Looking at the X100 image threads...

jsrockit said:
Jeez, this film versus digital crap is getting so damn annoying. They are just tools. Both are capable of great photos. A film throw-away camera can look just as good as a decent film SLR under the right conditions.
Click to expand...

Yes this forum is getting bad for this film vs digital crapola. Then again some threads just aren't worth answering. This might have been one of them.

Bob
 
I'd like blown highlights to flash red in my eyes, so I can avoid taking an otherwise interesting photo ;)

The X100 delivers, it's great fun, light, great quality. Use it, enjoy it, make pictures with it.
 
Sebben said:
Who really cares about blown highlights? Especially in this context.

Film also does this.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. I was at the Leica Gallery here in NYC and the exhibit there (film / silver gelatin prints) had plenty of "blown" highlights. I guess the difference is that digital blown highlights can look uglier.

I looked through a few of the images in question and did not see anything really offensive "blown" highlights wise.
 
Up to now I have seen way to few high resolution images from X100 to get the impression about the output. I just wait until more pops up. Also some "standard" reviews will come at some point that offer comparison to other cameras. I just decided to give the camera time to unfold. It is anyhow not yet available in Germany.

There was valid point mentioned - people rarely look at prints to judge on the abilities of a camera. I actually did that recently for several "test" images that are available over at DPreview. I was surprised to see differences in A4 (at 360 ppi) I actually did not expect to see - in particular once I had several photos of the same scene side by side. But maybe I am just too demanding on the technical side.
 
ElectroWNED said:
This thing produces images that look like just another digital point and shoot...
Click to expand...

Trying to find the strength of X100 by looking at the *quality* of the picture, is pointless, because it's using similar sensor technology as any other digital cameras these days. We know it's capable of high IQ, but so is Nikon D7000 or Olympus E-5. So what?

Instead, try to find *what kinds* of picture are possible to take using X100 as opposed to let's say Nikon D3.

Also, the owner's feeling towards using the camera is equally valid in this case.
 
shadowfox said:
Trying to find the strength of X100 by looking at the *quality* of the picture, is pointless, because it's using similar sensor technology as any other digital cameras these days. We know it's capable of high IQ, but so is Nikon D7000 or Olympus E-5. So what?

Instead, try to find *what kinds* of picture are possible to take using X100 as opposed to let's say Nikon D3.

Also, the owner's feeling towards using the camera is equally valid in this case.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
The photos from most cameras made today look great on the Internet as low resolution jpegs. And I doubt many photos made with the X100 will actually be printed. So if it looks good at 900 pixels wide on the Internet, that's the only criteria that matters. And the X100 looks fine from the stuff I've seen posted.

I rarely hear discussion on forums of how photos from various cameras look in print.
Click to expand...

I, for one, am planning to print images taken with the X100. One of the big selling points for me was the APS-C sensor, so I don't have to make huge compromises in IQ compared with my D300s.

Jeff
 
Now that the raw support is out and the new firmware update released, I'm sure there will be many good samples in the net in the coming days.
 
shadowfox said:
Instead, try to find *what kinds* of picture are possible to take using X100 as opposed to let's say Nikon D3.
Click to expand...

That's it. Thats the whole point of this camera: a unique combination of features and settings that no other camera currently offers, be it p&s (no high ISO, no VF), DSLR (big, loud), m4:3 (no VF, no silent shutter, no f2 wide), DRF (no high ISO) or hybrids like the Sigma DP (no VF, no high ISO, no f2). And if you need these features they can potentially result in images you simply wouldnt make otherwise.

As for image quality... its adequate :)
I'm sure you can find other cameras that beat it in that regard but they will probably look like small hydrants, sound like a sewing machine, require a dedicated bag, lack in high ISO or cost $6k. Or all of the above.
 
As for film, I think it's a valid comparison because there is a camera that is 90% the same, the Hexar AF. And I reckon that camera still does it better in some ways (it is full frame hence more options for dof control, it has the unique active IR AF system that works flawlessly in all lighting conditions, it takes film) and worse in others (it only does 1/250, it doesnt have all that awesome info in the VF, and... it takes film).

A slightly different combination of compromises :)
 
I really don't see the point in constantly making comparisons between film and what the X100 is capable off. It's really time to embrace digital for what it is, what it offers and just get on with photography!
 
Keith said:
I really don't see the point in constantly making comparisons between film and what the X100 is capable off. It's really time to embrace digital for what it is, what it offers and just get on with photography!
Click to expand...


Never! Film is an inferior medium. Bring back Daguerreotypes, the one and only to have "soul"! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom