FULL SIZE Fuji X20 samples

[marike6]

PAUL TILL wrote:

Get real people, it's a pinhead sensor in a overgrown P&S body, what do you really expect?

Don't you shoot with the X-S1 and OM-D, two cameras with "pinhead" sensors that are not really going to win any awards for IQ? You tell us, what should we expect?

 

[RobertSigmund]

PAUL TILL wrote:

They look slightly better than files from the X10 so I guess that's all that matters.

You're all pixel peeping, when was the last time you saw a full resolution shot from the X10 posted here? There's a reason everyone downsizes to 800 pixels on the long end.

Get real people, it's a pinhead sensor in a overgrown P&S body, what do you really expect?

 

[Lightpath48]

Hmmm... underwhelming. I think I'll keep my X10 and save the difference in cost. What my eyes see is small sensor dynamic range, too much sharpening. Not to nit-pick. Have fun, everyone!

 

[PAUL TILL]

RobertSigmund wrote:

Pinhead sensor is vastly exaggerated. I would accept this term for a 1/2,3 sensor, but not for a comparatively large 2/3 sensor.

All my pocketable P&S cameras have either 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32mm or 9.17mm diagonally), 1/1.7" (7.6 x 5.7mm or 9.71mm diagonally), 1/1.6" (8.08 x 6.01mm or 10.31mm diagonally) The ones with the 2/3" (8.80 x 6.60mm or 11.00mm diagonally) are not pocketable.

That's less than 2mm diagonally between the smallest 1/1.8" and the largest 2/3" you can accept what you like, they're all pinhead sensors.

 

[Midwest]

Joel Stern wrote:

I too want the X20 to be great but I won't rely on the Fuji sites samples, 6 pics, not enough to make a decision with

That's for sure. Heck, there's people on these forums who will post 15 pictures in one single post, all taken of the same bunch of ducks at the local park.

Six shots are not much to go on.

 

[PAUL TILL]

The size difference is so negligible it's not worth bothering, we're talking about those tiny ones in the middle.






--
The 10% Rule:

You Must Be 10% Smarter Than The Equipment You're Operating

 

[Midwest]

Deso wrote:

The JPG's take the hit from lightroom pretty well, I can only image what Raw will give us.

Original:

Lightroomed:

Wether or not you like the PP I've applied (made the pic a little warmer, sharpening, clarity, pulled out the sky and water detail), there is a lot of information in the JPG.

IMO a definite improvement because I like warmer tones.

 

[marike6]

PAUL TILL wrote:

RobertSigmund wrote:

Pinhead sensor is vastly exaggerated. I would accept this term for a 1/2,3 sensor, but not for a comparatively large 2/3 sensor.

All my pocketable P&S cameras have either 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32mm or 9.17mm diagonally), 1/1.7" (7.6 x 5.7mm or 9.71mm diagonally), 1/1.6" (8.08 x 6.01mm or 10.31mm diagonally) The ones with the 2/3" (8.80 x 6.60mm or 11.00mm diagonally) are not pocketable.

That's less than 2mm diagonally between the smallest 1/1.8" and the largest 2/3" you can accept what you like, they're all pinhead sensors.

"Pinhead" is a misleading and greatly exaggerated characterization of this sensor category.

And what you are not saying is the most crucial point, that the larger 2/3" sensor found in the X10 provides over 1 EV better low-light/high ISO performance, and often better DR and color depth over 1/1.7" sensors and smaller (See DxOMark sensor ratings).

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings

So if you want to use the wildly inaccurate "pinhead" terminology, you should at least mention that ALL "pinheads" are not created equal since the 2/3" sensor outperforms ALL other small sensors for low noise/high ISO shooting and is only bested by the RX100/Nikon 1's 1" sensor cameras in low-light/high ISO performance.

 

[Andrei Nicoara]

In my experience the Fuji X10 (and I wouldn't expect anything less from the X20) JPEGs are very Lightroom friendly. Most of the time I don't need to process them, but when I do they show a lot of adaptability.

 

[RobertSigmund]

marike6 wrote:

PAUL TILL wrote:

RobertSigmund wrote:

Pinhead sensor is vastly exaggerated. I would accept this term for a 1/2,3 sensor, but not for a comparatively large 2/3 sensor.

All my pocketable P&S cameras have either 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32mm or 9.17mm diagonally), 1/1.7" (7.6 x 5.7mm or 9.71mm diagonally), 1/1.6" (8.08 x 6.01mm or 10.31mm diagonally) The ones with the 2/3" (8.80 x 6.60mm or 11.00mm diagonally) are not pocketable.

That's less than 2mm diagonally between the smallest 1/1.8" and the largest 2/3" you can accept what you like, they're all pinhead sensors.

"Pinhead" is a misleading and greatly exaggerated characterization of this sensor category.

And what you are not saying is the most crucial point, that the larger 2/3" sensor found in the X10 provides over 1 EV better low-light/high ISO performance, and often better DR and color depth over 1/1.7" sensors and smaller (See DxOMark sensor ratings).

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings


So if you want to use the wildly inaccurate "pinhead" terminology, you should at least mention that ALL "pinheads" are not created equal since the 2/3" sensor outperforms ALL other small sensors for low noise/high ISO shooting and is only bested by the RX100/Nikon 1's 1" sensor cameras in low-light/high ISO performance.

Good to read. Paul Till had nearly convinced me that the 2/3 sensor offers no significant advantage over the smaller ones.

 

[PAUL TILL]

marike6 wrote:

PAUL TILL wrote:

RobertSigmund wrote:

Pinhead sensor is vastly exaggerated. I would accept this term for a 1/2,3 sensor, but not for a comparatively large 2/3 sensor.

All my pocketable P&S cameras have either 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32mm or 9.17mm diagonally), 1/1.7" (7.6 x 5.7mm or 9.71mm diagonally), 1/1.6" (8.08 x 6.01mm or 10.31mm diagonally) The ones with the 2/3" (8.80 x 6.60mm or 11.00mm diagonally) are not pocketable.

That's less than 2mm diagonally between the smallest 1/1.8" and the largest 2/3" you can accept what you like, they're all pinhead sensors.

"Pinhead" is a misleading and greatly exaggerated characterization of this sensor category.

And what you are not saying is the most crucial point, that the larger 2/3" sensor found in the X10 provides over 1 EV better low-light/high ISO performance, and often better DR and color depth over 1/1.7" sensors and smaller (See DxOMark sensor ratings).

That's odd, here are two smaller sensor cameras that out perform it. Like I said before Markey, you speak so much rubbish I don't know when you might actually say something sensible.







--
The 10% Rule:
You Must Be 10% Smarter Than The Equipment You're Operating

 

[PAUL TILL]

RobertSigmund wrote:

Good to read. Paul Till had nearly convinced me that the 2/3 sensor offers no significant advantage over the smaller ones.

Good to read you've actually found a friend.

 

[Danielepaolo]

marike6 wrote:

PAUL TILL wrote:

RobertSigmund wrote:

Pinhead sensor is vastly exaggerated. I would accept this term for a 1/2,3 sensor, but not for a comparatively large 2/3 sensor.

All my pocketable P&S cameras have either 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32mm or 9.17mm diagonally), 1/1.7" (7.6 x 5.7mm or 9.71mm diagonally), 1/1.6" (8.08 x 6.01mm or 10.31mm diagonally) The ones with the 2/3" (8.80 x 6.60mm or 11.00mm diagonally) are not pocketable.

That's less than 2mm diagonally between the smallest 1/1.8" and the largest 2/3" you can accept what you like, they're all pinhead sensors.

"Pinhead" is a misleading and greatly exaggerated characterization of this sensor category.

I think you have a point. Pin heads tend to go up to about 12mm (1/2"). There are bigger pins that are sometimes called super drawing pins that start from 14mm (1/1.8") and go up to 40mm (1.6") in size.

Loading…

www.laurel-clips.com

Now, pin heads are typicaly round and a sensor is typically rectangle so:

• for a 40mm round super pin head we could fit a sensor that is only 1.25" wide.
• for a 14mm round super pin head we could fit a sensor that is only 1/2.7" wide.

Therefore super pinhead sensors would range from as small as 1/2.7" to 1.25" wide. So the pocketable P&S camera sensors (1/8") to the cameras with 1" sensors all fit on super pinheads (14mm to 40mm) as opposed to just a pinhead (12mm and smaller).

In Paul's defence he probably considers a super pin head to be a pin head because like me he has fat fingers. For us dexterously challenged fat fingered fellows we can only use super pins which we for simplicty call pins. Hence for us the super pinhead sensor is just called a pinhead sensor for convenience.

We apologise if this causes you an inconvenience.

 

[marike6]

PAUL TILL wrote:

marike6 wrote:

PAUL TILL wrote:

RobertSigmund wrote:

Pinhead sensor is vastly exaggerated. I would accept this term for a 1/2,3 sensor, but not for a comparatively large 2/3 sensor.

