alienmeatsack
Well-known
At the current time, the X-E1 is the same price as the X-Pro1. So that's a real pickle for someone like me trying to decide between the different models and with this new cheaper one flaunting itself in my face all new and cheap and fun looking.
willie_901
Veteran
The OVF is useful in very sunny conditions. It also provides an advantage associated with traditional mechanical rangefinders – being able to see outside the frame.
Besides the extra cost there are disadvantages:
o you need to understand and anticipate parallax (though this should be a no-brainer for people on RFF); this seems to be a problem some people even though parallax corrected frame lines and focus regions are available
o the AF works differently; not just because of parallax but because the focus region implementation is different; audio focus lock confirmation is more important too
o the frame lines are more conservative than most mechanical rangefinders; this annoys some photographers (even though it takes a fraction of a second to switch to EVF for precise framing).
o the diopter is fixed which means sharing the camera is inconvenient, and you have to select and acquire an appropriate diopter
o finally more electronic and mechanical components, which means there are more failure points
If the XP1 successor does not have an OVF I will just buy a second XP1 body as a back up because I really find the OVF to be useful.
Besides the extra cost there are disadvantages:
o you need to understand and anticipate parallax (though this should be a no-brainer for people on RFF); this seems to be a problem some people even though parallax corrected frame lines and focus regions are available
o the AF works differently; not just because of parallax but because the focus region implementation is different; audio focus lock confirmation is more important too
o the frame lines are more conservative than most mechanical rangefinders; this annoys some photographers (even though it takes a fraction of a second to switch to EVF for precise framing).
o the diopter is fixed which means sharing the camera is inconvenient, and you have to select and acquire an appropriate diopter
o finally more electronic and mechanical components, which means there are more failure points
If the XP1 successor does not have an OVF I will just buy a second XP1 body as a back up because I really find the OVF to be useful.
2WK
Rangefinder User
Not exactly true, the X100S has the X-trans II sensor. Supposedly better resolution & signal to noise, and the phase detection AF.
Yes, I knew someone would point that out, although phase detection doesn't have anything to do with IQ and for all practical purposes the IQ across all those models is essentially identical.
2WK
Rangefinder User
I'm just passing this along:
"The difference from the original X-Trans is the addition of on-chip phase detection pixels. As you know, X-Trans changed the color filter array to a 6 x 6 grid. That let us get rid of the optical low-pass filter, which increased the resolution. Then we switched to a dual-CPU design, which gave us more processing power to work with. Together, those allow a 30% improvement in signal to noise over the previous model, and a 25% increase in resolution."
http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...-x-trans-ii-sensor-proves-Fuji-is-not-resting
"The difference from the original X-Trans is the addition of on-chip phase detection pixels. As you know, X-Trans changed the color filter array to a 6 x 6 grid. That let us get rid of the optical low-pass filter, which increased the resolution. Then we switched to a dual-CPU design, which gave us more processing power to work with. Together, those allow a 30% improvement in signal to noise over the previous model, and a 25% increase in resolution."
http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...-x-trans-ii-sensor-proves-Fuji-is-not-resting
alienmeatsack
Well-known
So the X100s is basically a fixed lens X-Pro1 (sans leaf shutter) with a slightly better X-Trans chip? And the X-M1 has the original X-Trans chip that is in the X100 and X-Pro1 correct?
I wonder why they did that. I mean, if they have this new tech, why not put it into the new cameras? Is it really that much more that it would make the X-M1 not fit into the price range it's in now?
Still quite curious to see the results from this camera here on the forum. I've had my eye on the X100/X100x and X-Pro1 for a while now. And every time something new happens, I get excited but then always go back to those cameras to ponder.
I wonder why they did that. I mean, if they have this new tech, why not put it into the new cameras? Is it really that much more that it would make the X-M1 not fit into the price range it's in now?
Still quite curious to see the results from this camera here on the forum. I've had my eye on the X100/X100x and X-Pro1 for a while now. And every time something new happens, I get excited but then always go back to those cameras to ponder.
GaryLH
Veteran
back alley
IMAGES
i wonder how noticable to the human eye a 25% increase would be?
They could have had a large supply of the older sensors?
GaryLH
Veteran
The original x100 had a normal 12mp Bayer sensor setup. The x100s updated w/ 16mp xtran.. Thus the resolution and noise improvement vs the older x100 plus the dual CPU and phase detection added much faster af and split image focus capability.
I saw a utube video which showed the x100 against Ricoh gr and Nikon Coolpix a. In decent light, the x100s looks to be the fastest af amongst the three.
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
I can c the difference between the x100 and my xp1/xe1. On the other hand I decided the x100 overall iq is good enough for me, so no intention of ever upgrading to x100s until my x100 finally gives up the ghost.
Gary
Yes
If slightly better means it has phase detect, then yes. IQ is the same in all four cameras, except one can't put the 23/2 lens on the Pro, the E, or the M.
alienmeatsack
Well-known
True. I wonder how much difference in price and internals it would be to put the newer chip in the cameras now vs the old ones. I mean, if it was that easy, they'd just update all of the X line with the new chip right?
gerafotografija
Member
After using the XTrans II sensor in the X20 and comparing to what I get out of the OMD, I get the impression that the dual processors and improved image processing engine is mainly what allows the files out of the smaller sensor to "punch above their weight" (2/3" sensor is ~4x smaller than m43, and 16x smaller than FF in area).
I get decent highlight recovery potential from the RAF files and can ETTR with the X20. The resolution boosting filter seems to allow use of smaller apertures with good apparent sharpness in the same range as the larger sensor, which shouldn't be the case for such a small sensor.
The main trade-off seems to be that the overall color tones OOC look different than a Bayer format array camera, but not in a bad way, just different. An unintended side effect seems to be, for lack of a better phrase, lack of transparency and lightness to the color rendition, and that seems to be at the grain level due to all the extra processing they do even on images exported as RAW files.
The worst perfromance seems to be from underexposed or DR boosted images, where the so called watercolor effect comes into play. No RAW import I have tried really gets rid of that.
All this is just IMHO what I'm seeing after comparing the two for several months.
That said , you get an amazingly tiny Fujinon equivalent 28-112mm f/2-2.8 lens that performs wonderfully, excellently controlled popup and off camera flash behavior, fast AF, industry leading ergonomics (if you add the thumb rest and shutter extension), and it almost fits in your pocket. Not a bad compromise.
Since the XM1 is almost exactly the same body size as the X20, as long as you are ok with a small prime lens, it seems to be a nice step up without much loss in portability. Of course, the X30, when its announced, could change the game again.
I get decent highlight recovery potential from the RAF files and can ETTR with the X20. The resolution boosting filter seems to allow use of smaller apertures with good apparent sharpness in the same range as the larger sensor, which shouldn't be the case for such a small sensor.
The main trade-off seems to be that the overall color tones OOC look different than a Bayer format array camera, but not in a bad way, just different. An unintended side effect seems to be, for lack of a better phrase, lack of transparency and lightness to the color rendition, and that seems to be at the grain level due to all the extra processing they do even on images exported as RAW files.
The worst perfromance seems to be from underexposed or DR boosted images, where the so called watercolor effect comes into play. No RAW import I have tried really gets rid of that.
All this is just IMHO what I'm seeing after comparing the two for several months.
That said , you get an amazingly tiny Fujinon equivalent 28-112mm f/2-2.8 lens that performs wonderfully, excellently controlled popup and off camera flash behavior, fast AF, industry leading ergonomics (if you add the thumb rest and shutter extension), and it almost fits in your pocket. Not a bad compromise.
Since the XM1 is almost exactly the same body size as the X20, as long as you are ok with a small prime lens, it seems to be a nice step up without much loss in portability. Of course, the X30, when its announced, could change the game again.
den_sh
Established
16mp vs 12mp is actually a 33% increase. Someone needs to inform Kayce.
16mp is 15% higher resolution than 12mp.
Megapixels is unit of area, not resolution i.e. double the resolution you need 4 times more pixels, not 2 times more.
I this case I think Kayce was speaking of pixels, and not resolution, per se. She got it wrong either way
alienmeatsack
Well-known
Does this new M1 use the same mounting system as the other Fuji X series? And the only difference for it's lenses that I can see is that they lack the aperture ring? Am I understanding this correctly?
Same mount. It can use any XC or XF mount lens, with or without aperture ring
alienmeatsack
Well-known
So does this also mean that any of the Leica M-Mount adapters will also work with it?