Fuji X100F vs X-T100 jpg comparison

[rwbaron]

between these two images.

I appreciate your efforts to provide a comparison but doing these things correctly requires a lot of knowledge, experience and discipline in removing variables and keeping it scientific. I don't see a fixed lens X100F as even a viable comparison tool here. This should be between two cameras that can use the same lens focused at the exact same point at the same aperture and shutter speed.

I'm sorry to say I don't see anything of value here.

Bob

One more sample set

--

Galleries by Robert W. Baron

www.pbase.com

 

[alexzn]

Who cares. Both are great cameras, both images are great and better than what 99.9% of people on this forum can achieve artistically. And 99.99% of people don't view images at magnification where those differences are even visible. What a waste of time.

 

[baobob]

Agree, alas...

 

[baobob]

I would strongly suggest to rely more on some scientific acknowledged comparisons, such as reviews on reknowned sites

 

[baobob]

Following my previous post, it is clear that the 23mm prime is a better lens than the 23mm of the X100 so the comparison is abit like carots against potatoes, if I may

 

[Advent1sam]

Who cares. Both are great cameras, both images are great and better than what 99.9% of people on this forum can achieve artistically. And 99.99% of people don't view images at magnification where those differences are even visible. What a waste of time.

Forget run of the mill, street, even general landscape, most people resize for web viewing and or print small anyway, if at all and make minimal corrections . However, if you are doing wildlife or even some sport or large prints, architectural and if you need to crop very heavily, then cropping xtrans in my experience is very limited, that is when things get very ugly and the fine detail is very difficult to tease out of a 4-6mp crop from the 24mp xtrans sensor. From bayer it’s much much easier. Feather detail, fur, edges, wood, stoneetc and even sports, people, look so much more natural when cropping from bayer, insects, butterflies etc etc imo all look better in bayer, period! If you don’t shoot high detail that needs to be cropped, then xtrans is fine but for everything else bayer is best

 

[Sal Baker]

I would strongly suggest to rely more on some scientific acknowledged comparisons, such as reviews on reknowned sites

 

[TEAS]

entirely meaningless because of focus issues.

 

[TEAS]

In order to have any meaningful measure of validity, a comparison has to hold the variables to a minimum. This comparison is a joke. There are so many variables besides the sensor, that it is absurd. One can tell nothing from this comparison.

 

[dpcane]

Didn’t take long for the chart and graph crowd to make everything as unenjoyable as possible.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

Who cares. Both are great cameras, both images are great and better than what 99.9% of people on this forum can achieve artistically. And 99.99% of people don't view images at magnification where those differences are even visible. What a waste of time.

No need for a big sensor camera, everyone just use their phones.

 

[Flingz]

I appreciate the effort but this is comparing Apples to Oranges.

 

[kiwi2]

I just got myself a X-T100 today for a second camera.

I've tried to keep things the same as possible. The same 35mm F2 lens at f/5.6. ISO 200, 1/640 sec. Both on Provia/Standard and with all the color, sharpness etc set on 0. AWB. Shot from a sturdy tripod with 2 sec timer.

Camera produced jpegs. Auto focus and made sure it was on the distant house. Only the distant row of houses and trees where focused on and exposed for. Forget about any of the closer foreground. I chose the scene for a mixture of foliage and straight lines from the houses to gauge fine detail from.

X-T2...




X-T2



X-T100...







Keep in mind I only just got home with the X-T100 and haven't even familiarize myself with it or read the manual yet.

--

The Colour of Night

Explore this photo album by Pete Oliver on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[rwbaron]

Who cares. Both are great cameras, both images are great and better than what 99.9% of people on this forum can achieve artistically. And 99.99% of people don't view images at magnification where those differences are even visible. What a waste of time.

However, if you are doing wildlife or even some sport or large prints, architectural and if you need to crop very heavily, then cropping xtrans in my experience is very limited, that is when things get very ugly and the fine detail is very difficult to tease out of a 4-6mp crop from the 24mp xtrans sensor.

The above is completely contrary to my experience. Heavy crops from my X-Trans Fuji's are much better than from my Canon 7D.











--

Galleries by Robert W. Baron

www.pbase.com

 

[rainydiary]

The image color of X-T100 is good.

Make it no worth to buy X100F.

 

[blink667]

I just got myself a X-T100 today for a second camera.

I've tried to keep things the same as possible. The same 35mm F2 lens at f/5.6. ISO 200, 1/640 sec. Both on Provia/Standard and with all the color, sharpness etc set on 0. AWB. Shot from a sturdy tripod with 2 sec timer.

Camera produced jpegs. Auto focus and made sure it was on the distant house. Only the distant row of houses and trees where focused on and exposed for. Forget about any of the closer foreground. I chose the scene for a mixture of foliage and straight lines from the houses to gauge fine detail from.

X-T2...


X-T2

X-T100...



Keep in mind I only just got home with the X-T100 and haven't even familiarize myself with it or read the manual yet.

--
https://www.flickr.com/gp/158098310@N03/ja5n6b

They're very close in IQ, I think the XT100 has a little more contrast in its jpeg, but you don't really buy a 24mp sensor for jpegs. Whatever difference there is could be made up in post.

 

[Advent1sam]

I just got myself a X-T100 today for a second camera.

I've tried to keep things the same as possible. The same 35mm F2 lens at f/5.6. ISO 200, 1/640 sec. Both on Provia/Standard and with all the color, sharpness etc set on 0. AWB. Shot from a sturdy tripod with 2 sec timer.

Camera produced jpegs. Auto focus and made sure it was on the distant house. Only the distant row of houses and trees where focused on and exposed for. Forget about any of the closer foreground. I chose the scene for a mixture of foliage and straight lines from the houses to gauge fine detail from.

X-T2...


X-T2

X-T100...



Keep in mind I only just got home with the X-T100 and haven't even familiarize myself with it or read the manual yet.

--
https://www.flickr.com/gp/158098310@N03/ja5n6b

They're very close in IQ, I think the XT100 has a little more contrast in its jpeg, but you don't really buy a 24mp sensor for jpegs. Whatever difference there is could be made up in post.

Can you post the raw?

 

[kiwi2]

I just got myself a X-T100 today for a second camera.

I've tried to keep things the same as possible. The same 35mm F2 lens at f/5.6. ISO 200, 1/640 sec. Both on Provia/Standard and with all the color, sharpness etc set on 0. AWB. Shot from a sturdy tripod with 2 sec timer.

Camera produced jpegs. Auto focus and made sure it was on the distant house. Only the distant row of houses and trees where focused on and exposed for. Forget about any of the closer foreground. I chose the scene for a mixture of foliage and straight lines from the houses to gauge fine detail from.

X-T2...


X-T2

X-T100...



Keep in mind I only just got home with the X-T100 and haven't even familiarize myself with it or read the manual yet.

--
https://www.flickr.com/gp/158098310@N03/ja5n6b

They're very close in IQ, I think the XT100 has a little more contrast in its jpeg, but you don't really buy a 24mp sensor for jpegs. Whatever difference there is could be made up in post.

Can you post the raw?

I'm not sure how to post the raws..???

But here's the result of the raws being converted with Iridient (Lr doesn't recognize the X-T100's raw files yet) then into Lr with the same amount of sharpening applied. Amount 100, radius 0.8, detail 0.


X-T2


X-T100

--

The Colour of Night

Explore this photo album by Pete Oliver on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[EMs1950]

(Lr doesn't recognize the X-T100's raw files yet) then into Lr with the same amount of sharpening applied. Amount 100, radius 0.8, detail 0.

Actual LR Classic CC recognize X-T100' raw files. ACR also.

--
Best Regard
EMs1950

 

[kiwi2]

I just got myself a X-T100 today for a second camera.

I've tried to keep things the same as possible. The same 35mm F2 lens at f/5.6. ISO 200, 1/640 sec. Both on Provia/Standard and with all the color, sharpness etc set on 0. AWB. Shot from a sturdy tripod with 2 sec timer.

Camera produced jpegs. Auto focus and made sure it was on the distant house. Only the distant row of houses and trees where focused on and exposed for. Forget about any of the closer foreground. I chose the scene for a mixture of foliage and straight lines from the houses to gauge fine detail from.

X-T2...


X-T2

X-T100...



Keep in mind I only just got home with the X-T100 and haven't even familiarize myself with it or read the manual yet.

They're very close in IQ, I think the XT100 has a little more contrast in its jpeg, but you don't really buy a 24mp sensor for jpegs. Whatever difference there is could be made up in post.

That's what I think as well. There's not much in it to worry about. I'm guessing the X-T100 has a bit more sharpening and contrast applied at the standard setting. Consumer market cameras usually have a bit more punch to keep most people happy.

I'm going to reduce sharpening and contrast to the -1 position tomorrow and see how the jpgs look then.

But it's a sweet wee camera to have in my kit bag that I can grab and go for road trips with a wide angle lens attached while the X-T2 keeps the 55-200 on...







--

The Colour of Night

Explore this photo album by Pete Oliver on Flickr!

www.flickr.com