X10 vs X20 !

Started Jun 14, 2013 | Discussions
prime Senior Member • Posts: 1,886
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

evoprox wrote:

The links (german site):

XF1

X10

X20

The test methods

Those links are very useful.  Thank you, Ken.

As you know, DPReview's only "test" of the XF1 was in a comparison round-up of nine compact camera just in time for the 2012 Christmas buying spree:  The 2012 Round-up Although the comparo had the virtue of looking at all of the cameras at the same time, the entire test, conducted on a cloudy, dreary day in Seattle, seems to have been done in the space of maybe half an hour; the substance was pretty thin gruel.

After that, DPReview finally released its full test of the X10, and subsequently tested the X20 as well, but never conducted a full test of the XF1.

I have a question on the test results.  Having been brought up on the standard optical terminology of MTF (modulation transfer function), we know that in lens design there is a trade-off between resolution and contrast.  Over-simplified, the lens designer can increase resolution at the expense of contrast, or can increase contrast at the expense of resolution, but ultimately, increasing both is the goal, and the MTF shows how well that goal has been achieved.

The CHIP tests give numeric values for resolution (apparently the X10, XF1, and X20 all were tested only in 12 MP (Large) mode), and "Textur."   Google translates Textur as "texture/detail."  I do not speak or read German; does Textur correspond to contrast?

prime Senior Member • Posts: 1,886
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

Danielepaolo wrote:

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

Well, speaking from personal experience, when my spouse (who has the patience of Job) demanded to reclaim the bathtub (which I had been using for washing prints, etc.) for like, you know, bathing, I had to readjust my hobby.  Perhaps that will happen to Ratty as well.

I am delighted with the reintroduction of Neopan.  Now I can break out my stash of MCM100 developer that has sat unused on the shelf . . . if only I can get the bathtub back.

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

prime wrote:

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.

Good. I appreciate. Thank you.

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.

No question there are empirical data supporting that statement. Even about IQ.

The 1.5 additionnal stop the X10/20 have at long end (1 stop @ 50mm), allows to shoot pictures with them which are totally out of reach for the XF1 (they would be motion blurred, I call this "lower IQ"). Most knowlegdeable photographers will kill dad and mom for 1.5 additional stop. This is as old as photography itself.

Anyone willing too shoot under these conditions should AVOID the XF1, because it will NOT deliver that. The XF1 remains a very nice, capable compact for other usages it has been designed for.

At the same time, this is so far away from the subject of this thread, that maybe, if you want to continue that discussion with anyone here, you should open your own thread.

The original subject of the thread was "why buy X20 over X10"

And the reasons I see would be (and this is purely from what I read):

1- both have viewfinder but only the X20 has information overlay (which to me is critical if one needs a VF)

2- the Autofocus of the X20 is faster than X10

3- some people say X10 has better DR (it has hw assistance for that, and while true this reduces the definition to 6mpix instead of 12) hence produces nicer images

4- at base iso with no exr hw assistance X10 and X20 both produce 12mpix images, I read however that under these conditions, the Xtrans sensor (X20) bring in about 1 EV more DR than the EXR (empirical, not measured). That would make part of the way against the EXR of the X10.

5- Out of camera jpeg are very well rated for the X10 (no need to shoot raw) while with the X20, best of images requires shooting raw and postprocessing. This is visible at small size already (could be modified by fuji with firmware). This being said I have seen beautiful OOC jpeg from the X20.

If you do not care for VF information and prefer to shoot jpeg only, X10 is a better choice

If you want informations in your VF, and at the cost of shooting raw for best IQ when needed, X20 is a better choice

Trevor G Veteran Member • Posts: 6,559
Re: More complete answer: XF1 lens compared to X20 lens

prime wrote:

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?

No.

F1.8 at the wide end (I think it will stop down quickly from there) is no compensation for f5 or whatever it is at the long end.

Not for me, anyway.

However, you might prefer it like that.

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.

Only if you leave the NR at the default position.

Once you drop it to minimum (-2) the problem is minimal.

Certainly the X20 JPGs suffer from less dynamic range than the X10 images or the XF1 images do.

I wonder how you can declare that?  How are you measuring "dynamic range"?

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?

No, I can't.

You must therefore win.

-- hide signature --

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

Trevor G Veteran Member • Posts: 6,559
Re: More complete answer: XF1 lens compared to X20 lens

Danielepaolo wrote:

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.

Optimist prime was...but i think we have converted him now, or started to transform him at least.

-- hide signature --

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

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

prime wrote:

Those links are very useful. Thank you, Ken

Welcome D)

I have a question on the test results. Having been brought up on the standard optical terminology of MTF (modulation transfer function), we know that in lens design there is a trade-off between resolution and contrast. Over-simplified, the lens designer can increase resolution at the expense of contrast, or can increase contrast at the expense of resolution, but ultimately, increasing both is the goal, and the MTF shows how well that goal has been achieved.

The CHIP tests give numeric values for resolution (apparently the X10, XF1, and X20 all were tested only in 12 MP (Large) mode), and "Textur." Google translates Textur as "texture/detail." I do not speak or read German; does Textur correspond to contrast?

Well, from what I can figure out on their "How we measure...." (page 7) it relates to low-contrast resolution and they use two different approaches here:

1. Kurtosis measurement. (Texturtreue): Reproduction of a white noise target

2. Dead leaves. (Detailtreue): This time they use a target of thousands of overlapping circles with grey values between 25% and 75%.

For their resolution measurements they use a Siemens star, so the numbers I posted above represent the max. resolution somewhere in the image center. BTW, in that department the X20 achieved the highest score of any 12MP camera they've tested so far (1569 lp/ih). For comparisons sake: the Nikon D300s/50mm/f1.4 combo resolved 1275 lp/ih, but that of course is APS-C with a different aspect ratio - something you have to be aware of if you compare the results of different cameras. AFAIK they run their tests with the cameras set to their native sensor aspect ratio.

Again, those numbers of course don't tell the whole story but if you're familar with their test methods their results can give you an idea or two as to what to expect from a specific camera or lens. Over the years I found their figures to be pretty representative in some regards.

Cheers, Ken

 evoprox's gear list:evoprox's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Sony Alpha a7 II
chp Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

prime wrote:

Danielepaolo wrote:

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

Well, speaking from personal experience, when my spouse (who has the patience of Job) demanded to reclaim the bathtub (which I had been using for washing prints, etc.) for like, you know, bathing, I had to readjust my hobby. Perhaps that will happen to Ratty as well.

hahahaha

I have had the same problem with my wife, many years ago.

One evening she cames in and INSISTED to use my darkroom for cooking food...

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

evoprox wrote:


For their resolution measurements they use a Siemens star, so the numbers I posted above represent the max. resolution somewhere in the image center. BTW, in that department the X20 achieved the highest score of any 12MP camera they've tested so far (1569 lp/ih). For comparisons sake: the Nikon D300s/50mm/f1.4 combo resolved 1275 lp/ih, but that of course is APS-C with a different aspect ratio - something you have to be aware of if you compare the results of different cameras. AFAIK they run their tests with the cameras set to their native sensor aspect ratio.

i was under the impression that lp/h is for line pair per height (I suppose, the smaller length of the format, whatever it is)

what is lp/ih (sorry if it is explained there,  though i speake some german i am missing time in the next 2 weeks to read your articles, just went over them rapidly)

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

chp wrote:

evoprox wrote:

For their resolution measurements they use a Siemens star, so the numbers I posted above represent the max. resolution somewhere in the image center. BTW, in that department the X20 achieved the highest score of any 12MP camera they've tested so far (1569 lp/ih). For comparisons sake: the Nikon D300s/50mm/f1.4 combo resolved 1275 lp/ih, but that of course is APS-C with a different aspect ratio - something you have to be aware of if you compare the results of different cameras. AFAIK they run their tests with the cameras set to their native sensor aspect ratio.

i was under the impression that lp/h is for line pair per height (I suppose, the smaller length of the format, whatever it is)

what is lp/ih (sorry if it is explained there, though i speake some german i am missing time in the next 2 weeks to read your articles, just went over them rapidly)

Same same, ih=image height, translated from "Bildhoehe", a german term they use. Those 1569 line pairs sure triggered a serious bout of GAS a while ago.

 evoprox's gear list:evoprox's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Sony Alpha a7 II
chp Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

evoprox wrote:

chp wrote:

evoprox wrote:

For their resolution measurements they use a Siemens star, so the numbers I posted above represent the max. resolution somewhere in the image center. BTW, in that department the X20 achieved the highest score of any 12MP camera they've tested so far (1569 lp/ih). For comparisons sake: the Nikon D300s/50mm/f1.4 combo resolved 1275 lp/ih, but that of course is APS-C with a different aspect ratio - something you have to be aware of if you compare the results of different cameras. AFAIK they run their tests with the cameras set to their native sensor aspect ratio.

i was under the impression that lp/h is for line pair per height (I suppose, the smaller length of the format, whatever it is)

what is lp/ih (sorry if it is explained there, though i speake some german i am missing time in the next 2 weeks to read your articles, just went over them rapidly)

Same same, ih=image height, translated from "Bildhoehe", a german term they use. Those 1569 line pairs sure triggered a serious bout of GAS a while ago.

the comparison with the 1,4/50 is sort of mind blowing for me..... I guess this is measured/compare  at center/wide open ?

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

CHP wrote

the comparison with the 1,4/50 is sort of mind blowing for me..... I guess this is measured/compare at center/wide open ?

As I mentioned above, AFAIK they measure resolution in relation to image height. The X20 has a native aspect ratio of 4:3 - 12MP = 4000 * 3000 px versus APS-C = 3:2 on the D300s > 4288 * 2848 px.

3000/2848 = 1,053 (just 5 percent) . Now multiply that with the resolution and you get a little closer to what it would be for a 4:3 sensor, about 1343 lp/ih. Compare this with the 1569 lp from the X20 - and you end at about 17% higher linear resolution in the image center- in that specific test setup! Still a big difference but then the D300s has an AA filter, the X20 hasn't. Add Nikons conservative approach to in-cam sharpening and we're getting closer. Might be worthwile to visually compare crops from different resolution tests vs. the computer based resolution analysis they use at chip.de.

Cheers, Ken

 evoprox's gear list:evoprox's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Sony Alpha a7 II
chp Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

evoprox wrote:

CHP wrote

the comparison with the 1,4/50 is sort of mind blowing for me..... I guess this is measured/compare at center/wide open ?

As I mentioned above, AFAIK they measure resolution in relation to image height. The X20 has a native aspect ratio of 4:3 - 12MP = 4000 * 3000 px versus APS-C = 3:2 on the D300s > 4288 * 2848 px.

3000/2848 = 1,053 (just 5 percent) . Now multiply that with the resolution and you get a little closer to what it would be for a 4:3 sensor, about 1343 lp/ih. Compare this with the 1569 lp from the X20 - and you end at about 17% higher linear resolution in the image center- in that specific test setup! Still a big difference but then the D300s has an AA filter, the X20 hasn't. Add Nikons conservative approach to in-cam sharpening and we're getting closer. Might be worthwile to visually compare crops from different resolution tests vs. the computer based resolution analysis they use at chip.de.

Cheers, Ken

ok thanks (Just checking if it was the same. I apologize, been back to your original post, you mentionned line/ image height then already, i should have read it more carefully....)

It had not striked me rightaway before, but at this level the camera resolution is  sensor limited, not lens limited (Shannon).About the same applies to the nikon 50mm lense (2848/2=1412, close enough I guess if you factor in the AA filter)

mistermejia Veteran Member • Posts: 3,340
Why Fuji Tried to Fix What's NOT Broken???

focalphotography wrote:

I've been looking at either a x10 or x20, the review on dp review has got my lost now.
With only a 1% score improvement and also the x10 getting better scores for low light and lens quality I can't see any reason for getting a x20 unless you guys have.....

-- hide signature --

Chris Middleton & Vanessa Le Luan
http://www.focal-photography.com

And not just Fuji, but many other companies. I too am trying to buy a used X-10, simply because of the type of photos that i have seen posted around here. The jpeg output straight out of that camera seem almost perfect to me, so why the hell did Fuji try to make something completely different with the X-20 instead of "perfecting" the X-10??

They could have perhaps just improved the ease of use, higher ISO, AF, a better LCD, make a better manual, etc, etc, and just improve on other minor things and live the existing high and great IQ ALONE.

I love my S5 and honestly, at this point in time i think i don't even need X-pro1/X-E1 (although i would one one). Also i am shooting RAW 90% of the time with the S5, but i would like NOT to do this with a smaller camera such as the X-10, that's the main reason why i like the X-10 and the very small compact size of these type of cameras, not to mention the nice built-in lens zoom range.

But oh well, what can you do!?

 mistermejia's gear list:mistermejia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
prime Senior Member • Posts: 1,886
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

chp wrote:

It had not striked me rightaway before, but at this level the camera resolution is sensor limited, not lens limited (Shannon).About the same applies to the nikon 50mm lense (2848/2=1412, close enough I guess if you factor in the AA filter)

Also, it appears that CHIP.de tested the X10, XF1, and X20 all at 12 MP (Large) resolution.  It has been well established (and demonstrated in numerous posts in this forum and on his blog by Kim Letkeman) that cameras with the EXR sensors (e.g., X10 and XF1) produce much better images at Medium size, where the photosites are paired either for better light gathering (binning) or for expanded dynamic range (pseudo HDR), than they do at Large size. The non-Bayer distribution of the filters covering the photosites causes the EXR cameras to show poorly (relative to other cameras with the same megapixel count) at the Large setting. What is surprising, therefore, is how well the X10 held up vis à vis the non-EXR X20 in the resolution tests, given the disadvantage of the EXR arrrangement.

Because these are fixed lens cameras, it is not possible to test the lenses per se as can be done with interchangeable lenses; all of the tests are necessarily of the lens+sensor combination. Therefore, the test results reflect, not only the optical quality of the lens, but also the results of the electronic processing of the data collected by the sensor.  The impetus, at least n part, for my inquiry of evoprox concerning the "Textur" tests was what appear to be anomalous outcomes for Textur for the three cameras:

XF1:

From  www.chip.de

X10:

From www..chip.de

X20:

From www.chip.de

I do not understand fully why the numbers in the right hand column of each result (percent) do not correlate with the numbers in the left column (points).

chp Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: Why Fuji Tried to Fix What's NOT Broken???

mistermejia wrote:

focalphotography wrote:

I've been looking at either a x10 or x20, the review on dp review has got my lost now.
With only a 1% score improvement and also the x10 getting better scores for low light and lens quality I can't see any reason for getting a x20 unless you guys have.....

-- hide signature --

Chris Middleton & Vanessa Le Luan
http://www.focal-photography.com

And not just Fuji, but many other companies. I too am trying to buy a used X-10, simply because of the type of photos that i have seen posted around here. The jpeg output straight out of that camera seem almost perfect to me, so why the hell did Fuji try to make something completely different with the X-20 instead of "perfecting" the X-10??

They could have perhaps just improved the ease of use, higher ISO, AF, a better LCD, make a better manual, etc, etc, and just improve on other minor things and live the existing high and great IQ ALONE.

