Has the X20 met or failed your expectations?

Started Mar 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
2eyesee Senior Member • Posts: 2,210
Re: Has the X20 met or failed your expectations?

Nukunukoo wrote:

2eyesee wrote:

Nukunukoo wrote:

tron555 wrote:

And you think that noisy, colorless, worthless, no detailed image is worth bragging about?! Come on, surely you can do better than that, or maybe not.

I posted some other images AND pointed out WHY I am impressed with this particular one. But obviously with your trolling style you have very little to contribute and thus is a waste of all our time. You deliberately picked the worst of the bunch and gawked on it withoit having the intelligence to read its context.

The problem is though that you don't have to look far to find problem X20 images. I posted 100% crops of the 2 images uploaded by Mickey LeBeau which illustrated the much talked about 'watercolour' effect and lack of detail in low contrast areas. Not the photographers fault.

And here another posted by Lmendy above:

It really surprised me how bad this looks for ISO200, 1/900 sec shutter speed in bright sunlight.

I see. Thank you for pointing that out. Unfortunately, the X20's OOC JPEG is not something I am crazy about. Not only is the rendering bad but I believe the NR is way too aggressive by default (which can be reduced by -2 in the menu, I have not tried if that would help though.)

Still, that image is NOT representative of the camera's capabilities. To make reference to one of my posts

Mind you, this crop is based on an image that has already been saved TWICE using average JPEG quality, so the IQ will be lower than the original. No NR is applied.

At ISO320 and less light (more prone to noise), this picture that has NO NR applied to it exhibits good noise grain and the high contrast between the hair and highlight exhibits no watercoloring effects. Something that I find much better than on my LX7 and S110.

While my use of the X20 can't replicate the effect, I believe the NR is set too high + OOC JPEG quality (which is NOT impressive with the X20). Since my workflow ALWAYS must begin with RAW, I do not get into these issues.

suppose for people who only deal with JPEGs and nothing else will not be able to realize the full capacity of this camera. That would be such a waste of investment in their part and would have been better off with something cheaper and has better JPEG rendering such as the LX5/LX7 or the Nikon P7100 (Oh, wait, that's expensive too... but look at those JPEGs!). I didn't mention the S110 because, I also am not happy on how it renders its JPEGs.

Looking at these two 100% crops I would never believe that they were produced by the same camera - especially as the cat image is higher ISO. What an enigma the X20 is!

Clearly you can never risk shooting JPG only on an X20, but if you are a RAW shooter anyway and it fits comfortably into your normal workflow then it's obviously capable of generating very nice results.

Unfortunately though I'm sure a large percentage of potential X20 owners are just looking for a high quality compact camera to give them good JPG output and aren't necessarily interested in developing RAW.

I have to wonder if Fuji were trying to be too clever with this sensor. The mere fact of having a 2/3" sensor gives them an potential IQ advantage over all other premium compacts (1/1.7" sensors) other than the RX100 (1" sensor - but the RX100 comes with other compromises).

As for me, I was looking seriously at the X20 but with such mixed results I've gone ahead and purchased an Olympus E-PL5 instead, and am very happy with it. But I am still interested in also having a premium compact as a camera I can just put on a belt pouch and take out without the 'gear' that a systems cameras involves. The X20 certainly won't be that camera though - unless a firmware update can address these JPG issues.

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