All my pocketable P&S cameras have either 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32mm or 9.17mm diagonally), 1/1.7" (7.6 x 5.7mm or 9.71mm diagonally), 1/1.6" (8.08 x 6.01mm or 10.31mm diagonally) The ones with the 2/3" (8.80 x 6.60mm or 11.00mm diagonally) are not pocketable.

That's less than 2mm diagonally between the smallest 1/1.8" and the largest 2/3" you can accept what you like, they're all pinhead sensors.

"Pinhead" is a misleading and greatly exaggerated characterization of this sensor category.

And what you are not saying is the most crucial point, that the larger 2/3" sensor found in the X10 provides over 1 EV better low-light/high ISO performance, and often better DR and color depth over 1/1.7" sensors and smaller (See DxOMark sensor ratings).

That's odd, here are two smaller sensor cameras that out perform it. Like I said before Markey, you speak so much rubbish I don't know when you might actually say something sensible.







--
The 10% Rule:
You Must Be 10% Smarter Than The Equipment You're Operating

Print the ISO scores of those three cameras Pauly. Then maybe you'll understand by point.

What I said was :"And what you are not saying is the most crucial point, that the larger 2/3" sensor found in the X10 provides over 1 EV better low-light/high ISO performance, and often better DR and color depth over 1/1.7" sensors and smaller (See DxOMark sensor ratings)." (see post above).

Nice try. A for effort, F for reading comprehension.

By the way, you also seem to be confused about my name. It is Markus, not Markey. Not even my friends and family call me Markey. Got it?

 

[PAUL TILL]

marike6 wrote:

Print the ISO scores of those three cameras Pauly. Then maybe you'll understand by point. Nice try. A for effort.

It's been pointed out to you many times before by others that you have trouble reading DXO charts Markey so I won't bother. But thanks.

 

[Danielepaolo]

marike6 wrote:

PAUL TILL wrote:

"Pinhead" is a misleading and greatly exaggerated characterization of this sensor category.

And what you are not saying is the most crucial point, that the larger 2/3" sensor found in the X10 provides over 1 EV better low-light/high ISO performance, and often better DR and color depth over 1/1.7" sensors and smaller (See DxOMark sensor ratings).

That's odd, here are two smaller sensor cameras that out perform it. Like I said before Markey, you speak so much rubbish I don't know when you might actually say something sensible.

Print the ISO scores of those three cameras Pauly. Then maybe you'll understand by point. Nice try. A for effort, F for reading comprehension.

You have no point. The 3 cmaeras; X10, S100 and LX7 all got the same overall score from DXO mark site you linked to.

 

[Robert Garcia NYC]

 

[PAUL TILL]

You would think Markey had parkinsons by his infatuation with high ISO's. Now I know why he got that D800.

 

[marike6]

Danielepaolo wrote:

marike6 wrote:

PAUL TILL wrote:

"Pinhead" is a misleading and greatly exaggerated characterization of this sensor category.

And what you are not saying is the most crucial point, that the larger 2/3" sensor found in the X10 provides over 1 EV better low-light/high ISO performance, and often better DR and color depth over 1/1.7" sensors and smaller (See DxOMark sensor ratings).

That's odd, here are two smaller sensor cameras that out perform it. Like I said before Markey, you speak so much rubbish I don't know when you might actually say something sensible.

Print the ISO scores of those three cameras Pauly. Then maybe you'll understand by point. Nice try. A for effort, F for reading comprehension.

You have no point. The 3 cmaeras; X10, S100 and LX7 all got the same overall score from DXO mark site you linked to.

No my point, which I will repeat but this time I will speak more slowly, is that the X10 scores approximately 245 ISO - Sports (Low-Light ISO) Score and the others around 145-155 ISO.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...d2)/Canon/(appareil3)/740|0/(brand3)/Fujifilm

So once again I will print what I wrote above:

"And what you are not saying is the most crucial point, that the larger 2/3" sensor found in the X10 provides over 1 EV better low-light/high ISO performance, and often better DR and color depth over 1/1.7" sensors and smaller (See DxOMark sensor ratings)." (see post above).

That is what I said that was my point (that all so-called "pinhead" sensors are not created equal), if you are having a hard time understanding it, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[PAUL TILL]

marike6 wrote:

No my point, which I will repeat but this time I will speak more slowly, is that the X10 scores approximately 245 ISO - Sports (Low-Light ISO) Score and the others around 145-155 ISO.

LOL, I grab an X10 next time I want to shoot a football match.