XS1 vs d5100

[wymjym]

I own both and while I appreciate most things about the XS1 the IQ is not one of them.

So….I thought if I already own a lens that would give similar results to the XS1 I could part with the ‘bridge’ and move on.

I have a tamron 18-270, Nikon 28-300 and kenko 1.4tc that I thought might be the most reasonable solution for the ‘test’. Neither lens was thrilled with the addition of the tc and I found that the tamron @ 270mm (+108=378 x 1.5 = 567mm, would focus closer than the Nikon at the longer end and give a bit more magnification.

Long story made short, I ran around a field of flowers for several hours shooting at ‘bugs.

The d5100+lens combo was more difficult to get equal results and there were not enough times that the output was significantly better than the XS1’s.

I will keep what I have and start thinking about composition rather than detail when using the XS1 at fl exceeding 350~400mm.
D5100 + 18-270 + tc 1.4 @ iso 800, f6.3, 567mm, 1/400
This is the closest I could get and achieve focus, 33% view



the d5100 allowed for iso800 files to be as clean as XS1 iso200 files after a bit of PP, still it was too much effort for rather poor results.



the XS1 was shot at iso100 and in good light with no orb inducing light lurking the files work out well.





and the XS1 is just easier to be carefree and have fun with



thanks for your patience

wj

--
nikonandricoh

 

[PAUL TILL]

There is definitely something weird with images from the X-S1 but I can't put my finger on it.

Not sure if it's the IS or whether the focus is out slightly (front/back focusing).

I've come to the conclusion that if you resize the images down to the size you would put in an album they look very good but for pixel peepers something is not right.

I've said many times before I'm having trouble sharpening my X-S1 files and I'm starting to think one of the reasons I mention above is the culprit.

Paul.

PS. You're getting some nice images and nice colours too.
--

 

[Danielepaolo]

Have you done a comparison against the D5100 combos without a TC but just cropping to get the desired FL?

I didn't expand your images but a web size the XS-1 images are looking okay.

--
Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

 

[Tim39]

Think you reached the right conclusion for the right reason.
--
Tim

 

[HZP]

Man, you sure picked the wright lenses to compare.

I always wonder why people buy a decent cam like the d5100 and then put some mediocre lenses on it.

In that case one is far better of with a decent bridge or superzoom. Be it fuji, canon or panasonic.

 

[wymjym]

Hi Paul,

My X10 gives cleaner, sharper files of the same object if shot between 100~400 in good light, at the same aperture when compared to XS1.
Once the nr jumps in all bets are off.

I am old school, look closer…see more detail, not look closer and figure out how to manipulate what you have to ‘look’ good. Unfortunately that is where I am at with the XS1 files and suspect that there will be little improvement when I get the new sensor/lens. I’m biding my time, have a d400 on order for several years and if it does not materialize or if it does not look like the right fit for me then my dealer agreed to ship a d800 if I want it. Mid June is my self-imposed ‘buy whatever’ seems right date. Till then I’ll keep plugging away.
The XS1 files I am satisfied with generally look good up to 67%. + -

I don’t think I have ever had a ‘WOW’ file from my finger tips and the XS1. I have and still do get some from the X10. So I still have hope that there is something that will help the XS1.
I saw your post in my other fairy thread and will respond here.
I am primarily using three shooting settings:
1 for good light out of doors where there is little chance of orbs

A mode iso100, dr auto (in case I need to change the iso when shooting), film astia,mid,std,std,std,std,
IS 1 continuous+motion

2 for good light out of doors where there is a good chance for orbs

EXR mode DR, iso auto400,dr800 (which forces iso 200 all of the time),same as above

3 for mediocre light or need for higher SS
A mode, iso 400, dr auto, same as above

The best I can do handholding is ¼ the fl in good light…so 1/150 for 600mm…that is my lowest ss if I expect many keepers. I can/have obtained 1/80 @600mm but rarely.

I am saving as raw+jpg but might quit because the best raw capture I’ve ever gotten still wasn’t good enough to ‘be proud of’ when closely studied.

As to pp;

Open in cs5, play with clarity, saturation, run the full size through Topaz using the preconfigured (low-med-high until noise is almost gone then raise detail slider to @ 75 and add grain to between 25~50 and run the program.

Then either sharpen the entire image or selectively sharpen, using smart sharpen…..typically radius 1.3~1.9, 100~200% (this can change considerably depending on image)..apply then adjust levels, vibrance, contrast to taste then resize to 1333 x ?????? then determine if another sharpening pass is desired. Might run the same high radius but depending might go .3 and 50% up to .7 and 100%.

The topaz really handles the noise and then by raising the detail slider and adding the grain a lot of detail appears to be there (it isn’t).

This is what I’m currently doing.

I still pop into DXO when I have a troubling file and if that fails I just toss it, life is too short for some of this nonsense.

wj

--
nikonandricoh

 

[wymjym]

Hi Daniel,
yes I've tried just about everything.

using the d5100 + either 18-270 or 28-300 'bare' the files are always cleaner and better defined...but until we get the 24mp apsc sensor in one of these (maybe d3200?) I'm afraid that the cropping always falls short of the native 624mm.

I've said this before...the XS1 is a better bridge camera than the d5100 + glass...you can read a lot into that obvious statement but they really are different cameras and they both go about their respective jobs better than the other one might.

I want more image quality from the XS1 files but I fear that I will just need to be satisfied.

wj
--
nikonandricoh

 

[wymjym]

Man, you sure picked the wright lenses to compare.

I always wonder why people buy a decent cam like the d5100 and then put some mediocre lenses on it.

In that case one is far better of with a decent bridge or superzoom. Be it fuji, canon or panasonic.

I wanted the d5100 to be my bridge...it just isn't.

I am really struck by the impact the super zoomer lens' have.....the d5100 + 14-24 is so sharp that your eyes bleed, same with 17-55 and 70-200 but fit a more commercial piece of glass on it and it can indeed underperform.

wj
--
nikonandricoh

 

[Billx08]

Have you done a comparison against the D5100 combos without a TC but just cropping to get the desired FL?

Hi Daniel,
yes I've tried just about everything.

using the d5100 + either 18-270 or 28-300 'bare' the files are always cleaner and better defined...but until we get the 24mp apsc sensor in one of these (maybe d3200?) I'm afraid that the cropping always falls short of the native 624mm.

I've said this before...the XS1 is a better bridge camera than the d5100 + glass...you can read a lot into that obvious statement but they really are different cameras and they both go about their respective jobs better than the other one might.

I want more image quality from the XS1 files but I fear that I will just need to be satisfied.

An alternative that uses the J1/V1 with the FT-1 produces a crop of sorts (of the lens's image) but uses the entire 10mp sensor (no crop of pixels), and the 300mm maximum focal length of the 28-300mm and 70-300mm lenses is equivalent to 810mm. This would also be ike using the lens on a D5100 with a 1.8x TC, but without any image degradation caused by the use of optical elements (the FT-1 has none), and no reduction of aperture that Nikon's own TCs produce - although they aren't compatible with these lenses anyway.

There's also a big advantage using the FT-1 for macro photography. The minimum focusing distance remains the same, so you can choose to either use the much greater than 1:1 ratio that the FT-1 allows (you'd better have a tripod though) or you can get the same magnification that using the macro lens on a DX camera allows, but get it with a much greater working distance from the subject, reducing the need for ring lights at high magnifications, since the lens now probably won't block the light, preventing it from reaching the subject. The FT-1 turns Nikon's 105mm VR macro lens into a stabilized 283mm Micro Nikkor, just the ticket for not antagonizing biting and stinging critters. If only Nikon's 200mm Micro Nikkor was an AF-S lens . . .

 

[wymjym]

Bill,

I seriously considered the V1 and almost bought in several times...now I'm calm enough to wait for the V2 and hopefully a few improvements.

wj
--
nikonandricoh

 

[Billx08]

Bill,

I seriously considered the V1 and almost bought in several times...now I'm calm enough to wait for the V2 and hopefully a few improvements.

Maybe by that time the X10/XS-1's successors will be worthy alternatives. I wonder if Fuji has it in them.

 

[Wellington100]

Bill,

I seriously considered the V1 and almost bought in several times...now I'm calm enough to wait for the V2 and hopefully a few improvements.

Maybe by that time the X10/XS-1's successors will be worthy alternatives. I wonder if Fuji has it in them.

I can't see that happening, the Nikon will get relentlessly better with time whereas Fuji will be jumping from one sensor bandwagon to the next leaving a trail of incomplete firmware in their wake.
--
S100, S6500, S5, F300, F200, F70, F11, F31 (deceased), Z5, V10, D40, EX1

 

[grumpyolderman]

An alternative that uses the J1/V1 with the FT-1 produces a crop of sorts (of the lens's image) but uses the entire 10mp sensor (no crop of pixels), and the 300mm maximum focal length of the 28-300mm and 70-300mm lenses is equivalent to 810mm. This would also be ike using the lens on a D5100 with a 1.8x TC, but without any image degradation caused by the use of optical elements (the FT-1 has none), and no reduction of aperture that Nikon's own TCs produce - although they aren't compatible with these lenses anyway.

If I understand it right, the pixel pitch and thus the need for a higher resolution of the lens would be be much higher on the J1/V1, so no free lunch here? I would guess it might result in similar IQ as using the TC, but it wants to be tested....

JL

 

[wymjym]

An alternative that uses the J1/V1 with the FT-1 produces a crop of sorts (of the lens's image) but uses the entire 10mp sensor (no crop of pixels), and the 300mm maximum focal length of the 28-300mm and 70-300mm lenses is equivalent to 810mm. This would also be ike using the lens on a D5100 with a 1.8x TC, but without any image degradation caused by the use of optical elements (the FT-1 has none), and no reduction of aperture that Nikon's own TCs produce - although they aren't compatible with these lenses anyway.

If I understand it right, the pixel pitch and thus the need for a higher resolution of the lens would be be much higher on the J1/V1, so no free lunch here? I would guess it might result in similar IQ as using the TC, but it wants to be tested....

JL

I studied quite a few V1 + 300F4 shots (810mm)...they generally looked slightly more detailed than D300s + 300f4 + 1.4tc, the 10mp v1 vs 12mp d300s gave almost equal image size when adjusted for equal display. Using the 70-300vr they were ever so slightly less detailed....I dare say that either nikon did better in the detail realm than the XS1 but the XS1 is far more versatile.

wj
--
nikonandricoh

 

[Billx08]

If I understand it right, the pixel pitch and thus the need for a higher resolution of the lens would be be much higher on the J1/V1, so no free lunch here? I would guess it might result in similar IQ as using the TC, but it wants to be tested....

I studied quite a few V1 + 300F4 shots (810mm)...they generally looked slightly more detailed than D300s + 300f4 + 1.4tc, the 10mp v1 vs 12mp d300s gave almost equal image size when adjusted for equal display. Using the 70-300vr they were ever so slightly less detailed....I dare say that either nikon did better in the detail realm than the XS1 but the XS1 is far more versatile.

Right. LensRentals' Roger Cicala recently posted the results of many lens tests to see which ones would have enough resolution and image quality to justify their use with Nikon's D800/D800e. He pointed out that the 28-300mm VR is a very good lens, better than Nikon's kit lenses, which themselves are pretty good. But he wrote that it wasn't a very good match for the D800. It makes a really good combo with the D700, and although the same would also be true for a camera with an FX sensor having the same pixel pitch as the V1, it's probably not a bad lens to use with the V1 because it's only going to use the best, central part of the 28-300mm's image circle. On a tripod the 300mm f/4 should produce better images, but as a hand held, stabilized wide range zoom lens, I wouldn't be surprised if it produces better images than Sigma's Bigma when used with Nikon's DSLRs, and the Bigma isn't easily hand held.

 

[max m metz]

The d5100 is probably the best bang for buck Nikon ever made, though it needs the glass to match it - a budget 18-270 is just too much of an ask for aspc, the tele converter just exacerbating the inherent challenge.

In stark contrast, the lens on the x-s1 is a work of art, as your growing examples illustrate - even the benefit of the smaller size of the optical components due to the smaller sensor must surely be being pushed to the limit with 24-600mm.

Having always been a big fan of the Panasonic fz series, the x-s1 is a step beyond them both in lens and sensor.

I keep looking at your photographs with keen interest as you push the envelope further. Best regards.

 

[grumpyolderman]

If I understand it right, the pixel pitch and thus the need for a higher resolution of the lens would be be much higher on the J1/V1, so no free lunch here? I would guess it might result in similar IQ as using the TC, but it wants to be tested....

I studied quite a few V1 + 300F4 shots (810mm)...they generally looked slightly more detailed than D300s + 300f4 + 1.4tc, the 10mp v1 vs 12mp d300s gave almost equal image size when adjusted for equal display. Using the 70-300vr they were ever so slightly less detailed....I dare say that either nikon did better in the detail realm than the XS1 but the XS1 is far more versatile.

Right. LensRentals' Roger Cicala recently posted the results of many lens tests to see which ones would have enough resolution and image quality to justify their use with Nikon's D800/D800e. He pointed out that the 28-300mm VR is a very good lens, better than Nikon's kit lenses, which themselves are pretty good. But he wrote that it wasn't a very good match for the D800. It makes a really good combo with the D700, and although the same would also be true for a camera with an FX sensor having the same pixel pitch as the V1, it's probably not a bad lens to use with the V1 because it's only going to use the best, central part of the 28-300mm's image circle. On a tripod the 300mm f/4 should produce better images, but as a hand held, stabilized wide range zoom lens, I wouldn't be surprised if it produces better images than Sigma's Bigma when used with Nikon's DSLRs, and the Bigma isn't easily hand held.

Well I must say, i did not go about it in such a scientific way, just checked some of the posts of V1 pictures. It is always hard to judge what a camera/lens can do as the mentality of the posters plays a big role in all this, but this example is not too shaby, but again, not convincing enough>

Here's my contribution. V1, FT-1, 300mm 2.8 VR AFS + 1.4x converter, ISO 200 1/640 sec f6.3, partially cropped from the original.

Hand held too!

JL

 

[Billx08]

Well I must say, i did not go about it in such a scientific way, just checked some of the posts of V1 pictures. It is always hard to judge what a camera/lens can do as the mentality of the posters plays a big role in all this, but this example is not too shaby, but again, not convincing enough>

Here's my contribution. V1, FT-1, 300mm 2.8 VR AFS + 1.4x converter, ISO 200 1/640 sec f6.3, partially cropped from the original.

Hand held too!
dpr://galleries/6016005109/photos/1777616

I agree, not too shabby, but what is it that you don't find convincing? Was that photo shot under good 'seeing' conditions with a clear, dry sky with the moon high overhead, or was there any air turbulence, and the moon nearer the horizon? I suppose the last question could be answered if the camera's time setting is accurate and the shooting location is known. Here are some quotes from another 'birdman'. [Later: After comparing the moon image in his article, I think that he's actually the same birdman.]

[Edit: Even later, checking Birdmanfriday's profile shows that he is he. ]

Lets talk about what it produces first. I've shot a lot with Nikon DSLRs and I'm continually amazed by the quality this little camera puts out, particularly shooting raw. It doesn't match my D700 (not much does) or D300, but I prefer its output above ISO 400 to my Panasonic GF-1, and just about any of the older Nikon DSLRs I've used: D70, D40, D2x and D200 - it may well match them at ISO 400 too. It's in a different league to any compacts I've tried, including the Canon S90 and Panasonic LX-3. Obviously, you don't have too much resolution to play with but given the sensor size, I think Nikon have struck a sensible balance. The colour is nicely saturated without being exaggerated, noise is easy to live with and well controlled, and images have a nice, natural tonality. With good technique, and excellent glass up front, it's fully capable of producing professional quality images up to ISO 800.

In terms of its performance with the FT-1 and full size lenses, I think it's really great. It's very hard to believe you're using an adapter and not just a small Nikon F camera. It's a beautiful match with the 70-200mm for a walk-around set up (I own the first version) and performance on my 300mm 2.8 AFS VR2 has been quite exceptional. The word I keep coming back to is 'responsive'. If you can get on the subject when it's still, even if only for a fraction of a second, the chances are the V1 will get you the shot, and it will be sharp. I have a lot of faith in this set up, focusing accuracy is remarkable and the speed with which it acquires focus is incredible - it rarely hunts or hesitates unless there are other factors involved. Occasionally, very low contrast subjects cause a problem, but not often.

Talking of VR, I should also mention how well it works with the V1. With the kind of effective focal lengths I've been using, VR is a crucially important feature if the benefits of the V1 in terms of reduced weight and portability are to be realised. I'm happy to report that it performs superbly, the VR2 system on the 300mm just seeming to edge out my older 70-200's VR1 in overall effectiveness. Although it might seem unlikely, I managed to take sharp test shots of static subjects down to 1/30 second, hand held!

So in conclusion, while it may not be perfect, I have no hesitation in saying that the V1 has substantially solved my requirement for a light, easily portable bird photography camera. Is it a replacement for a pro DSLR, long lens and a full gimbal head rig? No, it isn't, and never could be. But while you have to accept certain compromises, the V1 has significant virtues too. The lack of a mirror and the silent electronic shutter are huge positives - vibration seems hardly a problem so the need for perfect long lens technique is somewhat reduced. It's great for shy subjects too. I was recently standing between guys with 800mm and 600mm lenses mounted on DSLRs and substantial tripods, all of us shooting the same subjects, and the contrast both in terms of the size of the rigs (I was using the 300 2.8, either on just a monopod or handheld), and the noise - the clatter of their mirrors against the silence of mine - was very striking . . .

http://www.malcolmfarrowphotography.com/articles/nikon-v1-review.html

 

[grumpyolderman]

Well, it is not only the IQ, but the whole package, I like to set things to manual, or at least use the PASM modes, change exposure, adjust focus, ect.

The V1/J1 are not really for this, are they? Maybe more tempted by G3, GH1, but they are also pricey (GH1) and maybe too small for my sausage fingers, although they feel well build, appart from some lenses (feel, not optical quality....).

As a matter of fact, the bridges do a decent job most of the time, and they offer a lot without changing lenses, so versatility here is a plus.

Also, I am not so sure about the camera size in relation to the lenses (same or even more so for the nex), it gets out of proportion fast. The size of an XS-1 or S100fs is very nice to handle, loads of real estate for hands/fingers.

Once upon a time had the Sony F707, that was a brilliant design, of course outperformed by now, but it felt like a digital camera should.

It is nice to have all those choices, though nothing stands really out right now (to me ).

JL

 

[Billx08]

Well, it is not only the IQ, but the whole package, I like to set things to manual, or at least use the PASM modes, change exposure, adjust focus, ect.

The V1/J1 are not really for this, are they?

I've only used the V1 but if it's any indication, they really are. It's not as quick as having dedicated dials, but unless you need to frequently and quickly change shooting mode, it takes very little time to use any of the PASM modes. Unlike some other cameras, it takes very little effort to find the menu location where you select the PASM mode that you want to use. Manual focus is even easier because you don't use the menu, you just press the bottom part of the 4-way controller ring and then select the focus mode, where the choices are AF-A, AF-S, AF-C and MF. Manual focusing is far easier, more accurate and quicker than any P&S camera that I've ever used, including the S100fs, S200EXR and HS10. You can select from several levels of image magnification, and I found it very easy to focus even in dim light.

As a matter of fact, the bridges do a decent job most of the time, and they offer a lot without changing lenses, so versatility here is a plus.

True, but autofocusing speed and accuracy is not their strength with too many types of low contrast subjects. A while back I gave up on the HS10 being able to get proper focus of squirrels in grass, even with Center Focusing, and had to switch to a D90 to avoid front an rear focused images. As long as there's a reasonable amount of light, AF is very fast. In less than bright, overcast outdoor light, focusing is so quick that I once had to check to make sure that the V1 hadn't been left in Manual Focus mode.

Also, I am not so sure about the camera size in relation to the lenses (same or even more so for the nex), it gets out of proportion fast. The size of an XS-1 or S100fs is very nice to handle, loads of real estate for hands/fingers.

If you have problems holding small cameras, the XS-1 or S100fs would be better. I don't find the D300 or D700 too large, nor do I find the V1 too small. It helps that I almost always use hand/wrist straps (almost never use neck straps), and I have a nice one for the V1. For those that don't like to use straps, Richard Franiac's V1 grip is very nice, and Nikon's pricer grip is much larger (it's held in place using the tripod socket), but they won't make the dials and buttons any larger. With the exception of Nikon's video lens for the V1, all of the others are very small, much smaller than most of Sony's NEX lenses, and all of them produce high quality images, which can't be said for many of the NEX's much larger lenses.

Once upon a time had the Sony F707, that was a brilliant design, of course outperformed by now, but it felt like a digital camera should.

It is nice to have all those choices, though nothing stands really out right now (to me ).

How about Fuji's Instax? That should be large enough for large hands.

I love the Fuji Instax!

This camera is rather large, however this is not a concern to me. Actually, I kind of like it. Maybe it's my ego but this camera sure does get noticed when you wear it out.

Takes 4 AA batteries, easy enough to pick up anywhere (that sells batteries).

I shoot models using a digital SLR, an instant camera from another well-known manufacturer of instant cameras and now on my new Fuji Instax 210. The images from this camera are infinitely sharper than anything I can get out of instant cameras from other manufacturers. This camera also produces a far more realistic depiction of the scene, with none of the color cross processing effect or vignette that you get with instant cameras from other manufacturers. While some people love the charm of those older instant cameras, this camera provides a much more accurate representation of what is being depicted.

The price of the Fuji makes its purchase an almost "no-brainer."

Camera is an affordable device that provides immense pleasure. That Fujifilm can engineer this marvel into a price below $70 testifies to their skill. Too bad Fujifilm couldn't hire someone to design this better. It's ugly.

What is not so good about it, in my opinion, is its design: it's too big and not so comfortable.

My 86 year old Dad wanted an instant camera so he could take pictures of his family and friends. This camera was just what he wanted: easy to use, large enough for him to hold, point, and shoot, and instant gratification of seeing his pictures. He loves it.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/657176-REG/Fujifilm_15950793_Instax_210_Instant_Film.html