X10 vs X20 !

Started Jun 14, 2013 | Discussions
DS21 Senior Member • Posts: 2,137
Re: More complete answer: XF1 lens compared to X20 lens
2

I wrote:

The XF1 lens has

  1. Fewer elements (7) than the X10 lens (11)
  2. In fewer groups (6) than the X10 lens (9)

More aspherical elements (3 IIRC) than the X10 lens

The XF1 lens has FOUR aspherical elements vs. THREE aspherical elements in the lens of the X20. Specifically, here is what the Fujifilm website has to say:

X20:

All-glass 9-groups/11-elements Configuration - Obsessed with Excellence -
In order to maintain the FUJIFILM X20's compact shell whilst ensuring high image quality, Fujinon has adopted lenses made of glass with superior optical characteristics for all elements in the 9-groups/11-elements configuration. The design incorporates an arrangement of aspheric lenses, ED lenses and high-refractive index lenses, and are treated with Fujinon's originally developed Super EBC (Electron Beam Coating).

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x20/features/page_05.html

9 groups 11 lenses (3 aspherical glass molded lenses included)

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x20/specifications/

XF1:

All glass 6 groups/7 elements Configuration - 4 aspherical and 3 extra low dispersion lenses -
The slim-line lens achieves its aperture of f/1.8 with a construction that features 7 lens elements in 6 groups (4 aspherical and 3 extra low dispersion lenses)
Lens Construction
By using 4 high-performance aspherical lenses, the FUJIFILM XF1 delivers sharp image quality with rich resolution. These lenses also contribute to a more compact overall lens configuration.

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_xf1/features/page_02.html

4. More extra low dispersion glass elements (3 IIRC) than the X10 lens

The XF1 lens incorporates THREE ED elements (among its seven elements) while the lens on the X10 & X20 incorporates TWO ED elements (among its eleven elements):

XF1:

3 ED lenses have been employed for their low dispersion and effective reduction of chromatic aberrations. By preventing color fringing and reducing contrast, the FUJIFILM XF1 lens captures images with superb accuracy across the zoom range from wide angle to telephoto.

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_xf1/features/page_02.html

X10:

ED Lens - Removing All Color Fringing Even at High Magnification -
Two ED lenses have been employed for their low dispersion and effective reduction of chromatic aberrations. By preventing color fringing and reducing contrast, the X10 lens captures images with superb accuracy across the zoom range from wide angle to telephoto.

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x10/features/

In addition, it appears that the XF1 uses a later generation of the EBC technology than the X10 and X20 do:

X20:

The design incorporates an arrangement of aspheric lenses, ED lenses and high-refractive index lenses, and are treated with Fujinon's originally developed Super EBC (Electron Beam Coating).

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x20/features/page_05.html

XF1:

High-Transmittance EBC
High Transmittance EBC (Electron Beam Coating) is FUJINON's unique wide-band technology developed for FUJINON broadcast-use lenses. The XF1 is the first compact camera to use the High Transmittance EBC for double sides of all glass lenses. Because highly refractive glass bends light rays more sharply than conventional optical glass, it creates greater potential for reflections which can cause ghosting and flare. HT-EBC technology effectively minimizes this stray light, assuring sharp, clear images under even the most demanding conditions.

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_xf1/features/page_02.html

Lol, do you always believe anything you read? Just try the uncorrected XF1 RAW file to see what the fish eye lens looks like, despite all the aspherical elements mumbo-jumbo.

 DS21's gear list:DS21's gear list
Pentax MX-1 Pentax K-01 Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Fujifilm FinePix S100fs +5 more
chp Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: More complete answer: XF1 lens compared to X20 lens
1

These are 2 very different lenses with different purpose in mind when they were designed.

Unless you have facts to backup that the XF1 produces better IQ than the X10 or X20 lens, i would say this is just a personal belief or intuition of yours  (which has not be backed up in any review I read so far), as attractive as it may look like as an assertion.

prime Senior Member • Posts: 2,091
Re: More complete answer: XF1 lens compared to X20 lens

chp wrote:

These are 2 very different lenses with different purpose in mind when they were designed.

Unless you have facts to backup that the XF1 produces better IQ than the X10 or X20 lens, i would say this is just a personal belief or intuition of yours (which has not be backed up in any review I read so far), as attractive as it may look like as an assertion.

