Reading mode: Light Dark

X!0 iso test

Go to last post
jcmarfilph said:
Very clean set of images but it did not justify the IQ of X10.

Find something with fur or hair and subject in low-light.
Click to expand...
What exactly does this mean? Of course, this is a very limited demonstration, but can anyone doubt that even at ISO 3200, the image is sharp, clean and reasonably detailed? And please remember that we are talking about a small sensor, compact camera, not a FF dSLR.

Some people are just hard to please.

Rob
 
You see that subject will most likely attract detractors of X10. Not me, I believe X10 is the premium to beat when it gets out of the shelves.

I have seen enough samples of how great is the IQ of X10.
Robgo2 said:
jcmarfilph said:
Very clean set of images but it did not justify the IQ of X10.

Find something with fur or hair and subject in low-light.
Click to expand...
What exactly does this mean? Of course, this is a very limited demonstration, but can anyone doubt that even at ISO 3200, the image is sharp, clean and reasonably detailed? And please remember that we are talking about a small sensor, compact camera, not a FF dSLR.

Some people are just hard to please.

Rob
Click to expand...
--
-=[ Joms ]=-
 
jcmarfilph said:
Very clean set of images but it did not justify the IQ of X10.

Find something with fur or hair and subject in low-light.

-=[ Joms ]=-
Click to expand...
As an old film user all of these are great. What do you expect from a small sensor?
 
Original photos can be downloaded only if user has PRO account.
SHood said:
Interesting that when I downloaded the ISO3200 non-cropped photo there was no EXIF data.
jcmarfilph said:
You just need to click the X10 link on the upper right.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68511526@N02/6233952401/meta/in/photostream
SHood said:
Bokeh_freak said:
marcwee said:
Fuji X10 iso test: http://www.flickr.com/photos/68511526@N02/
Click to expand...
Is this in full res mode or SN mode?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
-=[ Joms ]=-
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
-=[ Joms ]=-
 
You may in fact be right. However, I find it ironic that instead of being outside and shooting with your good enough medium camera, you are in a camera gear forum about comparing and improving one's gear.
Glen Barrington said:
I agree, the detailed hair-splitting many seem to do when comparing photo output on equipment is totally lost on me. It seems to me, that even medium quality digital cameras are pretty darned good.
--
I'm so bright, my father calls me son.

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos
Click to expand...
 
jcmarfilph said:
You see that subject will most likely attract detractors of X10. Not me, I believe X10 is the premium to beat when it gets out of the shelves.

I have seen enough samples of how great is the IQ of X10.
Click to expand...
Really ... now where did you see these really great samples? The Polish samples are mostly soft and mediocre. These samples do not give us a reference base ISO image, so there is no way to tell how much detail should be there.

So where is the data upon which you have pinned your hopes?

(Note: This does not mean that I think there is anything wrong with the X10's output. It means that we have not seen its potential yet and cannot really make any useful statements about how "great" it may or may not be.)

(Note2: What detractors? You mean the people that are not yet willing to gush about a camera that is yet to be shot really well? I.e. anyone not smitten, as you are?)

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
Bokeh_freak said:
You may in fact be right. However, I find it ironic that instead of being outside and shooting with your good enough medium camera, you are in a camera gear forum about comparing and improving one's gear.
Click to expand...
So you can state unequivocally that he spends time on this forum in lieu of shooting his camera? You can also vouch for the fact that time spent on these forums is wasted while time shooting one's camera is not. That this is universally true for every person.

So you are speaking for whom ... yourself as the ruler of the entire human race? Some deity that overlooks us all?

Seriously ... there is nothing more tiresome than criticism of peoples' posting habits based on opinions pulled from the far end of the alimentary canal.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
I did not state that spending time in the forum is wasted time. In fact just the opposite. I was merely defending the right to compare sample shots in order to improve one's while the gentleman before me was criticising some by asserting that all our cameras are good enough and do not need any analysis or comparison.
 
Robgo2 said:
jcmarfilph said:
Very clean set of images but it did not justify the IQ of X10.

Find something with fur or hair and subject in low-light.
Click to expand...
What exactly does this mean? Of course, this is a very limited demonstration, but can anyone doubt that even at ISO 3200, the image is sharp, clean and reasonably detailed? And please remember that we are talking about a small sensor, compact camera, not a FF dSLR.

Some people are just hard to please.

Rob
Click to expand...
I think that the images are very clean and certainly there appears to be plenty of detail. HOWEVER on several (most) of the shots the exposure has been achieved with v. slow shutter speed and I doubt that handheld shots in reduced lighting would be as clean as those shown if using higher shutter speeds and consequent higher iso to obtain the correct exposure.

Dave. (UK)
 
Bokeh_freak said:
I did not state that spending time in the forum is wasted time. In fact just the opposite. I was merely defending the right to compare sample shots in order to improve one's while the gentleman before me was criticising some by asserting that all our cameras are good enough and do not need any analysis or comparison.
Click to expand...
Yes, he complained that the detailed hair-splitting was totally lost on him and then dismissed it all because all cameras starting at medium quality (I presume he really means, even mediocre cameras) are good enough.

He meant, of course, for him. And he managed to do that without really insulting anyone directly, although it certainly could have been taken personally if the skin it thin enough.

My point was that you made it directly personal by speaking about how he should spend his time and implying that he was wasting it by not shooting instead of interacting here. I.e. you spoke from an exalted position, thus giving up the high road completely.

In the end, who really cares. But you could have just told him that he should have made it clear that it was merely his opinion and hardly universal that ordinary cameras are good enough to the people who might occupy a gear forum.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
 
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