image courtesy: mobile01
This one is a tough battle: [shoplink 12883]X100S[/shoplink] vs [shoplink 13349]Ricoh GR[/shoplink] vs [shoplink 13071]NikonA[/shoplink] vs [shoplink 14323]Leica X2[/shoplink] vs [shoplink 14387 ebay]Sigma DP1 Merril[/shoplink]!
It’s a comprehensive comparison with a lot of sample images: portrait, ISO, sharpness, moiree, bokeh and much more. Take your time to compare all the sample images and decipher the google translated text version.. Check it out here (translation) and then vote your overall favorite camera in the poll.
cheers
Patrick
[poll id=”17″]
47 Responses
Very thorough review. Maybe the best I have read in some time. Pleased with my X100S and glad I bought it, but Leica X2 seemed a little sharper in some pictures. However Fujifilm is still best in bokeh and for me this is important. Can not go wrong with either camera, but X100S has viewfinder and automatically wins in my book 🙂
More proof that you can’t go wrong with any modern camera these days. Any one of these would be perfectly acceptable for most users, so it comes down to price, ergonomics, and usability — the latter two of which are a matter of personal preference.
Yeah, image quality is the last thing to worry about these days, when you know it’s a proper camera that is.
The Nikon is just out of the mix as the Ricoh GR is both better and cheaper. The Leica has some kind of appeal to it if you have loads of money only. The sigma has no battery life and false colors like a nasa x-ray camera. So then choice is between the literally pocketable Ricoh or the unique experience of the Fuji. Simple as that. 🙂
Just looked at the poll results, funny how they’re rated in exactly the same order as i mentioned them. :p
The girl is hot.
I agree! You can tell by the lack of cardigan and the summer dress 😀
+1 Nice chic
Totally!!!
i Need a small 50mm (35mm aps-c) cam.
manufaktur is not importantant!
me too!
It already exists. The X-M1 with 35mm Fujinon lens…
If the Leica didn’t have such a poor LCD at this high price, I’d go for that , and personally I think Nikon missed a trick by not putting a 35mm lens on their compact rather than a 28mm. In terms of image quality, features and value, I think the Fuji wins, but I’d also buy the lens hood and case. It’s amazing how many people use lenses without lens hoods, when they are available. You might as well get the best out of what you’ve paid for, and it offers some protection to that front element.
The LCD .. that’s what did it ? :O
Also, hoods are overrated. When the sun is out of frame, it’s out of the picture anyway, when the sun is in the frame, the hood doesn’t do anything either because that’s out of the in the first place. And when you do manage the exact spot that flares, it’s just a nice high-key effect for a change, doesn’t kill ya. Hoods are more for lens protection really, or to ‘look’ professional.
There are situations where the sun is not in frame, but is shining directly onto the lens (causing flare etc.), that’s what a lens hood is for.
Sure, who told you otherwise ?
At the considerably higher price the LCD should be much better quality, and without an optical viewfinder you are of course more frequently dependent on it. It doesn’t have to be direct or brilliant sun to have a negative effect on the lens performance either. Also I think the Fuji is more versatile re film emulsion options etc. it’s personal choice regarding the sensor, but things have moved on since the Sony one that’s in the Leica was produced. I’m a Leica fan, I have one, but it’s only the genuine M series and not the cloned Panasonics that really are in a different league with regards engineering quality. The X series are excellent also, but I would respectfully suggest not capable of improving on the Fuji results for perhaps twice the price.
I didn’t say that hoods were more for protection, it was just an added bonus when you have one in place. It’s odd that you think people might put one on to “look professional”. Perhaps you’ve noticed that a large number of professional photographers use them? It’s odd that these people that make a living from photography do this when it’s overrated and they are not much use, why are so many wasting their time for no benefit ? Odd too that a lot of the worlds most expensive lenses are supplied with them as standard. I think you’ve got the concept backwards
Looking professional is about other peoples perception, not mine, and yes it really does have that effect, don’t blame the messenger. And the fact that ‘they all use it’ doesn’t mean it can’t be useless 99% of the time.
It’s irrelevant what people look like ,its results surely that count. It’s your choice of course never to have bought/used one. Stay calm its a fun discussion !!
Again, don’t tell me, tell the people. And i use plenty of hoods, just saying their necessity is overrated, at least when you call people ‘amazing’ (which means idiot) for not using one.
Lens hoods – A debate that has long been explored from both sides by shooters, lab techs, and designers alike. Truth is, they are not 99% useless. There are many situations where there is indirect light that causes glare & flare. The performance of these devices in these circumstances is, of course, contingent upon being well designed and fitted, there are poorly designed (cosmetic) hoods out there. There is plenty of research out there to back this up – Google is your friend 🙂 Even if they were only useful 10% of the time, I am not willing to gamble missing a shot due to glare or fiddling with trying to put the damn thing on, but that’s just me.
Then there is the ‘protective’ qualities of the hoods, even plastic ones. I have replaced nearly a dozen hoods over the years due to impact, if they were not on I would have damage the barrel threads at the least, or destroyed objective lens at the worst.
Having been, briefly, a PJ in my past life, I can tell you for absolute certain that pros do not use them cause the look cool, they use them because they don’t give a gnats fart about the gear, they care about the image; that one elusive shot that will fill their inner void. The hood is cheap protection from far more than a UV filter and wont reduce the quality (or increase glare) like one either.
Ultimately, it’s about personal choice of course, but at some point logic should weigh in to help us err on the side of caution. One should be slow to argue, even academically, against the use of lens hoods.
I use a lens hood AND a good filter. Lens caps are what’s overrated.
🙂
I’m not surprised by the vote results…
Fuji have got a march on and look like they intend to stay at the front of this group IMO. The Sony Nex is missing – well they haven’t got a fixed lens camera in APS-C have they?
I think one thing is for sure that a company such as Nikon should be pretty disappointed with this it seems they are miles behind. And they shouldn’t be so far behind.
Until recently all I had was Nikon digital gear, now its all gone and I’m into Fuji X-E1 with an
18-55mm lens…
Also, this is fujirumors. People who like Fuji are bound the be around. 😉
For portraits, i have to say Leica X2’s SOOC jpeg looks the best to me from the review in that website. Frankly, i was surprised by the colors of Leica in those photos. I thought x100s will win. Neverthelss, nikon photos does quite good as well.
Since the review is on compact cameras with fixed lens. i wish Fuji can come out with a Full Frame camera with fixed lens 35mm f1.4. That’s all I need. I know is wishful thinking. This will surely be able to compete with RX1……xD.
It won’t be long before the X Pro 2 arrives with the 23mm lens as an option, which if the sensor stays he same size will be equivalent to 35mm. I’ve seen it claimed that the Fuji sensor is capable of producing files that equal Canon’s 5d , which is quite a statement. That would still be considerably cheaper than the Sony RX 1. That said I’d very much like the Sony, for size reasons as much as anything else .
If Fuji can’t manage a Full frame fixed camera announcement before October this year (2013) then I suggest taking Sony up on their offering. But since they have not announced any new lenses in the past year in their road map … its likely that they have something FF for the market this year, if not in production, at least announced.
Or they plan on going out of business, which is also possible.
At times it looks like the Leica was going to win, based on it’s rendering of the young lady’skin. To me it was the best. In the end I had to vote for the FujiX100S, it did everything well. Even the AF, which at first the tester was I believe too close to the subject. During all of the tests one camera after another seemed to come out on top. However the Fuji was either number one, two or three on all of the test examples.
I’d just like to say that “Negatives overlord” is the most awesome term I’ve ever heard used to describe anything. For Fuji, it’s actually appropriate — though a better translation would probably have been, “The overlord of film”.
Am I the only one who has been BLOWN AWAY by the High ISO capabilities of the X100s? It completely slaughters the competition at 3200+.
And to think I was considering getting a used D700 instead of a X-Pro1.
As an owner of x-E1, you clearly see by the shutter times on the fuji that the iso is 11 stop less than the others…
meant 1 stop
Even so, they are still blowing the competition out of the water.
Me love you long time!!!
any recommendations for a good portrait lens for the xpro?
i like the skin tones better on the leica, but the leica has no viewfinder.
Has anyone received the Fuji x100s from Amazon 3-6 weeks after ordering the camera?
Problem with this test is, that giirl looks so hot she would even look good on a Pentax Q and Nikan J1!
About the lenshood: If Ken Rockwell doesn’t need one, no one needs a hood…
Never sure whether a comment referring to KR is tongue in cheek or not, but if you have doubts about the value of a lenshood, score one point for each of the following: fingers, impact, rain, snow, and of course shielding the front element from non image forming light.
I kinda have a feeling that if they were to ask the same question on a different website (Nikon, Leica, etc.) there may be a different poll result. Just sayin’. 🙂
Of course, as others have mentioned further up too – don’t expect a fan site to deliver representative results 🙂
Very good review. Very honest and objective writing. That’s what I expect from a professional Taiwanese photo review! 🙂
Fuji, Leica and Ricoh show good performance, Nikon is for someone who accepts the weak points and the Sigma is simply weak.
In all fairness Leica > Coolpix > Everything Else
In my opinion the cameras that had the least good performance in the details performed the best with skin tones. No surprise to me with that. Looking at details the ground behind the model, the lighted archway and the shoreline. the Sigma looked clearly better. The Fuji completely fell apart with drastic moire patterns on the skylights. On the models skin there were big differences on how her veins were revealed. On balance, I liked the Ricoh best, the Fuji the least. The Sigma showed the most detail, whereas I thought the Fuji looked more smeared than I expected on too many shots. I think the Fuji doesn’t have an AA filter, which is good for many photos, especially close ups of faces, but has difficulty where there is a bigger chance of developing moire patterns. I find that digital cameras all work well with close up portrait shots, easiest for most cameras to focus and meter. There you choose whatever camera give you the most pleasing rendering, not the sharpest or most accurate. As it should be, as there are probably more shots of people, family and friend, taken and shared. Except for, possibly the Sigma, landscape shots aren’t so easy to get good results.
I’ve used , or should I say tested , all the above cameras , and by results of photos alone ,, the fuji is better , but the no frills nikon took great pics too . I was surprised it did so well . But the fuji , there is just something about it , it’s addictive . Try one and see .