These are 2 very different lenses with different purpose in mind when they were designed.

Let's see if we can make that dog hunt.

4x Varifocal pseudo zoom

Both the lens of the X10/X20 and the lens of the XF1 are varifocal designs that have a range from wide angle (28 mm equivalent on the X10/X20 and 25 mm equivalent on the XF1) to approximately 2x magnification (112 mm equivalent on the X1/X20 and 100 mm equivalent on the XF1. Most viewer would be hard pressed to identify from a photograph whether it had been taken at a 25 mm or a 28 mm equivalent focal length, or whether another photo had been taken at a 100 mm or a 112 mm equivalent focal length. As to zoom ranges, then, the two lenses are similar.

Continuous (non-stepped) zoom

The zoom of the X10/X20 is adjusted continuously by a ring around the lens barrel, not in discrete steps by a separate control on the camera body. The zoom of the XF1 is adjusted continuously by a ring around the lens barrel, not in discrete steps by a separate control on the camera body. Very few fixed lens compact cameras share that feature.

On/off switch incorporated into zoom ring

The zoom control of the X10/X20 also serves as the on/off switch of the camera's electronics. The zoom control of the XF1 also serves as the on/off switch of the camera's electronics.No other compact camera from any manufacture shares that feature.

Lens illuminates a 2/3" sensor chip

The image circle of the lens of the X10/X20 is sufficiently large to illuminate a 2/3" sensor all the way to the corners without significant light drop-off. The image circle of the lens of the Xf1 is sufficiently large to illuminate a 2/3" sensor all the way to the corners without significant light drop-off. No current offering from Canon, Nikon, Ricoh/Pentax, Panasonic, or Olympus offers a 2/3" sensor chip, and the lenses on their competing models of cameras, designed for 1/1.7" and smaller sensors, would not be sufficient to illuminate a 2/3" sensor adequately.

Retractable lens

In order to make the X10/X20 more compact and even "pocketable" (for very large pockets), the lens of the X10/X20 was designed to retract into the camera body when the camera is turned off. In order to make the XF1 more compact and pocketable, the lens of the XF1 was designed to retract into the camera body when the camera is turned off.

Image stabilization by movement of internal lens elements

Unlike the cameras of the Fujifilm F-series, and other fixed lens Fujifilm compacts, which employ sensor-shift image stabilization, the X10/X20 achieve optical image stabilization through movement of internal lens elements. The XF1 shares that design with the X10/X20.

Purpose: market niche

The fixed-lens compact camera market currently is settling into four fairly distinct categories:

  • cameras incorporated into cell phones,
  • everything-automatic point-n-shoots, sometimes fitted with wide-range zoom lenses;
  • "pocketable" cameras with manual controls capable of shooting RAW as well as JPG. and with somewhat larger sensors than point-n-shoots, and
  • very large sensor compacts, often (though not always) with single focal length lenses, like the Fujifilm X100, Ricoh GR, Canon Power Shot G1X, and Nikon CX cameras.

The X10/X20 fall into the third of those four categories. The XF1 is the only other current Fujifilm camera that falls into the third of those four categories. From a "purpose" standpoint, the only difference between the X10/X20 cameras on the one hand, and the XF1 on the other, is the viewfinder of the X10/X20, which adds weight and bulk to the X10/X20. The XF1 is effectively a viewfinderless X10/X20 that achieves more compact dimensions and lighter mass through elimination of the viewfinder.

In short your assertion that "These are 2 very different lenses with different purpose in mind when they were designed" fails, and it fails utterly.

chp Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: More complete answer: XF1 lens compared to X20 lens

prime wrote:


In short your assertion that "These are 2 very different lenses with different purpose in mind when they were designed" fails, and it fails utterly.

If this makes you happy, I do not mind.

I just  believe that each targets a different segment (or if you prefer,  a different niche, with the XF1 in the seg2 and x20 in seg3 of your segmentation). I view the XF1 targeting the high end purse, and the X20 targeting "old fashion photographers" looking for a nice vintage interface compact camera with good control and quality.

Hence, the XF1 lens had to be much more compact by design, with a smaller aperture at long end as a trade off.

But I am not working in Fuji's marketing (or any other cameras manufacturer, for that matter) so I am nobody to have an opinion on these.

Trevor G Veteran Member • Posts: 6,576
Re: More complete answer: XF1 lens compared to X20 lens

prime wrote:

In short your assertion that "These are 2 very different lenses with different purpose in mind when they were designed" fails, and it fails utterly.

I wonder why you don't spend any time talking about the different apertures available?

In every other case I know of, people (and tests) regard a faster lens as better.

In what wonderful way have Fuji managed to make the slower lens on the XF-1 perform better on the long end, than the much faster lens on the X10 and the X20?

Ah, I know, the extra EBC coating passes through more than twice the light to make up for the aperture issue...

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Danielepaolo
MOD Danielepaolo Veteran Member • Posts: 4,510
Re: More complete answer: XF1 lens compared to X20 lens

Trevor G wrote:

prime wrote:

In short your assertion that "These are 2 very different lenses with different purpose in mind when they were designed" fails, and it fails utterly.

I wonder why you don't spend any time talking about the different apertures available?

In every other case I know of, people (and tests) regard a faster lens as better.

In what wonderful way have Fuji managed to make the slower lens on the XF-1 perform better on the long end, than the much faster lens on the X10 and the X20?

Ah, I know, the extra EBC coating passes through more than twice the light to make up for the aperture issue...

Aperture aside Trevor help me out here. Are people suggesting the XF1 is better in IQ than the X10 and X20? It does not ring true to me with the images we see on the forum.

-- hide signature --

Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

jimr Forum Pro • Posts: 11,405
Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20
2

Are we 'splitting hairs' when doing these X10/XF-1/X20 comparisons....Are the real world differences truly notable?

Danielepaolo wrote:

Trevor G wrote:

prime wrote:

In short your assertion that "These are 2 very different lenses with different purpose in mind when they were designed" fails, and it fails utterly.

I wonder why you don't spend any time talking about the different apertures available?

In every other case I know of, people (and tests) regard a faster lens as better.

Faster does not mean sharper....

In what wonderful way have Fuji managed to make the slower lens on the XF-1 perform better on the long end, than the much faster lens on the X10 and the X20?

Ah, I know, the extra EBC coating passes through more than twice the light to make up for the aperture issue...

Aperture aside Trevor help me out here. Are people suggesting the XF1 is better in IQ than the X10 and X20? It does not ring true to me with the images we see on the forum.

-- hide signature --

Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

Danielepaolo
MOD Danielepaolo Veteran Member • Posts: 4,510
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

jimr wrote:

Are we 'splitting hairs' when doing these X10/XF-1/X20 comparisons....Are the real world differences truly notable?

I think we are splitting hairs between the X10 and X20. I don't think the XF1 is as good as the other 2 cameras but it doesn't mean you can't get very good results with it so if that is splitting hairs then you are 100% correct.

-- hide signature --

Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

chp Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

Danielepaolo wrote:

jimr wrote:

Are we 'splitting hairs' when doing these X10/XF-1/X20 comparisons....Are the real world differences truly notable?

I think we are splitting hairs between the X10 and X20. I don't think the XF1 is as good as the other 2 cameras but it doesn't mean you can't get very good results with it so if that is splitting hairs then you are 100% correct.

-- hide signature --

Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

Once cameras fall in the same parking lot, which is the case for these 3, in my view the difference between them relies on "usability" on a day to day basis.

Eg do one want/need VF ? information overlay ? pocketability ? Faster zoom on long end ?

And last, but not least : can you handle / tackle the camera at all for what you do ? will you carry it and take it when you leave ? do the controls "fall" in a natural manner below YOUR fingers ? I have given up some too small cameras because I feel uncomfortable with them in my (large) hands when chasing pics around.... To me these are the real discriminants.

Beside this, once the pics are done, I would think most people will not tell any difference if their images are mixed together in the same set.

jimr Forum Pro • Posts: 11,405
Wonderful Answer...Thank You!

chp wrote:

Once cameras fall in the same parking lot, which is the case for these 3, in my view the difference between them relies on "usability" on a day to day basis.

Eg do one want/need VF ? information overlay ? pocketability ? Faster zoom on long end ?

And last, but not least : can you handle / tackle the camera at all for what you do ? will you carry it and take it when you leave ? do the controls "fall" in a natural manner below YOUR fingers ? I have given up some too small cameras because I feel uncomfortable with them in my (large) hands when chasing pics around.... To me these are the real discriminants.

Beside this, once the pics are done, I would think most people will not tell any difference if their images are mixed together in the same set.

prime Senior Member • Posts: 2,091
Re: More complete answer: XF1 lens compared to X20 lens

Trevor G wrote:

I wonder why you don't spend any time talking about the different apertures available?

In fact, I did.

In every other case I know of, people (and tests) regard a faster lens as better.

So you think that the lens of the XF1, with a maximum aperture of f/1.8, is better than the lens of the X10/X20, with a maximum aperture of f/2.0?

At the long end, the X10/X20 lens 1.5 f-stops faster than the lens of the XF1, while at the short end, the lens of the XF1 is 0.3 f-stops faster than the lens of the lens of the X10/X20.  Neither represents a huge difference.  For most of my photographic life, the lens attached to my camera was a prime lens, and changing it out was enough of a chore that I took easily 90 percent of my photos with it.  That lens happened to be a Canon 85m f/1.2, so I know fast lenses.  But because of its shallow depth of field, most of the time, I stopped it down to f/4 or so, even for portrait photography (if the eyes were sharply focused, at f/1.2 the hairline was out of focus), and I never had the feeling that it was slow.

Compare the aperture of the XF1 even at its long end with the aperture of the long zoom Fujifilm compacts like the F900EXR or the Fujifilm bridge supersooms like the HS50, and you will realize that the XF1's lens is relatively fast

In what wonderful way have Fuji managed to make the slower lens on the XF-1 perform better on the long end, than the much faster lens on the X10 and the X20?

"Perform better" is a broad characterization.  The test is the final image.  The X20 images widely circulated to date have suffered from what many characterize as "watercolors"; there are whole threads of discussion on this forum about that issue.  Certainly the X20 JPGs suffer from less dynamic range than the X10 images or the XF1 images do.  Comparing just XF1 images and X10 images, can you show a single example where the faster lens on the X10 has produced a better image than the XF1 at the long end because of its speed advantage at that extension?

prime Senior Member • Posts: 2,091
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

Danielepaolo wrote:

I don't think the XF1 is as good as the other 2 cameras

Do you have ANY  empirical basis for that opinion? Any at all?

This is a serious question.

chp Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

prime wrote:

Danielepaolo wrote:

I don't think the XF1 is as good as the other 2 cameras

Do you have ANY empirical basis for that opinion? Any at all?

This is a serious question.

Empirical, no

Factual, yes.

The X10/X20 are better if you want a wide aperture at long end, a minimal grip, a viewfinder, a vintage-looking camera with multiple accessible controls.

The XF1 is better if you want an elegant, lighter weight, smaller (almost pocketable) body, red or braun color .

Just different marketing targets (as suggested by available colors, for the avoidance of doubts).

Danielepaolo
MOD Danielepaolo Veteran Member • Posts: 4,510
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

prime wrote:

Danielepaolo wrote:

I don't think the XF1 is as good as the other 2 cameras

Do you have ANY empirical basis for that opinion? Any at all?

My opinions on the Xf1 are based on images I have seen on this forum. As an example there is one forum member who has had both. I have not gone back far enough to find his images but he does discuss it here.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50554639

-- hide signature --

Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

prime Senior Member • Posts: 2,091
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

Danielepaolo wrote:

My opinions on the Xf1 are based on images I have seen on this forum.

Such as?  Could you be specific, please?

As an example there is one forum member who has had both. I have not gone back far enough to find his images but he does discuss it here.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50554639

Three months after the post you linked above, another poster (Joel Stern) paraphrased that same post, and the post's author, Rattymouse, rebuked him sharply, going so far as to post several images that he had shot with his XF1 to underline his point.   http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51003215 Tell me what you find lacking in the XF1 photos that Rattymouse posted at the link above.

Rattymouse is an excellent photographer, but he has never been a long-term model of consistency, swinging from adoring love of a specific camera model to hate of the same camera then back to love of the same camera seemingly overnight.  (Having recently disavowed all Fujifilm cameras in favor of Ricoh digital cameras, he even more recently has abandoned all digital cameras for a return to film.  I think we can count on him to return to digital photography.)

prime Senior Member • Posts: 2,091
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

chp wrote:

Empirical, no

Factual, yes.

The X10/X20 are better if you want a wide aperture at long end, a minimal grip, a viewfinder, a vintage-looking camera with multiple accessible controls.

Are people suggesting the XF1 is better in IQ than the X10 and X20? It does not ring true to me with the images we see on the forum.The XF1 is better if you want an elegant, lighter weight, smaller (almost pocketable) body, red or braun color .

Just different marketing targets (as suggested by available colors, for the avoidance of doubts).

You will hear (read) no disagreement from me on any of the excellent points that you made above. You and I are playing from the same sheet of music.

But in the context that danielpolo made his remark, ("Are people suggesting the XF1 is better in IQ than the X10 and X20? It does not ring true to me with the images we see on the forum."), my question was whether he had empirical basis for the following statement that he made: "I don't think the XF1 is as good as the other 2 cameras ..." Clearly, he was making a broad brush sweeping statement about image quality, not about personal preferences as to the size, heft, and styling of the camera, the placement of controls, etc.

I have seen no side-by-side or laboratory test comparisons of images produced by the X10 and the XF1.  I have seen good and bad photos taken by both cameras, but they were taken by different photographers at different times of different subjects, inadequate for any kind of  critical judgement to be made as to the respective adequacy of the tools made to take the pictures.  That is why I asked danielpolo for his empirical basis for his unequivocal statement.

tomhongkong Veteran Member • Posts: 3,570
Re: More complete answer: XF1 lens compared to X20 lens

I am not able to compare my X10 with XF-1 because I don't have the latter.  However, one of the joys of X10 is to be able to use a (relatively) fast f2.8 at max zoom.  For action shots I am very happy to be able to use faster shutter speeds (at the same iso), or to gain just a bit more subject/background separation.

It is the same reason why others and I have spent an insane amount of money on 200mm and 300mm F2.8 lenses for our DSLRs when we could have bought F4.0 or smaller lenses.

This time, size does matter!

tom

evoprox
evoprox Senior Member • Posts: 1,469
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

prime wrote:

Danielepaolo wrote:

I don't think the XF1 is as good as the other 2 cameras

Do you have ANY empirical basis for that opinion? Any at all?

This is a serious question.

How about some resolution figures instead - line pairs/image height

XF1 X10 X20

ISO100 1093 1306 1569

ISO400 1053 1198 1386

ISO800 981 1160 1226

ISO1600 987 1077 1151

Of course these are just some numbers and don't tell the whole story but it might give you an idea or two. I've yet to find A SINGLE review that places the XF1 over the X10 when it comes to resolution. Maybe you could post some numbers that support your initial claim of a 'better lens' on the XF1 other than those related to the construction of that lens.

(Links follow in the next post. That editor still sucks big time)

 evoprox's gear list:evoprox's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Sony Alpha a7 II
evoprox
evoprox Senior Member • Posts: 1,469
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

The links (german site):

XF1

X10

X20

The test methods

Cheers, Ken

 evoprox's gear list:evoprox's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Sony Alpha a7 II
Danielepaolo
MOD Danielepaolo Veteran Member • Posts: 4,510
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

prime wrote:

Three months after the post you linked above, another poster (Joel Stern) paraphrased that same post, and the post's author, Rattymouse, rebuked him sharply, going so far as to post several images that he had shot with his XF1 to underline his point. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51003215

He simply posted some images. What rebuke are you referring to? I take it you think "if you say so..." is a sharp rebuke.

Tell me what you find lacking in the XF1 photos that Rattymouse posted at the link above.

Rattymouse posted some nice pictures. He has done the same in the past with the X10. He makes no mention of whether the XF1 has a better lens or better IQ than the X10 in that series of posts, he has said the opposite in the past. He has a go at the XS1 and nothing else.  You now have some empirical data supplied by Ken so perhaps this discussion is over.

Rattymouse is an excellent photographer, but he has never been a long-term model of consistency, swinging from adoring love of a specific camera model to hate of the same camera then back to love of the same camera seemingly overnight.

I think this says more about how people read his comments than Ratty himself. Please note that it is inappropriate to talk about posters behavior in the forum so we are treading a fine line here/

(Having recently disavowed all Fujifilm cameras in favor of Ricoh digital cameras, he even more recently has abandoned all digital cameras for a return to film. I think we can count on him to return to digital photography.)

Why would someone return to digital photography once they rediscovered film?

-- hide signature --

Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads