X100 - new samples from Spain

A used D300 and a new Nikkor 35/1.8 DX prime costs about what the X100 costs. The comparison is not far-fetched. The Nikon D7000 body only can be bought for just under $1200... so the cost with the 35/1.8 would be around $1,400. While the field-of-view is different, the X100 high-ISO performance has to be close to the D7000's in order to be perceived as current technology by some.
 
willie_901 said:
A used D300 and a new Nikkor 35/1.8 DX prime costs about what the X100 costs. The comparison is not far-fetched. The Nikon D7000 body only can be bought for just under $1200... so the cost with the 35/1.8 would be around $1,400. While the field-of-view is different, the X100 high-ISO performance has to be close to the D7000's in order to be perceived as current technology by some.
Click to expand...

If we wanted a DSLR, we'd buy a DSLR... they are generally the best bang for the buck. I'm buying this because I don't like SLRs.
 
Last edited:
willie_901 said:
A used D300 and a new Nikkor 35/1.8 DX prime costs about what the X100 costs. The comparison is not far-fetched. The Nikon D7000 body only can be bought for just under $1200... so the cost with the 35/1.8 would be around $1,400. While the field-of-view is different, the X100 high-ISO performance has to be close to the D7000's in order to be perceived as current technology by some.
Click to expand...
You are mixing up three different criteria: (1) relative camera(& lens) costs, (2) image quality, and (3) lens performance.

Firstly, a viewfinder camera is a beast of its own merit, and will be used in different situations than a DSLR. While the two camera types might use similar image sensors, they most certainly are specialized for different uses. Thus, a cost comparison between those two camera types is bound to be an apples-to-oranges comparison. DSLR prices are commodity item prices whereas the X100 price today is still very much governed by uniqueness.

Secondly, comparing image sensors of differing pixel densities (12Mpix vs. 16Mpix) but of the same physical size offers another source of error. Sensors with a higher pixel density inherently generate more noise which must be compensated via soft/firmware using more aggressive measures. If we wanted to come to a viable comparison, we would have to go into serious pixel-peeping, which only makes sense if both opponents are using finalized firmware.

Thirdly, comparing lenses designed for different FOV is another occasion for an unbalanced comparison. A 35mm lens (even if optimized for an APS-C sensor) features a different field of view and therefore entails a host of different design compromises than the development of a 23mm lens.

Lets face it - this is a new type of camera for a different application. Even if it might look costly in comparison to one of the many commodity DSLRs, it will attract its own user base that will benefit from its unique features. If the X100 wouldn't offer anything special, we would not devote so much time discussing it.
 
Last edited:
willie_901 said:
A used D300 and a new Nikkor 35/1.8 DX prime costs about what the X100 costs. The comparison is not far-fetched. The Nikon D7000 body only can be bought for just under $1200... so the cost with the 35/1.8 would be around $1,400. While the field-of-view is different, the X100 high-ISO performance has to be close to the D7000's in order to be perceived as current technology by some.
Click to expand...

Do this DSLR's even have built-in flash? 🙄
 
I've been trying the ones I've got here, CS5 doesn't get anywhere but the embedded .jpgs are visible in Photo Mechanic. Another friend has tried a few solutions with no success, so I think we can probably say there isn't anything out there ready to process them yet...
R
 
Carlos M said:
Well Irfan View can open them, there are some adjustments possible, and can save as a .jpg. Irfan View is a free-ware, google it if you don't know it.
Click to expand...

Oh, right - I assumed it was just extracting the embedded .jpg, same as Photo Mechanic. So you can adjust and save the actual RAW file at full size? (The embedded .jpg is 2176 × 1448, rather than 2848 x 4288 for the full-size files.)
R
 
Opened up the x100 files in photo raw processor.

The images look great, noise is very well controlled, great detail and the lens appears to be very very sharp. Bokeh looks great as well. I am surprised that the skin tones are so accurate. Well done Fuji!

001-900x580.jpg

002-900x580.jpg

003-900x580.jpg
 
Carlos M said:
My .raf files from my Fuji S2pro open in photoshop CS3 extended.

Though they may not be the same. I had 2 Nikons which both produced .nef but not both kinds would open in PS.
Click to expand...

The RAF files from my S2 Pro opens in LR 1.0 but not in my CS4, go figure. I doubt the RAF files for the X100 would open in either. In the meantime Fuji is providing software for the RAF files for the X100.
 
Yup, as I suspected, it's not processing the RAF file, just extracting the 'thumbnail' / embedded .jpg from it for quick viewing and some minor editing. That's what I was trying to describe before - same thing Photo Mechanic does.
R
 
Those high ISO shots (up to 3200) are extremely impressive. Looks to have good dynamic range as well, and considering the noise reduction is pre-production and automated those shots are extremely clean and noise-free. 6400 looks like a ISO 800 GF1 shot and even 12800 isn't too bad. Would say that this is probably producing better shots overall at high ISOs than my D700...
 
Terao said:
Those high ISO shots (up to 3200) are extremely impressive. Looks to have good dynamic range as well, and considering the noise reduction is pre-production and automated those shots are extremely clean and noise-free. 6400 looks like a ISO 800 GF1 shot and even 12800 isn't too bad. Would say that this is probably producing better shots overall at high ISOs than my D700...
Click to expand...


If that's the case when the camera finally starts producing images from new owners and users I'd be shocked ... because the Nikon is definitely the class leader here for affordable digital IMO.
 
Agreed re the D700, and if you play with the RAW files you can probably get more out of them, but for allegedly straight-out-of-the-camera jpgs those are better. The noise looks more film-like to my eye
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
lxforrest
A DIY retro digital camera project - Blog #5 China trip + Prototype 1.0
Replies
19
Views
533
lxforrest
lxforrest
J
  • Article Article
The Pentax Papers, part 2, K-mount 35mm SLRs, 1975 to 1980. From the first K-mount K2 to the magnificent pro caliber Pentax LX
2 3
Replies
47
Views
6K
Archiver
A
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
856
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
The Pentax Papers, part 1, 1919 to 1973: From the founding of Asahi Optical Co. to the last screw-mount Pentax
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Jason Schneider
J
Back
Top Bottom