Image courtesy: Quesabesde.
Quesabesde (Click here) had the pleasure to test the new [shoplink 19929]Fuji X100[/shoplink] with the firmware 0.69.
And those are a few of their findings:
– They found the menu a bit quirky
– Startup and shutter response is fast
– One of the major strengths of the cameras is the very silent (or “stealthy”) shutter!
– Autofocus of the X100 performs well in terms of speed and accuracy. Even in poor lighting conditions and with the assist light turned off, the reaction is correct.
– The camera supports up to 3,200 ISO smooth and even further if the conditions are not very critical.
But visit their website to check the JPG and RAW image samples. You can download the full size images!
And don’t forget to preorder the Fuji X100 at [shopcountry 19929] (no proerders in Europe yet).
–
[poll id=”42″]
60 Responses
The images look good, some images looked a little soft though but low noise. The RAW images looked better 🙂 By the way, you have been able to pre-order here in Sweden for about a week now.
The low ISO shots are about average, the high ISO shots are quite good actually. In comparison to a 20mm f1.7 MFT setup, I would say the MFt wins up until about 800-1600 ISO, at which point the X100 crushes the MFT in the high ISO range.
i beg to differ, i think this is much better than the panny 20mm and any m43.
iso800 from the fuji looks better than iso100 from my GF1. i have never achieved such sharp and detailed jpegs with my GF1, not to speak about iso800.
i am really impressed with the fuji. iso3200 looks pretty good too, hardly any detail-loss, and noise is very pleasant not the mush panasonic is producing.
these are maybe the best jpegs i have seen so far. they are not that oversharpened as those from olympus and still quite detailed, without obvious noise reduction. colors do also look good to me. really really impressive from fuji!
Edge detail is good. Custom sensor + custom lens combo shows it.
How much Fuji can customized a sensor that (1) they don’t produce, (2) will sell only to a niche market, and (3) for a reasonable price ? Very very very little. In other words, “custom sensor” is marketing speaking; IMHO, the only thing really customized was the AA filter, the same thing that Olympus is doing on its Panasonic sensors. For the custom lens, same marketing: when you buy an Olympus m.Zuiko, it’s also optimized for the sensor (most if not all the parameters that can be optimized on a lens can be easily shared for a family of sensors).
The web site is very specific – they are using an offset microlenses. I see no reason to doubt that. The basic sensor is good and cheap, and Fuji intends to sell a few of those.
Ironically, Fuji is making a point of sticking to 12MP – in lines with Olympus’s campaign for the past two years or so. But these are very healthy pixels, far better than most if not all m43 glass and sensors.
Way to go Fuji.
Same like Nikon and Pentax using the Sony sensors. They design what they need, send the specs to Sony and Sony makes it.
I’m not a specialist in the technology, but something tells me that offset microlenses require special care during demosaicing/etc, and thus camera has to know parameters of the mounted lens: variation of amount of captured light varies in non-analytical way (== no math formula can be derived).
IIRC same applies to the Leica M9 sensor/lenses: Leica M knows the lenses and compensates for them.
IOW, offset microlenses are not going to work well with interchangeable lens cameras, unless one also controls completely the lenses.
Oh, no! Another zorg! And one who genuinely dislikes the X100! I only mean to lampoon its critics when I pretend to be one of them and make purposely ludicrous remarks. Maybe I should stop being sarcastic and just say straight out that I am very impressed by this camera and I think the criticisms I’ve heard are mostly whacko or astroturfing or just plain not reading the Fujifilm specs (as in the above case).
Wow, that thing looks incredible at ISO3200 and 6400. Panasonic really needs to step up there sensor development. Hopefully the G3 will have a great sensor for photography (Panasonic does know that some of us care more about stills right?). The 4/3’s format isn’t that much smaller than APS-C, the gap shouldn’t be as large as it currently is.
the portrait of the blonde woman is terrible, either they didn’t focus or… like where are her eyes!
really makes me worry 🙁
You are worried you’ll have shadow every time you make a portrait with the X100?
yes, iso800 from the fuji looks actually better than iso100 from my GF1…
also not to forget we are looking at jpeg-samples here. i have never got such sharp and detailed jpegs out of my GF1. raw is better for sure, but i am impressed what can be achieved with the fuji by shooting jpegs.
Actually it’s better taken than the sample photo for Zeiss 85mm…. Whoever shot that photo doesn’t know how to shoot photo, period. At least the guy who used x100 knows what aperture to use to keep the entire face within the depth of field range and the guy did use Rembrandt lighting. But the eyes were covered with her hair is the problem….
Just an update, Chrispy pointed out the link to the movie version of the Zeiss portrait shots to me. It appears to the photographer only had five minutes to shoot…. My apology. It’s hard to shoot in such tight schedule.
So far so good. It will be interesting to see what results the final firmware version produces compared with this shady cloak and dagger example. How did they get their hands on it………….?
honestly, 3200 and up look very low in detail(hi NR) for a apsc with a fixed lens that is built for the sensor.
maybe Im wrong
Up to 3200 it’s ok, just watch areas which are in focus only.
It’s not D3s ofc:]
This is the dream of mine! it should only be an Oly with changebale lenses.
Pls bring it soon!
Generally it looks fine and better than what can be obtained by an Olympus PEN. High ISO images looks very nice. But for comparison I don’t think that the image quality is quite as good as the output from a Nikon D90 with a 35mm f/1.8, except that high ISO images from 3200 and up looks better than what can be obtained from the D90.
The samples look great but the colors to my eyes (and I am probably in the minority) are a little bit on a dryish side
compared to lush and juicy colors one get used to see by Fuji cameras with a Fuji made CCD sensor.
It’s CMOS sensor…. CMOS tends to be dullish in color. Just shoot RAW and eliminated all the default development setting in Lightroom or Photoshop and see what your photo photos look like without any processing work.
That said I wouldn’t worry about the color. Color can be easily adjusted if you shoot RAW without introducing noises. If there is a kind of color you like, do a custom color profile and apply it across the board of all photos you shoot. That’s what I do with my E-620. I prefer neutral color rather than Olympus’s default color which is on the warmer side.
You are right about a CMOS censor. But to my eyes it’s a Sony made CMOS sensor, and I can see it through any camera it’s in (Nikon, Pentax, and now Fuji). I wish I couldn’t! Thank you for the encouragement that traces of its color rendition are wipe-able in pp! 🙂
No problem. 🙂 That’s one thing wonderful about digital format. Choose your own color! 😀 If it’s film, you would have to shoot Provia, Velvia or Astia, Ektachrome and alll that…. Changing film in the middle of your 36 exposure? Pain in the behind. Thanks, but no thanks!
I do certainly need to take classes in Photoshop, or rather buy a camera with the colors I like right away (ooc or out of a RAW processor) like Sigma SD15, Fuji S3 or S5 Pro, or Panasonic GH2. 🙂
To Boris: Actually what I did was buy a Colorchecker Passort and take two photos, one with bright day light and one with tungsten light, and export them as DNG files (you can do that with Lightroom or Photoshop). Port those two photos into the software provided and that’s it. It’s shared between Photoshop and Lightroom, so it’s only one time process. Next time you use your Adobe software, select that custom profile as you load up your RAW files all the color is proper. I also make a Lightroom preset that gives a little pop, but not too much pop.
To cL,
Thanks a lot, I would still like to do without PS. I also wonder why wouldn’t the manufacture install such a color profile into the on-board RAW processor?
To Boris:
No they didn’t install any color profile into their RAW. It’s the JPEG output that’s embedded with brand-specific color. Someone who likes Olympus color would more likely to get an Olympus camera, so it’s a differentiation factor. There is nothing wrong with that. I like neutral color out of camera because if I decided to change it to warm color or cool color to fit a theme, it’s easier for me to visualize.
But I think I probably confused you. You apply color profile to RAW, that doesn’t mean the RAW was cooked. JPEG was post-processed by your camera already. That’s not the best format to alter profile. It’s like double processed and you’ll lose quality, on top of that, JPEG is compressed. RAW was built to do this kind of change without loss of quality, so you should always apply color profile, white balance etc. with RAW. Just load up RAW file to Photoshop or Lightroom and you’ll see RAW records color temperature and color tint into the format, which JPEG does not. You alter JPEG’s color tint by change how much it is deviated from the base value. Not the best method.
Trust me, a lot of us don’t like to mess with post processing, so we learn to shoot right in the first place. Though sometimes it’s the necessary evil. Dynamic range problem, for example, can be easily dealt with it, if it’s not too much. You need to know the situation before hand, and underexpose it accordingly, then pull the brightness back up with software, then your highlight will be saved.
high iso is quite good as expected but the lens is kind of a let down for me. not very sharp at all
Well, it’s a larger sensor than 4/3. Larger sensor has the advantage of lower pixel density, so high ISO performance and dynamic range are expected, but don’t expect it to be sharper than 4/3. FF would just be even less sharp. But you could use the extra megapixels to make the final print look sharper, just not while looking at the full size image pixel per pixel. Know each sensor size’s advantage and disadvantage and choose what you want accordingly.
That said, the cauliflower/artichoke photo is a little over exposed. I don’t blame the photographer, because green can trick the exposure meter. If you expose for green the white on the cauliflower would just experience overblown highlight like that. Not the worse case, and it seems to be well controlled, so we know its dynamic range is okay.
So I’m assuming because this is listed on a 4/3rds rumors blog that the specs on it being APS-C are incorrect?
Do you know that Fuji is part of the 43 coalition?
Yes, but only because the xD memory format.
I agree that this news belongs here. We’re all interested in DSLR quality without the bulk. Fuji is taking a different approach than 4/3rds, but their journey is still relevant.
Low light situation? Not really. High Iso with average light will have (mostly) lower noise. For example: look at Gh1 with high Iso and average/good light.
I would say the Panny 20 is sharper.
I’m not impressed of the image quality, but of the viewfinder!
IMO IQ is OK. In a portable camera, I would not aim for the stellar IQ anyway – that’s not the point.
On other note, the X100’s lens I would say better than Oly’s 17mm (also 35mm EFL). That kind of saddens me: I was looking for a gift to myself, and thought to myself “bright 35mm for my E-620 would be interesting” only to find that there is no 35mm for 43 and the one for m43 is quite average – nor suited for available light photography.
Looks pretty good. The DR looks great.
The Fuji has detail, dynamic range, good color, and a very harmonic and refined rendering IMO.
Fuji has a tradition of producing exceptional photographic instruments, I’m thinking of their medium format rangefinders and unassuming compacts that had at the time the best sensitivity and dynamic range, now they are back with a product that is both up-to-date and classic.
@ Boris: You’re not in the minority.
I had a look at them at work where we have these huge AdobeRGB Eizo’s, all well calibrated. I found the photo’s to be a bit dull as well.
Didn’t anyone notice that all samples are sRGB shot? WTF?! Why don’t you select AdobeRGB when you can with this beautiful cam?
On top of that, I guess we’re a bit fooled by the pictures that are high-ISO: they are the ones that have the most colours like the candy shot. The color gamut cuts down (or at least it seems to) by the high-iso. Taking this picture using AdobeRGB @ 200 iso will most likely result in a higher quality photograph.
Nevertheless, high-ISO noise is great imo!
The portrait is such a terrible photo, I won’t draw conclusions from it.
I’m used to do corrections in Photoshop RAW to photo’s which are from Canon G9 and 350D. Usually it requires a lot of adjusting for a little better result. With the samples from Spain, I just had to do some minor adjustments for a lot better result even with these –not so good- pictures! I guess that’s a giant leap forward.
I’m one of those who wants to buy this cam! I expect better results though, when camera settings are better taken care of, like selecting AdobeRGB. (If it was sRGB only, it would’ve been a deal breaker!)
Despite some uncertainty regarding color/sharpness, the shooting itself will be a real delight!
I guess we have to wait for an in-depth review at dpreview…
More power to you for using the larger colorspace of Adobe RGB. But that only helps when you have a highly controlled, critically calibrated workflow from beginning to end.
If anyone intends to have their photos appear online, in an email, or shared without colorspace conversion, then sRGB is perfectly fine, and will result in a reasonably consistent experience for anyone who views your photos. I don’t want anyone not aware of the differences to see your highly reactionary comments (“sRGB? WTF?”) and think they’re doing something wrong by working in sRGB.
You clearly know what you’re doing, but Adobe RGB is not for everyone.
That’s one thing I hate the most…. AdobeRGB vs sRGB. If I could choose just one, AdobeRGB! But in reality, I need two versions of the same photo…. One for online sharing and print and one for myself. Most print labs if you send them AdobeRGB, be prepared they’ll print it in sRGB and color would be all wrong. Same for Flickr, it only uses sRGB. Upload AdobeRGB and be prepared to see your photos in magenta tinted colors….
If you have sunset shots…, color banding around the sun will occur if colorspace isn’t wide enough.
the samples look impressive!
I don’t see anything particularly great here.. It’s no X1 for sure. The pictures look good but nothing exceptional.
Why everyone compares this camera to GF1? GF1 is a completly different product. Smaller, much cheaper, has IL, and part of a growing system. The Fuji is a stand alone product, with a crazy retro look.
I am not sure how may photogs will want to pay 1.2k for this compact beauty. IQ? it’s just good. Flexibility? No. Artistic bokeh? Forget. Styling&geek factor? Yeah, you got me. But pay 1.2k for just beautiful look? And who of this stylish guy/girl will use this beautifull shutter wheel? It is sometimes compared to ’70 compacts, like Canonet QL-GIII. But hey, this is full frame camera with f/1.7 glass! I am using one of these 35 years after it left factory!!
Absolutely uncomparable, just niche and uninteresting product. Sorry, but beauty is not everything.
“I am not sure how may photogs will want to pay 1.2k for this compact beauty”
The sames that use to buy contax T,Y2,T3/leica minilux/minox 35 gt etc… Pocketability fuck yeah.
Please don’t swear, it’s not polite.
Cam design is good features are okay. But i checked the poll results and around %40 ppl voted as “top notch image quality” … Those %40 are you blind ???? you really think image quality is awesome … omg!!!….
please explain then, whats the quality in your opinion, George?
OMHO, quality is pretty awesome, dynamic range could be better and there is a slightly noise pattern at base ISO, but compared to micro four thirds cameras, yes quality is top notch… specially at higher ISOs…
The problem it’s that the lens are fixed, the price it’s not exactly awesome and the size isn’t great…
Dim colours, rather low contrast and narrow DR, also look at skin tone (4th snapshot).
Otherwise a camera with very beautiful and appealing finish.
I have no problem with that skintone, except that it looks like that the noise reduction setting was a bit to strong? but i could be wrong.
When I have the cash I will be buying this camera (bar bad reviews) – unless Olympus somehow come out with an updated 17mm f2.0 pancake to replace the current lens before that happens. It will be a while anyway, but I just can’t see that happening.
I think i would like the 17 mm focal length, but if i would add another lens, the lumix 20 mm attracts me more,because of the 1.7
otherwise, if the 20 mm were 2.8….i would go for 17 mm
I think the pictures are pretty good. The camera is propably set to default values and color, saturation, contrast and sharpness can of course be tweeked to suit indvidual needs.
High ISO from x100 is excellent, on the other hand the output from a Nikon D90 (same sensor size) seems to be cleaner at lower ISO settings.
Also image quality is much better than what comes out of an Olympus PEN. The PEN output will never be this good no matter which lens is attached.
I wouldn’t dare to say never…well in terms of noise, it obviously beats the PEN, which older sensor design in turn easily beats the sensor used in the nikon D2x
I recall even the Canon 1Ds MK1 had similar or worse noise behavior. So its not really about 4/3, APS-C or FF size but more the advancing image processor/algorythms, and Olympus has managed to reduce the gap in this respect.
Robert Catto was saying that (from only a short session with the camera, so not scientific) for noise “6400 ISO is pretty darn impressive … some signs of noise reduction, but I would put it in at least the same class as my 500D or 1D MkIII” (and that’s from JPEG).