incurred using slow shutter speeds and you can use  low ISO values. But if you've reached the point where you don't want to push the ISO any higher due to compromised image quality, there are other cameras that could have.

I don't know if you can use this as a benchmark since I don't think DPR ever claimed that their lights are always at the exact same intensity and there will also be slight variations when it comes to lenses too. It's always pretty close, but we're only talking a difference of 1/2 to 1 stop here.

Please, you'd have to be an unrealistic conspiracy theorist to believe that every time a Fuji camera is reviewed the lighting is dimmer and every time a Nikon or Canon camera is tested the lighting is brighter. The difference may be about 1/2 stop when Fuji's cameras are compared with some cameras but it's very close to a full stop when they're compared with Nikon and Canon cameras and the differences are consistent. If you want to believe that one stop is only one stop then you've make a point that you can hold onto forever. But when Fuji's next camera is one stop better than the X100s and X-Pro1, just remember that it's also only one stop better, so why upgrade?

I'm not saying that there's some conspiracy theory, I'm saying that light and lens variations can easily account for some minor differences. I'd think that Nikon's D7000 and D7100 would be the same, but are 1/3 stop different. So assuming that Canon and Nikon's cameras are between 1/2 and 1 stop better based on 3 cameras using a test that probably has some variations may not be that accurate, that's all.

When I tested my 5Dii against my Xpro1 I got a 1/3 stop difference. Some will upgrade based on 1 stop, others won't, but we're not talking about upgrading to the next Fujicam based on 1 stop. We're talking about Fuji's ISO ratings being inflated when compared to a few camera manufacturers. I didn't buy an X-cam based on only it's high ISO performance so this wasn't a concern, but I do prefer the way my 5Dii exposes. So based on my tests, I push my XP1 by 1/3 stop to match.

I found the X-trans to give me a little over a 2 stop advantage over the X100. That combined with faster AF, Split screen MF and all around faster operation are good enough reasons for me to upgrade. If it was just an X100 that was one stop better, I wouldn't bother, but to each their own.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow