Is the X-A1 the right camera for me?

Daniel Lauring · Nov 18, 2013

I was getting tired of looking at the same darn eye so I switched sides.

This is a similar comparison for the X-A1 that I posted for the X-E2. The advice is the same. Turn NR down to -2.

The X-A1 might, by default, have more NR than the X-E2, but when turned down to -2 it looks pretty detailed. Remember folks, this is ISO 6400. It was unheard of a a half dozen years ago to get images this good from ISO 6400.

virgil1612 · Nov 18, 2013

Daniel, thank you for providing those crops.

Virgil.

bimbert84 · Nov 18, 2013

viking79 said:
With kit lenses, where the X-A1 is going to give you the largest advantage to the Olympus XZ-2 is actually at base ISO, like outside for a landscape shot, where both cameras are at ISO 200, the larger sensor will really show off.

This isn't something I had considered, but it certainly makes sense.

viking79 said:
The difference at high ISO is less (only in the case where you use kit lens on X-A1) since you usually hand hold high ISO shots and since the XZ-2 has more than 2 stop larger f/stop so you shoot at 2 stops lower ISO. If you set both cameras to ISO 6400 the X-A1 will clearly win, but you wouldn't realistically do this in this case. The only way to really take advantage of the higher ISO on the X-A1 is get a larger aperture lens.

That makes sense as well. I wonder if you can take a look at something for me. Forgive me here, but I can't seem to get direct links to these pics (I get 403 - Forbidden):

Loading…

www.photographyblog.com

These are from the X-A1. Down near the bottom of the jpegs are two indoor shots with a "Welcome to Costa" sign. Both of them look very clean at 3200 and 6400 ISO.

Loading…

www.photographyblog.com

These are from the XZ2. The same pics here are 6400 and 12800 ISO. You don't even need to open them to know they look like crap. But my question is, why take that shot at f/4 1/1000s? It seems you could gain 3 stops by slowing down to around 1/120s, and another 2 stops by shooting at f/2. Wouldn't this put it around ISO 400-800?

bimbert84 · Nov 18, 2013

pcb_dpr said:
I'd say if you're willing to make the compromise of using flash or turning up the light when indoors, there's no reason (except for budget) to back down to a compact camera. No small-sensor p&s will match the XA1 IQ, lowlight high-ISO performance, or shallow dof capabilities. The only ones that come close are larger-sensor compacts, which can cost as much as, or more, than the XA1.

I made that realization shortly after I posted I'd be willing to turn up the lights with the XZ-2. I also realized that with something like the XZ-2, it can never get any better. But if I were to go with the X-A1, I'd have options: I could buy a faster lens, or just turn up the lights.

-- Rob

Daniel Lauring · Nov 18, 2013

virgil1612 said:
Daniel, thank you for providing those crops.

Virgil.

It wouldn't be complete without the RAW comparison. Here is the X-A1 converted from RAW in Photoshop.

bimbert84 · Nov 18, 2013

virgil1612 said:
I said I don't want to reopen this, there are those dedicated threads. The very existence of those threads means the issue is real.

You don't agree that the OP should be aware of potential problems concerning the camera he wants to buy?

I definitely appreciate the heads-up. But when it comes to NR, I always hear people talking about smudging and loss of fine detail. Whether it's my less-than-stellar eyes, or my lack of photography experience, I can barely see it (even in the samples Daniel has attached). But I do see noise, and I find it particularly bothersome. So when I look at the X-A1 sample pics, I see beautiful, noise-free jpegs, and that's exactly what I'm looking for.

Here's one example in particular:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

In the comments section, people are saying it's "not bad," but IMO the noise is worse than horrible.

-- Rob

Daniel Lauring · Nov 18, 2013

bimbert84 said:
These are from the XZ2. The same pics here are 6400 and 12800 ISO. You don't even need to open them to know they look like crap. But my question is, why take that shot at f/4 1/1000s? It seems you could gain 3 stops by slowing down to around 1/120s, and another 2 stops by shooting at f/2. Wouldn't this put it around ISO 400-800?

Even at three stops, F2 vs. F5.6, the X-A1 will beat the XZ2. Stops go like this, F2, F2.8, F4, F5.6, F8 so three stops would be iso 800 vs. iso 6400. On top of that, you will be able to pull more out of the shadows with the X-A1 because it will have considerably more dynamic range than the XZ2.

bimbert84 · Nov 18, 2013

Daniel Lauring said:
bimbert84 said:

These are from the XZ2. The same pics here are 6400 and 12800 ISO. You don't even need to open them to know they look like crap. But my question is, why take that shot at f/4 1/1000s? It seems you could gain 3 stops by slowing down to around 1/120s, and another 2 stops by shooting at f/2. Wouldn't this put it around ISO 400-800?

Click to expand...

Even at three stops, F2 vs. F5.6, the X-A1 will beat the XZ2. Stops go like this, F2, F2.8, F4, F5.6, F8 so three stops would be iso 800 vs. iso 6400. On top of that, you will be able to pull more out of the shadows with the X-A1 because it will have considerably more dynamic range than the XZ2.

You don't have to convince me any more about the X-A1 -- I've decided that's the way I'm going to go. I just tried Wolfe's and they're out-of-stock, though, so I'll probably wait until Black Friday to see if any deals materialize.

I was more trying to understand why anyone would need to take that shot at 1/1000s with the XZ-2. Wouldn't you be able to drop the ISO significantly just by lowering the shutter speed?

-- Rob

marike6 · Nov 18, 2013

virgil1612 said:
marike6 said:

virgil1612 said:

bimbert84 said:

After weeks of research I think I've finally narrowed my choices to the Fujifilm X-A1. I'd like to know whether or not you think I've made the right decision.

I'm not a photographer, rather I want to take pictures for the sake of preserving memories, so it'll be mostly (grown-up) family members, the lazy cat, vacations, and the occasional nature walk. But I want them to look good, and in particular, I want them to look good when they're taken inside the house. I'd like to learn more about photography as I go, but no doubt this camera will see its share of full auto use, and I'd prefer something that produces good jpegs straight OOC.

My priorities, in order, are:

1) Non-DSLR.

2) Good low-light performance, meaning low-noise indoor stills without a flash. I hate noise. I hear people talking about smudging and loss-of-detail when it comes to NR, but to be honest, I can't see that. All I see is the noise.

3) Ability to produce shallow DOF.

4) Tilting or articulating screen.

5) $500-600 range.

Originally I was looking at high-end compacts, but quickly realized that #2, #3, and #4 exist together only at extremely high prices. So I started looking at bigger sensors in CSCs, but the ones in my price range seem seem to suffer on #2. My favorite amongst the m43s is the Panny G6, but most of the sample pics I've seen were taken outdoors, and those that weren't are quite noisy. This tells me a fast lens would be needed as well (or would it?), catapulting the price into the $1000 range.

So I started looking at even bigger sensors. A couple days ago I found the X-A1, which to me looks like I might've struck gold. All the sample pics I've seen are clean up through ISO 12800, which means that even with the kit lens, it'll meet my needs. My only concerns are reports of "slow" autofocus. I'm wondering if somebody can put "slow" into context for me. Does the X-A1 fail to focus, or does it just take a while? How long is a while? 5 seconds? 2 seconds? 1/2 second? I'm coming from a Panny TZ3, which is a 2007 vintage small-sensor point-and-shoot that was quite snappy for its time. How does "slow" on the X-A1 compare to something like that?

Click to expand...

There's also the problem of Fuji's too strong noise reduction. There is a thread dedicated to X-A2 (but with examples of X-A1). At high-ISO skin becomes waxy . I don't intend to reopen the discussion here but the OP should be aware of the issue. There is a group of people that find this acceptable even desirable. There is another group of people finding this unacceptable. You should decide for yourself where you stand.

With the 35mm f/1.4 you shouldn't get into those high ISOs and your jpeg people photos should be good.

If you're willing to shoot RAW your people photos should be excellent at any ISO.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, all Fujifilm X cameras including the X10, X20, XQ1 and all the APS-C cameras: X-A1, X-M1, X-E1, X-E2 and X-Pro1 allow the user to adjust Noise Reduction to taste. Your post is creating an issue out of a non-issue. All IQ parameters including NR can be adjusted.

Click to expand...

I said I don't want to reopen this, there are those dedicated threads. The very existence of those threads means the issue is real.

You don't agree that the OP should be aware of potential problems concerning the camera he wants to buy?

To be clear, it's an issue for people who only shoot JPEGs and for people who believe images must look perfect at 100% pixel level. For RAW shooters, or people who don't pixel peep, what you are talking about is a non-issue.

So if you think the OP is going to be pixel peeping 100% crops and obsessing over NR in 8-bit JPEGs of the "family members, the lazy cat, vacations, and the occasional nature walk", then by all means.

If you want to turn away another potential Fujifilm customer like the OP with stuff that the dedicated forum pixel peeping, images scientists seem to think matters to EVERYONE as much as it matters to them, then by all means.

Just make sure you tell the OP that ALL OOC JPEGs use NR to varying degrees and that all decent cameras allow users to adjust NR to taste. And also make sure to tell him that NR is only really noticeable if you stare at images at 100%

But by all means show the OP some 100% crops. Explain to him that if he plans to shoot JPEG only at camera defaults, NR might be noticeable at 100% if left at Default. Maybe after all that inside baseball information he won't be completely confused and doubtful about the X-A1. Maybe he will be, maybe he won't be. Maybe he'll drop the idea of an X-A1 altogether and run out and buy a Nikon or Canon. See what I'm getting at?

virgil1612 · Nov 18, 2013

bimbert84 said:
Daniel Lauring said:

bimbert84 said:

These are from the XZ2. The same pics here are 6400 and 12800 ISO. You don't even need to open them to know they look like crap. But my question is, why take that shot at f/4 1/1000s? It seems you could gain 3 stops by slowing down to around 1/120s, and another 2 stops by shooting at f/2. Wouldn't this put it around ISO 400-800?

Click to expand...

Even at three stops, F2 vs. F5.6, the X-A1 will beat the XZ2. Stops go like this, F2, F2.8, F4, F5.6, F8 so three stops would be iso 800 vs. iso 6400. On top of that, you will be able to pull more out of the shadows with the X-A1 because it will have considerably more dynamic range than the XZ2.

Click to expand...

You don't have to convince me any more about the X-A1 -- I've decided that's the way I'm going to go. I just tried Wolfe's and they're out-of-stock, though, so I'll probably wait until Black Friday to see if any deals materialize.

I was more trying to understand why anyone would need to take that shot at 1/1000s with the XZ-2. Wouldn't you be able to drop the ISO significantly just by lowering the shutter speed?

-- Rob

I guess they just wanted to show pictures at that ISO.

bimbert84 · Nov 19, 2013

Hi marike,

I am the OP.

marike6 said:
To be clear, it's an issue for people who only shoot JPEGs and for people who believe images must look perfect at 100% pixel level. For RAW shooters, or people who don't pixel peep, what you are talking about is a non-issue.

I'll be shooting primarily JPEG, and if I can't see it when it's full-screen on my computer, I won't care about it.

marike6 said:
So if you think the OP is going to be pixel peeping 100% crops and obsessing over NR in 8-bit JPEGs of the "family members, the lazy cat, vacations, and the occasional nature walk", then by all means.

I'll be a lot more likely to obsess over the presence of noise than I will any loss of detail that results from it. I just don't see the loss of detail many of you do, but I definitely see the noise.

marike6 said:
If you want to turn away another potential Fujifilm customer like the OP with stuff that the dedicated forum pixel peeping, images scientists seem to think matters to EVERYONE as much as it matters to them, then by all means.

Just make sure you tell the OP that ALL OOC JPEGs use NR to varying degrees and that all decent cameras allow users to adjust NR to taste. And also make sure to tell him that NR is only really noticeable if you stare at images at 100%

I'm aware of these things, but I agree that understanding the subjectivity of one person is helpful in determining whether or not it will be important to another. That's why I tried to explain that I'm just a guy looking to take pictures for the sake of capturing memories. Based on many of the very good in-depth explanations I've seen here, I know I'll never be as passionate about photography as most of you, and I've tried to be clear that "extra level of IQ" isn't something I'm willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to get.

marike6 said:
Maybe he'll drop the idea of an X-A1 altogether and run out and buy a Nikon or Canon. See what I'm getting at?

Well I might. But what would be wrong with that? This statement sounds you have an agenda that's not consistent with what I need.

Actually, I don't see any mirrorless offerings from Nikon or Canon that I like. I started with the G15/16 and P7700 on my list, but ended up favoring the Oly XZ-2 in that category. My other consideration in mirrorless is the Panasonic G6. The one thing I really like about Panasonic is their electronics. Screens, autofocus, stabilization, and shooting speed seem to be done very well. Their biggest problem to me is noisy sensors (did I mention I hate noise?), and I don't think the G6 kit lens is up to the task. And since I know I'd also have to spring for a good lens, I've ruled it out.

So with the budget being what it is, I'm limited to using only the kit lens. And given that constraint, the X-A1 seems the best choice for me. Most here have convinced me the kit lens on the X-A1 is a cut above and will meet my expectations quite well, but if it won't and I need to spend another several hundred dollars so that it will, I simply won't buy it.

-- Rob

bimbert84 · Nov 19, 2013

virgil1612 said:
bimbert84 said:

I was more trying to understand why anyone would need to take that shot at 1/1000s with the XZ-2. Wouldn't you be able to drop the ISO significantly just by lowering the shutter speed?
-- Rob

Click to expand...

I guess they just wanted to show pictures at that ISO.

Maybe, but that seems a bit silly for a camera whose strength lies in using a fast lens to avoid high ISO. I'm personally far more interested in knowing how the camera could best capture that shot.

-- Rob

stimpy · Nov 19, 2013

bimbert84 said:
virgil1612 said:

bimbert84 said:

I was more trying to understand why anyone would need to take that shot at 1/1000s with the XZ-2. Wouldn't you be able to drop the ISO significantly just by lowering the shutter speed?

-- Rob

Click to expand...

I guess they just wanted to show pictures at that ISO.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but that seems a bit silly for a camera whose strength lies in using a fast lens to avoid high ISO. I'm personally far more interested in knowing how the camera could best capture that shot.

-- Rob

I think you have unrealistic expectations with regards to noise. All the cameras you mentioned are going to show noise at pretty much most ISO ranges, indoors under poor light will be worse, again on all cameras.

I do think the Fuji X-A1 fits your needs best, and it's a great little camera, but this will not be noise free, so prepare yourself.

Here is the latest Fuji (X-E2) at rather low ISO (640) - and even this shows a fair bit of noise.

Loading…

www.kevinmullinsphotography.co.uk

virgil1612 · Nov 19, 2013

>>To be clear, it's an issue for people who only shoot JPEGs and for people who believe

>>images must look perfect at 100% pixel level... So if you think the OP is going to be pixel

>>peeping 100%... And also make sure to tell him that NR is only really noticeable if you

>>stare at images at 100%... NR might be noticeable at 100% if left at Default

But it's not about pixel peeping. It's not about 100%... at all. Of course you did not read those threads. Look at the blog of this lady,

Loading…

www.rachelrufferblog.com

That is not 100%, that is not pixel peeping, and NR-2, so maximum NR.

You may find the look desirable. I find it unacceptable. The OP should decide for himself.

>>If you want to turn away another potential Fujifilm customer like the OP with stuff

>>that the dedicated forum pixel peeping, ...

>>Maybe he'll drop the idea of an X-A1 altogether and run out and buy a Nikon or Canon.

I never told him to pixel peep. I really tried to help. Whereas you, you're just concerned that he might change his mind and buy a Canon. God forbid, right?

bimbert84, I am interested myself in buying this camera, that is why I got into these discussions. When you buy it maybe you would be willing to post some images with people at high ISO. That would help me to eventually take my own decision.

virgil1612 · Nov 19, 2013

virgil1612 said:
But it's not about pixel peeping. It's not about 100%... at all. Of course you did not read those threads. Look at the blog of this lady,
http://www.rachelrufferblog.com/pho...noise-reduction-why-im-only-shooting-raw-now/

That is not 100%, that is not pixel peeping, and NR-2, so maximum NR.

I don't want to be misunderstood. Yes there is a crop on that page, but it's the whole picture that I find bad, I'm not talking about the crop.

bimbert84 · Nov 19, 2013

virgil1612 said:
>>To be clear, it's an issue for people who only shoot JPEGs and for people who believe

>>images must look perfect at 100% pixel level... So if you think the OP is going to be pixel

>>peeping 100%... And also make sure to tell him that NR is only really noticeable if you

>>stare at images at 100%... NR might be noticeable at 100% if left at Default

But it's not about pixel peeping. It's not about 100%... at all. Of course you did not read those threads. Look at the blog of this lady,

Loading…

www.rachelrufferblog.com

That is not 100%, that is not pixel peeping, and NR-2, so maximum NR.

You may find the look desirable. I find it unacceptable. The OP should decide for himself.

>>If you want to turn away another potential Fujifilm customer like the OP with stuff

>>that the dedicated forum pixel peeping, ...

>>Maybe he'll drop the idea of an X-A1 altogether and run out and buy a Nikon or Canon.

I never told him to pixel peep. I really tried to help. Whereas you, you're just concerned that he might change his mind and buy a Canon. God forbid, right?

bimbert84, I am interested myself in buying this camera, that is why I got into these discussions. When you buy it maybe you would be willing to post some images with people at high ISO. That would help me to eventually take my own decision.

I can see the difference there, but honestly, if that's the level I'll be quibbling about with low-light photos, I'll be a VERY happy camper.

With my current camera I'm lucky if I can identify WHO is in the picture, let alone whether or not she has faint freckles on her nose. And for those times when that difference might be important to me, the raw image is there.

Yes, if I end up with this camera I'll be happy to post some indoor shots. It might be a little while though, since I plan to wait to see if any deals show up between now and black Friday.

-- Rob

virgil1612 · Nov 19, 2013

Thanks.

CAcreeks · Nov 19, 2013

bimbert84 said:
2) Good low-light performance, meaning low-noise indoor stills without a flash. I hate noise. I hear people talking about smudging and loss-of-detail when it comes to NR, but to be honest, I can't see that. All I see is the noise.

Sony has the most aggressive noise reduction. Did you look at NEX? They are very cheap now. Try to buy one body-only because you can get the Sigma 30/2.8 for $199. It is an excellent lens, better than anything Sony makes except maybe the 18-200, which costs more for just the lens than your maximum price.

bimbert84 said:
3) Ability to produce shallow DOF.

The 16-50 will not do this (already mentioned)

bimbert84 said:
4) Tilting or articulating screen.

The X-A1 does not have this.

Daniel Lauring · Nov 19, 2013

CAcreeks said:
Sony has the most aggressive noise reduction. Did you look at NEX? They are very cheap now. Try to buy one body-only because you can get the Sigma 30/2.8 for $199. It is an excellent lens, better than anything Sony makes except maybe the 18-200, which costs more for just the lens than your maximum price.

Good advice. NEX's are great values now.

CAcreeks said:
CAcreeks said:

3) Ability to produce shallow DOF.

Click to expand...

The 16-50 will not do this (already mentioned)

It's all relative. Compared to the 1/1.7 sensored cameras he was looking at the 16-50 will do well.

CAcreeks said:
CAcreeks said:

4) Tilting or articulating screen.

Click to expand...

The X-A1 does not have this.

Yes it does.

CAcreeks · Nov 19, 2013

Daniel Lauring said:
Member said:

Member said:

4) Tilting or articulating screen.

Click to expand...

The X-A1 does not have this.

Click to expand...

Yes it does.

My apologies.

So I guess the only important features it lacks are in-camera panorama stitching, self-cleaning sensor, and microphone jack. (Not counting lack of viewfinder because that's by design.)

Is the X-A1 the right camera for me?

Daniel Lauring

Guest

Attachments

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Well-known member

Daniel Lauring

Guest

Attachments

Well-known member

Daniel Lauring

Guest

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Well-known member

stimpy

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Daniel Lauring

Guest

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts