X-S1 Harbors

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lightpath48
  • Start date Start date
L

Lightpath48

Guest
Getting acquainted with a nice used X-S1 this morning. In many ways it seems a take-off from the X10, with slightly less sharpness and a need to use higher shutter speeds/ISOs with increased zoom handheld. Overall, very positive impressions though. It beats lugging around a bag of heavier lenses and a DSLR, though the IQ is slightly less.



1c42f5ab82bb41408bea67e691cc09ce.jpg



81903f73e34d44f3aad7188785e61584.jpg
 
very nice comp; and wonderful color on the last!
 
Thanks. Color and sharpening enhancements and highlight/shadow adjustments were applied through in-camera raw conversion.
 
LP, an X-S1 essentially is 'an X10 on steroids', as a Fuji rep described it once to me. Most X10 operating tips transfer almost directly to the X-S. A big difference, is, as you note, more time spent in shutter-priority to compensate for the enormous zoom reach (or, conversely, Ap-priority from the resulting shorter DOF).

It's a great 'Swiss Army Camera'. Not quite the IQ of lower-rung DSLR's, but can do great things once you get tuned-in to what it likes. The real advantage is traveling so light. I take a spare battery (it is totally unlike the X10 in that batts last a LONG time in the X-S) and card, the big Fuji flash, and occasionally a tripod and RR80 release if I'm doing long stuff that's not moving much. Built like a TANK.

All the Best,


JW
 
Thanks, for the good advice, JW. The seller sent me an OEM remote, and an extra battery. -Not sure how the remote might come into play, unless I decide to use an old, long-forgotten tripod sometime. The zoom tends to drift, when pointed down though. This seems to be a two-hands-on kind of camera.
 
Nice images..that top one with the light playing on the seagull is just gorgeous! You have a very good camera!
 
Peter. how were you able to see the RAW files of these two photos? I can only see the posted jpegs.
 
Last edited:
Peter's probably onto something. I enhanced saturation and sharpness a bit, in-camera in the raw conversion to the jpegs you're all seeing. It's a two-edged sword with a small EXR sensor: less noise and slightly dull images, or a little more drama with noise. The saving thing for me is how the noise is somewhat pleasant - not having chroma noise yellow blotching, and almost emulating film grain. I've actually come to like it. In film we used to call this sharp grain effect "tooth." It's more evident in the first (ISO 400) sample, and less in the second (ISO 100).
 
Last edited:
Lovely colours in the second shot. Also the boat has undergone a very unusual conversion - from graceful sailing hull to acquiring an ex submarine conning tower for a superstructure; incorporate the lamp post for a snorkel and its ready to dive.

Dicky.
 
I'll ask again, how was Peter able to see your RAW files? You only posted the jpegs.
 
It's really impossible to "see" raw files as images, isn't it? What we see is a jpeg thumbnail, or a jpeg in a size determined by the user's preference. If I'm wrong, someone please help me out.
 
What I was asking was in reference to the comment that Peter made that the RAW images show too much noise. So I was asking how he was able to see your RAW files, since you didn't post them, but only the jpegs. Where did Peter see your RAW files to make his comment?
 
He didn't see raw. I downloaded jpegs from the camera into Aperture, after processing them in-camera.
 
OK, but Peter made a comment that the RAW images show too much noise. So what was he talking about? I think your photos are very good, by the way.

I just don't understand his comment about RAW images and noise.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top