I love my S5 and honestly, at this point in time i think i don't even need X-pro1/X-E1 (although i would one one). Also i am shooting RAW 90% of the time with the S5, but i would like NOT to do this with a smaller camera such as the X-10, that's the main reason why i like the X-10 and the very small compact size of these type of cameras, not to mention the nice built-in lens zoom range.

But oh well, what can you do!?

X10 can be found online. In fact I have seen at least one company outselling their stock thinking the X10 was gone, then a month later, the X10 is back in their stock (at a higher price).

X10 361€ on amazon.

X20 is a different camera inside, bringing its own different new set of functionnalities.

Get the X10 if you do not like the X20. The X10 has dropped 150€ since the X20 is out

prime Senior Member • Posts: 1,886
Faster ≢ better

Trevor G wrote:

prime wrote:

Trevor G wrote:.

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?

No.

F1.8 at the wide end (I think it will stop down quickly from there) is no compensation for f5 or whatever it is at the long end.

Not for me, anyway.

I apologize; I mistakenly thought that my irony would be transparent.

As to the earlier point, however, Canon for a while made a full-frame coverage f/0.95 lens. It had its uses, especially for shooting black cats in mine shafts, but for general shooting, it was mediocre.  Faster is not always better. Discussion of the Canon f/0.95 here (and elsewhere)

You must therefore win.

My purpose in entering discussions is to learn, not to win.

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

prime wrote:

I do not understand fully why the numbers in the right hand column of each result (percent) do not correlate with the numbers in the left column (points).

See one of my earlier replies in this thread, re. Texturtreue (Kurtosis-Reproduction of a white noise target) vs. Detailtreue ('Dead leaves' measurement - overlapping grey circles). Two different ways to measure low-contrast resolution (relevant for all kinds of low contrast details like grass, wood, skin, .... closely related to the concept of 'micro-contrast'). Note the 95% Kurtosis of the X10 up to ISO1600 in relation to the more aggressive noise reduction of the X20 (80 down to 75%) or the equally constant but lower Kurtosis values of the XF1 - same sensor but a somewhat softer lens.

Cheers, Ken

 evoprox's gear list:evoprox's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Sony Alpha a7 II
prime Senior Member • Posts: 1,886
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

evoprox wrote:

prime wrote:

I do not understand fully why the numbers in the right hand column of each result (percent) do not correlate with the numbers in the left column (points).

See one of my earlier replies in this thread, re. Texturtreue (Kurtosis-Reproduction of a white noise target) vs. Detailtreue ('Dead leaves' measurement - overlapping grey circles). Two different ways to measure low-contrast resolution (relevant for all kinds of low contrast details like grass, wood, skin, .... closely related to the concept of 'micro-contrast').

What I am seeing is that the XF1 results for Detailtreue beat the results for both the X10 and the X20 at ISO100 and ISO400, and the XF1 results also beat the X10 results at ISO800 and ISO1600.

Although the XF1's results for Detailtreue beat the X10 results at ISO800 and ISO1600, at ISO800 and ISO1600 the X20 results beat both the X10 results and the XF1 results.

CHIP.de's reported results for Texturtreue show the X10 beating both the X20 and the XF1 at all four tested ISO settings from ISO100 to ISO1600.

Because the cameras were tested only at Large (12 MP) resolution, I do not put much stock in the straight resolution results for its relationship to image quality. Both the X10 and the XF1 are exceptionally good Medium (6MP) cameras, with unmatched dynamic range capabilities at that setting, but no EXR sensor camera ever has been a serious contender to win any accolades in a full maximum (12MP in this case) resolution race; EXR sensor cameras always are are doomed to fail that test.

So what the CHIP.de results communicate to me are differences in processing of the sensor data that overwhelm and mask the differences in pure optical lens data. How else to explain that the Detailtreue results for the XF1 with a completely different lens returns data at ISO800 and ISO1600 that are better than the X10 (with which the XF1 shares a sensor but which has a different processor) but worse than the X20, which has the same lens as the X10 (but a different sensor)?

In short, the CHIP.de "lens" tests seem to be a test more of the sensors and the processing of the data from those sensors than of the lenses themselves. Do you agree that that is a valid conclusion to reach from the data before us?

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

AAAAARGH, I just finished a detailed reply, hit the post button and good bye. Got to do some work now, grrrrrr.

 evoprox's gear list:evoprox's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Sony Alpha a7 II
chp Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: Splitting Hairs? XF-1, X10/X20

prime wrote:

In short, the CHIP.de "lens" tests seem to be a test more of the sensors and the processing of the data from those sensors than of the lenses themselves. Do you agree that that is a valid conclusion to reach from the data before us?

Not sure where you are trying to go with our post. The measurement tool always is part of the measure.

For the records the resolution data are

XF1 X10 X20

ISO100 1093 1306 1569

ISO400 1053 1198 1386

ISO800 981 1160 1226

ISO1600 987 1077 1151

What these resolution numbers say is:

XF1 lens < XF1 sensor (= X10 sensor) < X20 sensor < X20 lens (= X10 lens)

Not sure what you mean with the other points your raise.

- XF1 sensor @ 6mpix has a max resolution of 750 lp/h (worse than measured 1093@12mpix). Why do you complain about a 12 mpix sensor being measured at 12mpix ? I dont follow your point.

- you already claimed the X20 processing is junk, and that the XF1's sensor is better than X20's sensor. You also believe the XF1's lens is better.

Since the overall combination of all three (alledgedly better) XF1's elements underperforms the combination of three (alledgedly worse) elements of the X20, your reasoning or beliefs must be broken somewhere.

- you wonder if the "home" microcontrast test of this magazine proves the XF1 is better. The numbers are better, but the authors write they wonder how those tests relate to real life. We do not know how to interpret that test, or whether a higher number is better or worse or by how much, or even a constant indication for such. It could be the test is sometime or all the time meaningless.

To the contrary, the resolution tests are tied to a contrast level which makes sense in light of the MTF (a recognised test with a well understood meaning). what it says is that at the same contrast level the XF1 has a lower resolution that the 2 others.

- the magazine also gives a subjective rating to cameras, given by at least 2 human persons, on the basis of the same pictures. Results are:

XF1: 1.8 (100iso) 2.7 (400) 3.5(800) 5.2 (1600)

X10: 1.4 (100iso) 2.7 (400) 2.7(800) 3.5 (1600)

X20: 1.4 (100iso) 2.7 (400) 3.1(800) 3.5 (1600)

Factor in the XF1 looses 1.5 stop above 50mm; for anything above 50mm@400 iso, with the X20 you can continue to shoot @100iso, when the XF1 has to switch to 400 iso; then for the XF1 to be superior it would have to be able to deliver a better image @400iso than the X20@100iso. Does not sound likely.

- that magazine also provides data regarding the DR, I report them here for the record (measured in stops):

XF1: 9.7 (100iso) 7.3 (400) 7.7(800) 7.3 (1600)

X10: 9.0 (100iso) 8.3 (400) 7.3(800) 7.3 (1600)

X20: 9.0 (100iso) 8.7 (400) 8.3(800) 8.3 (1600)

I am puzzled the X1 and X10 get different data since it is the same processor; they are close though (could be measurement bias, or individual variation; DXO says a difference of 0.5 stop is usually unoticeable).

I do not see any significant advantage here for either (except maybe if we fact for 1,5 stop slower lens of the XF1 above 50mm). Anything else has to be very subtle and will make very little difference if any to the casual photographer.

Overall they are close with in my view an advantage to the X20 because of faster lens and better resolution. I understand some people prefer the output of the XF1 (as you may). It is just a taste matter. Some people prefer Mercedes some other BMW.

This being said it is probably time to leave techology and go back to picture shooting

** data collected from the site http://www.chip.de, not intended to infringe any copyright which may apply.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads