Reading mode: Light Dark

X20 - Interior Architecture

Go to last post
Tron

It depends on what gives you pleasure from photography. If you get yours from looking at portions of a 100% image on a screen, I have no problem with that. Personally I get mine from creating a printed image on which I can see the whole composition I was trying to achieve, and which I might hang on a wall (for a little while until it has to be filed to make room for new shots). Ultimate detail on a screen at 100% does not mean much for me, as it generally exceeds the IQ that can be presented on a print of A4 or even A3 size.

It is clear that the in camera JPEG processing of X20 falls down in some circumstances using default settings. There have however been a few images posted on here by people who have a better knowledge of cameras which seem very acceptable. Is the X20 for a novice P&S shooter? Possibly not unless they are satisfied with the OOC IQ. I am not sure which camp you fall in, but I suspect you do have experience and your comments are simply pointing to the fact that you need to be a decent photographer to use the X20. (I would not like to think that you just have a vendetta against Fuji or the camera as some people suggest)

I think most purchasers of X20 will have experience, as it appeals to that type of user, and will get good results from it. If you wil not use a camera without viewfinder there is not a lot of choice in a (sub) compact, and its build quality and handling appeals to many.

However I do agree that it would be good if Fuji released a modified firmware to fix the problems, and that it would make getting good images simpler and probably widen the market for it.

good shooting

tom
 
tomhongkong said:
tomhongkong wrote:

Tron

It depends on what gives you pleasure from photography. If you get yours from looking at portions of a 100% image on a screen, I have no problem with that. Personally I get mine from creating a printed image on which I can see the whole composition I was trying to achieve, and which I might hang on a wall (for a little while until it has to be filed to make room for new shots). Ultimate detail on a screen at 100% does not mean much for me, as it generally exceeds the IQ that can be presented on a print of A4 or even A3 size.

It is clear that the in camera JPEG processing of X20 falls down in some circumstances using default settings. There have however been a few images posted on here by people who have a better knowledge of cameras which seem very acceptable. Is the X20 for a novice P&S shooter? Possibly not unless they are satisfied with the OOC IQ. I am not sure which camp you fall in, but I suspect you do have experience and your comments are simply pointing to the fact that you need to be a decent photographer to use the X20. (I would not like to think that you just have a vendetta against Fuji or the camera as some people suggest)

I think most purchasers of X20 will have experience, as it appeals to that type of user, and will get good results from it. If you wil not use a camera without viewfinder there is not a lot of choice in a (sub) compact, and its build quality and handling appeals to many.

However I do agree that it would be good if Fuji released a modified firmware to fix the problems, and that it would make getting good images simpler and probably widen the market for it.

good shooting

tom
Click to expand...
I agree Tom. I bought a Pany GH2 which I hated, but I don't hang around the Pany forum bashing it. Some will love the X20 and some won't. Yes, there is a problem with high ISO but I would expect a firmware update to address the issue. While I'm waiting I'll just hold the ISO down and have some fun.
 
Jimbo70 said:
I agree Tom. I bought a Pany GH2 which I hated, but I don't hang around the Pany forum bashing it. Some will love the X20 and some won't. Yes, there is a problem with high ISO but I would expect a firmware update to address the issue. While I'm waiting I'll just hold the ISO down and have some fun.
Click to expand...
Hiya,

The problem with high ISO is not isolated with the X20. And grain is NOT noise as some others would say. Not that I'm saying the X20 is noisy, I'm saying that people better know what they're claiming before they go bashing it. Especially those who don't even have the equipment and materials to prove their authority.

Now that you mentioned the GH2, the normal settings pix at 400 up was kinda iffy too, but hardly the GH2 killer.

Liz.
 
Nukunukoo said:
Nukunukoo wrote:
Nukunukoo said:
I agree Tom. I bought a Pany GH2 which I hated, but I don't hang around the Pany forum bashing it. Some will love the X20 and some won't. Yes, there is a problem with high ISO but I would expect a firmware update to address the issue. While I'm waiting I'll just hold the ISO down and have some fun.
Click to expand...
Hiya,

The problem with high ISO is not isolated with the X20. And grain is NOT noise as some others would say. Not that I'm saying the X20 is noisy, I'm saying that people better know what they're claiming before they go bashing it. Especially those who don't even have the equipment and materials to prove their authority.

Now that you mentioned the GH2, the normal settings pix at 400 up was kinda iffy too, but hardly the GH2 killer.

Liz.
Click to expand...
There were many reasons I didn't like the GH2. The build quality was just awful and I didn't like the EVF. Unfortunately I was living where I couldn't handle one first so I bought it sight unseen. I should have paid more attention to the reviewer who called it "Plasticky, like a TV remote." The Jpeg output was horrible, but I do admit the RAW output especially with the 20mm 1.7 Pany lens was quite good. This is just my opinion, but as I pointed out I don't hang around the Pany forums bashing the camera, in fact I try to not think about my time with it at all.
 
Jimbo70 said:
Jimbo70 wrote:
Jimbo70 said:
Nukunukoo wrote:
Jimbo70 said:
I agree Tom. I bought a Pany GH2 which I hated, but I don't hang around the Pany forum bashing it. Some will love the X20 and some won't. Yes, there is a problem with high ISO but I would expect a firmware update to address the issue. While I'm waiting I'll just hold the ISO down and have some fun.
Click to expand...
Hiya,

The problem with high ISO is not isolated with the X20. And grain is NOT noise as some others would say. Not that I'm saying the X20 is noisy, I'm saying that people better know what they're claiming before they go bashing it. Especially those who don't even have the equipment and materials to prove their authority.

Now that you mentioned the GH2, the normal settings pix at 400 up was kinda iffy too, but hardly the GH2 killer.

Liz.
Click to expand...
There were many reasons I didn't like the GH2. The build quality was just awful and I didn't like the EVF. Unfortunately I was living where I couldn't handle one first so I bought it sight unseen. I should have paid more attention to the reviewer who called it "Plasticky, like a TV remote." The Jpeg output was horrible, but I do admit the RAW output especially with the 20mm 1.7 Pany lens was quite good. This is just my opinion, but as I pointed out I don't hang around the Pany forums bashing the camera, in fact I try to not think about my time with it at all.
Click to expand...
I should add that when I say there is a problem with the X20 and high ISO what I mean is with the smearing that Fuji's NR produces. Most of the time I shoot with my max ISO at 1600 and NR -2. I can live with some noise and when I need to, I turn the ISO down to 400/800. I found that when printing a lot of noise that you see on your monitor disappears.
 
Grobb said:
tron555 wrote:

Tom, I respectfully disagree with you. Pixel peeping on a high resolution monitor (that is calibrated correctly) can be as effective as printing images on paper. Analyzing images electronically as opposed to on a piece of paper can be very effective when viewed at 100% resolution. As long as you print images at full resolution on 5x7 to 8.5x11”, prints taken from the X20 should be adequate. Also, those images need to be taken at as close to base ISO in bright light and only if exposure is as close to perfect as possible. Once you get to ISO 400 or over, printing at anything over 8.5x11” or viewing at 100%, (unless your standards are extremely low), will not be very sharp, highly detailed or have low noise and grain in them. Almost all images posted lately have been re-sized to 2 MB (or less) and taken in very high light situations, and high end P&S camera can take good looking images in those situations. Even the images taken at over ISO 400 in low light and re-sized to 2 MB (or less) still have a lot of noise and grain in them, so nothing to brag about IMO.
Click to expand...
I posted a lot of "horrible" X20 pictures that meet your, erm, criteria (low light, low contrast, and high ISO) for your bashi- er, insightful and useful comments.

I'm so surprised that you did not even visited it yet.

www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51268781

Liz.
 
I just did, and I agree with what NexMan has to say. I am trying to stay with the saying:

"If you don't have something good to say, don't say anything at all"

I will try to keep my opinion to myself from now on since I have voiced my opinion clearly enough.

It is just hard not to say anything when people get so exited about taking such inferior images from what is supposed to be considered a "High End" camera that cost so much $. I am glad you are happy with your camera and the pictures you are taking, I guess that is all that really matters.
 
Grobb said:
tron555 wrote:

I just did, and I agree with what NexMan has to say. I am trying to stay with the saying:

"If you don't have something good to say, don't say anything at all"

I will try to keep my opinion to myself from now on since I have voiced my opinion clearly enough.

It is just hard not to say anything when people get so exited about taking such inferior images from what is supposed to be considered a "High End" camera that cost so much $. I am glad you are happy with your camera and the pictures you are taking, I guess that is all that really matters.
Click to expand...
hmmmm....

"if you have something good to say, don't say anything at all"

Good saying. Too bad you don't practice it. Else you would not be in this foum. Full stop. Does that mean that you were practicing that saying when you called some good images here "worthless"?

You indeed are a contradiction. Can you also explain where you got you findings saying RAWs are inferior above 400 iso? Or will you hide behind the excuse above and keep posting imaginary numbers?

Liz.
 
Last edited:
Errata on my earlier post:

"If you don't have anyting good to say, don't say it"

Bummer sometimes typing on tablets.

Liz.
 
Grobb said:
tron555 wrote:

I just did, and I agree with what NexMan has to say. I am trying to stay with the saying:

"If you don't have something good to say, don't say anything at all"

I will try to keep my opinion to myself from now on since I have voiced my opinion clearly enough.

It is just hard not to say anything when people get so exited about taking such inferior images from what is supposed to be considered a "High End" camera that cost so much $. I am glad you are happy with your camera and the pictures you are taking, I guess that is all that really matters.
Click to expand...
Finally!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top