Fuji X100 Digital SOMETHING from Fujifilm

semilog said:
johnny9fingers said:
I have a couple questions regarding the sensor. Is there a real noticable difference in image quality between an APS-C and 4/3rds sensor?

They are close. In practice, the best 4/3 sensors currently produce output that looks a lot like APS-C sensors of the previous generation. Here is a comparison of the output from the Olympus E-PL1 and the Nikon D-3000.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, I hadn't seen this test. I was quite staggered at how the E-PL1 output completely outclasses the Nikon's; especially considering the D-3000 is only a year or so older.

Let's hope Fuji squeeze as much out of this sensor, whatever it turns out to be, as Olympus squeezed out from theirs.

Given that the lens and sensor have been designed as a combination – which in many way is more crucial simply than the origin of the sensor - it's possible we might see the X100 convincingly outclassing the M9 (which of course will retain advantages in manual focusing and versatility).
Click to expand...
 
Paul T. said:
semilog said:
Given that the lens and sensor have been designed as a combination – which in many way is more crucial simply than the origin of the sensor - it's possible we might see the X100 convincingly outclassing the M9 (which of course will retain advantages in manual focusing and versatility).
Click to expand...

I think that unlikely. Full frame sensors are in many ways less demanding on an optical system than smaller sensors (especially with respect to diffraction), especially when the lenses are designed for digital capture – as the most recent Leica, Nikon, Canon, and Zeiss FF lenses assuredly are.

I think it is realistic to hope for high-ISO output as good as the M9, perhaps better, and resolution as good, and likely better, than the M8.

A more fair comparison would pit the K-100 against 12-14 mpix APS-C cameras (D-300, D-90, Pentax K-x, etc), when those bodies are fitted with the best lenses for those systems: Nikon 24/1.4 (new), etc.

The little Fuji has some chance of approaching the performance of the best APS-C setups at a fraction of the price and a fraction of the bulk. As much as I might wish otherwise, it is unlikely to eclipse them.

But that level of performance is quite adequate for the things I'd use such a camera for. Used handheld, as the X-100 design obviously is intended to be used, camera movement will be the resolution-limiting parameter in this system – not sensor or lens resolution.

For that reason, if I could wish to add one thing not found in the specs, it would be IS as effective as that found in the Olympus E-620, E-PL1, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
semilog said:
Paul T. said:
I think that unlikely. Full frame sensors are in many ways less demanding on an optical system than smaller sensors (especially with respect to diffraction), especially when the lenses are designed for digital capture – as the most recent Leica, Nikon, Canon, and Zeiss FF lenses assuredly are.
Click to expand...
You could be right; but WA lenses, as we've all seen, do require a lot of the M9 sensor, because of those oblique light rays. Obviously that was the main challenge in producing the M9. By cutting out the any lens approach, Fuji have avoided that problem, altho of course the smaller sensor introduces compromises of its own.

Of course we wil all have to wait and see. It's vaguely possible the results will be poor. It's very likely the results will be good enough. But it's theoretically possible that lens/sensor combination will be stellar, especially when you consider how much Olympus has squeezed out of a significantly smaller sensor.
Click to expand...
 
well

well

Mr. SemiLOG might have a cow about this, but I don't think the Nikon images are focused ...

Paul T. said:
semilog said:
Thanks for this, I hadn't seen this test. I was quite staggered at how the E-PL1 output completely outclasses the Nikon's; especially considering the D-3000 is only a year or so older.

Let's hope Fuji squeeze as much out of this sensor, whatever it turns out to be, as Olympus squeezed out from theirs.

Given that the lens and sensor have been designed as a combination – which in many way is more crucial simply than the origin of the sensor - it's possible we might see the X100 convincingly outclassing the M9 (which of course will retain advantages in manual focusing and versatility).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Regardless of which sensor Fuji uses in the X100, I just hope it produces images as good or better than the sensor in the Fuji S5.
 
narsuitus said:
Regardless of which sensor Fuji uses in the X100, I just hope it produces images as good or better than the sensor in the Fuji S5.
Click to expand...


I worked all day with my S5 and it's great. I have a 14MP FX camera and it's usually in the studio. The Fuji is my first pick for any outdoor work. The 2 or so extra stops of bandwidth are a major advantage in bright outdoor light..
 
johnny9fingers said:
I have a couple questions regarding the sensor. Is there a real noticable difference in image quality between an APS-C and 4/3rds sensor? Are the Fuji sensors a different breed than sensors from Sony and Panasonic, as far as their real world performance goes?
Click to expand...

Not every manufactures pixel is the same. Not every APS-C sensor is the same. Not (I think.. I don't know much about 4/3) every manufactures 4/3 sensor is the same. The sensor in the D300 is different than the sensor in the D300s, they are both APS-C. I have a camera with a FX or FF size NX sensor, it's the same size as the N sensor, both made by Kodak. The sensors were designed and produced within months of each other. One is far superior to the other. It's like talking about coffee.. there are many kinds of coffee.. it's all coffee, some is better, some is not so good..
 
Last edited:
most are the same

most are the same

The GH1 and GH2 are a bit different than the other 6 or 7 u4/3 sensors on the market.

PKR said:
Not every manufactures pixel is the same. Not every APS-C sensor is the same. Not (I think.. I don't know much about 4/3) every manufactures 4/3 sensor is the same. The sensor in the D300 is different than the sensor in the D300s, they are both APS-C. I have a camera with a FX or FF size NX sensor, it's the same size as the N sensor, both made by Kodak. The sensors were designed and produced within months of each other. One is far superior to the other. It's like talking about coffee.. there are many kinds of coffee.. it's all coffee, some is better, some is not so good..
Click to expand...
 
ampguy said:
The GH1 and GH2 are a bit different than the other 6 or 7 u4/3 sensors on the market.
Click to expand...

I really hope the 4/3 cameras catch on. If all the major digital camera makers issued a 4/3 camera every couple of years, with lenses moving from one camera to another.. think what fun we would have. Not likely, but who knows what a few more years will bring.
 
PKR said:
I really hope the 4/3 cameras catch on. If all the major digital camera makers issued a 4/3 camera every couple of years, with lenses moving from one camera to another.. think what fun we would have. Not likely, but who knows what a few more years will bring.
Click to expand...

I wonder how long the small format sensor can last though...
 
jsrockit said:
I wonder how long the small format sensor can last though...
Click to expand...

I think as the FF and APS-C become the norm for SLRs and high quality becomes more common, you may see the smaller high end P+S and smaller SLRs and RF type cameras move up to 4/3. Any camera manufacturer who doesn't produce a wide range of lenses, can market a camera using the array of lenses on the market made by others. The 4/3 market is open to lots of lower end camera manufactures.
 
PKR said:
I think as the FF and APS-C become the norm for SLRs and high quality becomes more common, you may see the smaller high end P+S and smaller SLRs and RF type cameras move up to 4/3. Any camera manufacturer who doesn't produce a wide range of lenses, can market a camera using the array of lenses on the market made by others. The 4/3 market is open to lots of lower end camera manufactures.
Click to expand...

I agree that the 4/3 sensors should be used in compact P&S cameras....something like the Leica DL5 (if possible). However, I wonder how long it can last as a interchangable lens system. It seems to me that it makes sense to go larger now that it is possible.
 
jsrockit said:
I agree that the 4/3 sensors should be used in compact P&S cameras....something like the Leica DL5 (if possible). However, I wonder how long it can last as a interchangable lens system. It seems to me that it makes sense to go larger now that it is possible.
Click to expand...


4/3 sensors will improve with time just like the other sensor formats. All of the 1.7 sensor format cameras could move up. Don't discount the 4/3 sensor size. If a 4/3 will (in the future) print to a quality 16 x 20, and the camera manufacturer doesn't have to be in the lens business, it's a great market.

I think you will see 4/3 quality approaching the quality of FF of a couple of years back. At some point, the resolution norm will be established and the designers will have to address the current problems with bandwidth and DOF found in FF sensors.

The Bandwidth adjustments will find their way into all the other sensors in short time.

All of this technology (in the mass camera market) is still new. Look at where we are with film and look how long it took. One of my biggest non image complaints about digital is camera weight and the number of batteries and other stuff I have to pack.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PKR said:
4/3 sensors will improve with time just like the other sensor formats. All of the 1.7 sensor format cameras could move up. Don't discount the 4/3 sensor size. If a 4/3 will (in the future) print to a quality 16 x 20, and the camera manufacturer doesn't have to be in the lens business, it's a great market.

I think you will see 4/3 quality approaching the quality of FF of a couple of years back. At some point, the resolution norm will be established and the designers will have to address the current problems with bandwidth and DOF found in FF sensors.
Click to expand...

I'm not discounting it, but certain formats always fall out of favor... as they did in film. I see 4/3 as an evolutionary step, but not as a long term format. Just an opinion.
 
jsrockit said:
I agree that the 4/3 sensors should be used in compact P&S cameras....something like the Leica DL5 (if possible). However, I wonder how long it can last as a interchangable lens system. It seems to me that it makes sense to go larger now that it is possible.
Click to expand...

My opinion goes in a similar direction. I mean - look at M and ltm lenses - I think they are small enough. Going with a sensor with 1/2 (linear, area is only 1/4) the size could possibly yield a bit smaller lenses, but not by a factor of 2 - we need space for your fingers and (like it or not) the AF stuff needs some space too. Sony has proven that a APS-C sensor can be put into a body smaller than any m4/3.

And, last but not least, no matter how good the sensors will get in the future (they are actually not that bad as of now), the crop factor and DOF dependence on the sensor size relative to the speed of the lens will remain.

I do think that m4/3 is fine - but I want one in super compact camera with some 12 Mpix and nice fast and small zoom lens buit in. Not a 14-56 3.5-5.6 fat long slow beast. Then I will take it traveling and leave the X100 home.

If small (smaller than FX) sensors are to become standard for compact cameras with exchangeable lenses I hope to see manual focus lenses built for them to really take the advantage of the small size. Otherwise just give us FX with M compatible mount and forget the rest ;)
 
Some questions that I could not find any answer on the reviews or maybe i did not read carefully enough, but I will ask anyway:


-Is it possible to control the aperture ring with in-camera software or its completely mechanical?

-Speaking of shutter, any info how the shutter mechanism will work in X100? because if there is even slight shutter lag, it will put off a lot of people.


and just a thought, don't you think an ISO dial would have made more sense on this camera rather than a shutter dial?
 
ebino said:
Is it possible to control the aperture ring with in-camera software or its completely mechanical?

-Speaking of shutter, any info how the shutter mechanism will work in X100? because if there is even slight shutter lag, it will put off a lot of people.

and just a thought, don't you think an ISO dial would have made more sense on this camera rather than a shutter dial?
Click to expand...

1. Yes. The aperture can be camera-controlled (see the A setting on the aperture dial).

2. No. We don't yet know about shutter lag.

3. I don't want to give up the shutter speed or exposure compensation dials. An dedicated dial for ISO would be nice, though. I have some hope that the control thumbwheel on the camera's back will be assignable to control ISO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom