Bob Michaels
nobody special
I find that I am happily photographing again with an original X100. Love the reduced weight, like that the low replacement cost causes me to not be so concerned about carrying it into challenging environments, and find the photos to be superb. But I wonder if I would gain anything from the latest X100 model.
Now I am just a pragmatic photographer who is only concerned with actually using a camera and the images it produces. I have no interest in specs or need for the latest and greatest. I wonder what differences users of the original and the latest model actually experience.
I know the latest is 24mp and the original is only 12mp. But I cannot discern a meaningful difference in print quality at 11x16.5 inch prints which is the largest I ever make. I think the latest model use the inverted double throwdown organic regression algorithm to compute something but don't know what real difference that makes.
So for those of you who have actual experience using both the original and the latest X100 models, can you tell me the differences that might be of significance to me?
Now I am just a pragmatic photographer who is only concerned with actually using a camera and the images it produces. I have no interest in specs or need for the latest and greatest. I wonder what differences users of the original and the latest model actually experience.
I know the latest is 24mp and the original is only 12mp. But I cannot discern a meaningful difference in print quality at 11x16.5 inch prints which is the largest I ever make. I think the latest model use the inverted double throwdown organic regression algorithm to compute something but don't know what real difference that makes.
So for those of you who have actual experience using both the original and the latest X100 models, can you tell me the differences that might be of significance to me?
shawn
Veteran
I have a x100 and the x100f and had a x100t. x100 is a great camera but the x100f is in another league.
Lots of functional differences between the two. The control layout is somewhat different as all the rear panel buttons have been moved to the right side. This allows for single handed use for everything. The buttons also feel better than the x100. You also gain the front panel control dial (with push) and the rocker goes both directions as well as gains a button there. All the controls are more customizable on the x100f and it gains the ISO dial.
A huge difference in speed between the two. Even simply turning on the cameras is a big difference. The x100 takes several seconds from turn on till it is ready to shoot. Turn on the x100f and in a blink it is ready to go. Write times are faster, shot to shot is faster, continuous mode is 8fps vs. 5fps and it can shoot *many* more shots in a row without stopping. I've actually been using the x100f for indoor sports and it is wonderful for that. AF is faster and more flexible and handles low light better. The need for a different macro mode is gone, the camera does it automatically. Bracketing is quicker.
The LCD and EVF are much nicer on the x100f. Frame rate is higher and the EVF/LCD just look more natural than the x100, esp. as the light drops. The OVF changes too. The icons are a bit different (with more customization possible) and the in MF mode the framing box is much better. On the x100 it doesn't show the actual framing till you half press the button, x100f adjusts it full time. You also gain the ERF mode where you can have the small EVF box in the corner. That box can show you the full exposure or the focus spot at two different magnifications. That lets you use the OVF and really MF the camera.
For JPEG shooting the x100f gains more simulations and has additional functionality with built in wifi (can use a phone as a remote screen) and the ability to hook the camera to a computer to easily process RAF files in camera.
Obviously more resolution but it also handles high ISO better and the sensor has more dynamic range. The additional resolution can be useful for cropping and the x100f has the digital teleconverter modes for a 50 or 70 FOV. They only work in JPEG only mode and in single shot mode. The digital teleconverter is useful but the way Fuji implemented that function is somewhat annoying as it resets that setting every time the camera sleeps or shuts off. Makes it very hard to use that setting and MF unless you quickly switch to AF to use the lens dial for the teleconverter and then back to MF. Speaking of which, the AF/MF selector is better on the x100f as AF-S and MF are on opposite sides so it is easier to switch between the two. You can also use the digital teleconverter along with the physical teleconverter for a wider range of FOV too. I am trying out a cheap Sony 1.4x teleconverter and that with one step of the digital teleconverter works pretty well and gives a 70mm FOV.
The x100f also uses the larger battery from the interchangeable lens Fuji's. Battery life is very good. Shooting with the OVF and in 8fps mode I shot 800+ JPEGs at a fencing meet and still had half a battery left.
Only two things I liked better on the x100. In AutoDR mode it would select DR200 or DR400 as needed. Way back Fuji changed this on all the cameras so AutoDR would only select DR200. I like the full aperture stops on the x100, on the x100f they are 1/3 steps.
The menus are also very different between the two. The x100f has many more options in its menus to really customize it but it might be a little much at first. I liked them as they were almost the same as the XP2.
Fuji is about to announce the X100V (Feb) so it will be interesting to see what that brings. Rumors are a new lens. Should also mean sales on the x100f. Amazon recently had them in silver for $900.
Shawn
Lots of functional differences between the two. The control layout is somewhat different as all the rear panel buttons have been moved to the right side. This allows for single handed use for everything. The buttons also feel better than the x100. You also gain the front panel control dial (with push) and the rocker goes both directions as well as gains a button there. All the controls are more customizable on the x100f and it gains the ISO dial.
A huge difference in speed between the two. Even simply turning on the cameras is a big difference. The x100 takes several seconds from turn on till it is ready to shoot. Turn on the x100f and in a blink it is ready to go. Write times are faster, shot to shot is faster, continuous mode is 8fps vs. 5fps and it can shoot *many* more shots in a row without stopping. I've actually been using the x100f for indoor sports and it is wonderful for that. AF is faster and more flexible and handles low light better. The need for a different macro mode is gone, the camera does it automatically. Bracketing is quicker.
The LCD and EVF are much nicer on the x100f. Frame rate is higher and the EVF/LCD just look more natural than the x100, esp. as the light drops. The OVF changes too. The icons are a bit different (with more customization possible) and the in MF mode the framing box is much better. On the x100 it doesn't show the actual framing till you half press the button, x100f adjusts it full time. You also gain the ERF mode where you can have the small EVF box in the corner. That box can show you the full exposure or the focus spot at two different magnifications. That lets you use the OVF and really MF the camera.
For JPEG shooting the x100f gains more simulations and has additional functionality with built in wifi (can use a phone as a remote screen) and the ability to hook the camera to a computer to easily process RAF files in camera.
Obviously more resolution but it also handles high ISO better and the sensor has more dynamic range. The additional resolution can be useful for cropping and the x100f has the digital teleconverter modes for a 50 or 70 FOV. They only work in JPEG only mode and in single shot mode. The digital teleconverter is useful but the way Fuji implemented that function is somewhat annoying as it resets that setting every time the camera sleeps or shuts off. Makes it very hard to use that setting and MF unless you quickly switch to AF to use the lens dial for the teleconverter and then back to MF. Speaking of which, the AF/MF selector is better on the x100f as AF-S and MF are on opposite sides so it is easier to switch between the two. You can also use the digital teleconverter along with the physical teleconverter for a wider range of FOV too. I am trying out a cheap Sony 1.4x teleconverter and that with one step of the digital teleconverter works pretty well and gives a 70mm FOV.
The x100f also uses the larger battery from the interchangeable lens Fuji's. Battery life is very good. Shooting with the OVF and in 8fps mode I shot 800+ JPEGs at a fencing meet and still had half a battery left.
Only two things I liked better on the x100. In AutoDR mode it would select DR200 or DR400 as needed. Way back Fuji changed this on all the cameras so AutoDR would only select DR200. I like the full aperture stops on the x100, on the x100f they are 1/3 steps.
The menus are also very different between the two. The x100f has many more options in its menus to really customize it but it might be a little much at first. I liked them as they were almost the same as the XP2.
Fuji is about to announce the X100V (Feb) so it will be interesting to see what that brings. Rumors are a new lens. Should also mean sales on the x100f. Amazon recently had them in silver for $900.
Shawn
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
I had the original, sold it 5 years ago and recently picked up a x100t. So I had a break between the two. I really liked the original version, but I found I wanted more lens versatility and ended up getting M240 and then switched to a Monochrom (a v1 and now m246). I picked up the used x100t to fill void of color in my shooting and have liked it, but find it's lighter (I'm used to more heft from m240/m246) then I remember the original to be. What button work I do with x100t is easier then on the original too, the newer sensor has been great and handles low light fairly well (the original x100 low light was meh).
Hope that helps?
Hope that helps?
ACullen
Well-known
Still using an original X100. It plays second fiddle to my film cameras and only occasionally. My only gripe would be slowness of AF and buffer issues limiting shots. Remains my favourite digital camera.
Bob the most significant difference to me is the AF speed and Low light AF. The high iso is about a stop or so. A bit more dynamic range in the newer model. A better EVF, etc. If none of these matter, consider yourself lucky and keep that X100. I doubt jpeg filters and other gimmicks are your thing. I’ve owned all 4 X100 models over the years.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Having had both... My favorite without a doubt the X100F
The 'Acros' simulation is absolutely Stellar, needs very little tweaking if You nail your exposure...so Beautiful the B&W
Found the VF brighter, feels good in the hands
Overall a tad more punch to the sensor / the original X100 a tad softer in rendering
The 'Acros' simulation is absolutely Stellar, needs very little tweaking if You nail your exposure...so Beautiful the B&W
Found the VF brighter, feels good in the hands
Overall a tad more punch to the sensor / the original X100 a tad softer in rendering
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Thanks to each of you for your comments. They are really helpful in deciding to spring for a new X100 model or not. I consider many factors, including:
I only shoot RAW and have been post processing for 20 years. That makes up for a lot of camera built in improvements.
Higher ISO does not mean much to me as I conclude that low light photos should look like they were shot in low light. That is from shooting film for so long including a long stretch of night photography due to work schedule. I have digital cameras with higher ISO capability but find I do not use it.
I deal with limited DR, again from all my years shooting film.
I am not a burst shooter, again from years of shooting film with slow autowinders.
filmtwit: I an not much of a lens switcher. I have been shooting with an X-Pro 1 for about 5-6 year using mostly the 23mm lens while occasionally switching to the 14mm. I have no problems taking international photo trips with only the 23mm lens. All those lenses selections seem to distract from my actual photography.
I find I do not use many of the buttons and dials on modern digital cameras. I do better not worrying about all those selections and just concentrating on what I am photographing.
The faster AF speed may be helpful so I may think about that. But, I manually focused for so many years that I think I have learned to anticipate.
So my preliminary conclusion is that dropping the coin for a later model X100 is probably not for me but I will take everyone's thoughts in mind. I will spend the money on international plane tickets instead.
I only shoot RAW and have been post processing for 20 years. That makes up for a lot of camera built in improvements.
Higher ISO does not mean much to me as I conclude that low light photos should look like they were shot in low light. That is from shooting film for so long including a long stretch of night photography due to work schedule. I have digital cameras with higher ISO capability but find I do not use it.
I deal with limited DR, again from all my years shooting film.
I am not a burst shooter, again from years of shooting film with slow autowinders.
filmtwit: I an not much of a lens switcher. I have been shooting with an X-Pro 1 for about 5-6 year using mostly the 23mm lens while occasionally switching to the 14mm. I have no problems taking international photo trips with only the 23mm lens. All those lenses selections seem to distract from my actual photography.
I find I do not use many of the buttons and dials on modern digital cameras. I do better not worrying about all those selections and just concentrating on what I am photographing.
The faster AF speed may be helpful so I may think about that. But, I manually focused for so many years that I think I have learned to anticipate.
So my preliminary conclusion is that dropping the coin for a later model X100 is probably not for me but I will take everyone's thoughts in mind. I will spend the money on international plane tickets instead.
Reinvention
Member
The Wi-Fi capability of the models after the 100s would be very desirable. When using my X100s in social situations, I wanted a faster way to share the pictures than loading them on to my laptop for distribution via email, text message, or social media.
Archiver
Veteran
Am reading this thread with interest, as the X100 is sitting on the desk right now as I type this, and a good condition secondhand X100F isn't that expensive in relative terms. I like my X100, but I also shoot with a M9 with Voigtlander 35/1.4, and a Canon 5D Mark II with 35L. As I move into more challenging situations, I tend to prefer the images I get from the M9 and 5D, so I'm wondering how much closer to these I can get with the X100F.
willie_901
Veteran
As others mentioned, the difference is between the original X-100 and the newer models is significant. Just about every aspect of using the X-100 is improved.
The usability (overall responsiveness, AF performance and flexibility) differences are great. These improvements are possible due to using more powerful in-camera CPUs. However, it does require an investment in time to understand how to fully utilize these new features. That said, it is possible to use any X100 as one uses an analog rangefinder camera. The newer models increase the number of properly focused images. They can also be used in circumstance more diverse focusing aids are important.
The newer models use Fujifilm's X-Trans sensor. Enough time has gone by that post-production (raw file processing software) rendering of X-Trans raw files creates results the are aethetically equal to Bayer sensor raw files. At the same time, the raw rendering work flow and parameters one uses for Bayer raw will be different the what one uses for X-Trans raw. This is another learning curve to climb. Of course, in-camera JPEG users can use FUJIFILM's film simulation profiles. These work very well. It is possible to generate different film simulation renderings from a single in-camera file using FUJIFILM's in-camera menus. It is also possible to do this with the camera connected to computer. FUJIFILM's film simulations are quite good.
The X100 X-Tran sensors significantly out perform Bayer X100 sensor in both bright and low light. The difference. perceived image is immediately obvious.
The issue then is whether or not learning more complicated (but more powerful) menu systems for AF and other new functions is worth these improvements. For raw file users adapting to the rendering workflow differences is another factor to consider.
The usability (overall responsiveness, AF performance and flexibility) differences are great. These improvements are possible due to using more powerful in-camera CPUs. However, it does require an investment in time to understand how to fully utilize these new features. That said, it is possible to use any X100 as one uses an analog rangefinder camera. The newer models increase the number of properly focused images. They can also be used in circumstance more diverse focusing aids are important.
The newer models use Fujifilm's X-Trans sensor. Enough time has gone by that post-production (raw file processing software) rendering of X-Trans raw files creates results the are aethetically equal to Bayer sensor raw files. At the same time, the raw rendering work flow and parameters one uses for Bayer raw will be different the what one uses for X-Trans raw. This is another learning curve to climb. Of course, in-camera JPEG users can use FUJIFILM's film simulation profiles. These work very well. It is possible to generate different film simulation renderings from a single in-camera file using FUJIFILM's in-camera menus. It is also possible to do this with the camera connected to computer. FUJIFILM's film simulations are quite good.
The X100 X-Tran sensors significantly out perform Bayer X100 sensor in both bright and low light. The difference. perceived image is immediately obvious.
The issue then is whether or not learning more complicated (but more powerful) menu systems for AF and other new functions is worth these improvements. For raw file users adapting to the rendering workflow differences is another factor to consider.
JohnBeeching
Well-known
Hi Bob,
I came to the X100T after many years using a Leica M6 most often with a 35mm lens and Tri-X. I usually took just that combination on my many international trips, in a bum-bag (fanny bag) around my waist - perfect. I use the X100T as if it were the M6: manual back-button focusing or zone focusing as appropriate. The advantages: lighter, smaller, silent, floating ISO, don't have to change films. Disadvantages: you can't just glance down at the lens and see what it is focussed on, dependant on batteries to work. I always shoot in RAW, which gives the greatest flexibility in PP. I think it is a marvellous little camera and always have it with me. While I have not tried the original X100 I imaging that, used as I use the T, there is little difference except in the file size. Certainly, it works for me and I have no intention in changing it while it carries on working. An example for you:
GENIUS by John Beeching, on Flickr
John
I came to the X100T after many years using a Leica M6 most often with a 35mm lens and Tri-X. I usually took just that combination on my many international trips, in a bum-bag (fanny bag) around my waist - perfect. I use the X100T as if it were the M6: manual back-button focusing or zone focusing as appropriate. The advantages: lighter, smaller, silent, floating ISO, don't have to change films. Disadvantages: you can't just glance down at the lens and see what it is focussed on, dependant on batteries to work. I always shoot in RAW, which gives the greatest flexibility in PP. I think it is a marvellous little camera and always have it with me. While I have not tried the original X100 I imaging that, used as I use the T, there is little difference except in the file size. Certainly, it works for me and I have no intention in changing it while it carries on working. An example for you:
GENIUS by John Beeching, on FlickrJohn
ktmrider
Well-known
Had the original (first digital) and was stunned by how good it was and how much fun. Bought an M9 and currently a MP240 and the X100F as a backup for a trip around the world. The MP240 is in Texas and the X100F is with me as my main travel camera.
I think lots of improvements and well worth the price as used ones can be had for $800. With the new X100 coming in a couple months there will probably be a lot of X100F's for sale. I don't feel a need to upgrade at all.
I think lots of improvements and well worth the price as used ones can be had for $800. With the new X100 coming in a couple months there will probably be a lot of X100F's for sale. I don't feel a need to upgrade at all.
danielsterno
making soup from mud
Bob- like many of the above, I had the original for a while then gave to my 21 yr old Daughter and bought me the 100f when it came out, they are only digital cameras Ive owned-cant add any other thoughts to what have been said except I did love the sensor of the original x100, something different about it besides that it is a bayer sensor. I shoot on street and M6/M5 are my film cameras. they nailed it w the x100 camera's! though in Feb they will announce a x100 V or what ever the name, todays rumor is flip screen for hip shooting that I would enjoy and an upgrade to lens- though are rumors but have to be tempting being the 100f is still new to me...
recent image from a week ago- out of camera, no greater than what anyone can snap- just a day in the life....
recent image from a week ago- out of camera, no greater than what anyone can snap- just a day in the life....
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I got my X100 when they first came out and have been happy as a clam ever since. I got the X-E3 a while back and that took the place of the X100 so I converted the X100 to IR and have the two of them in a Domke F5 bag that goes everywhere with me. Never had a complaint about high ISO use, focus is a little slow but no problem. I don't spray and pray so the buffer is an unknown to me. I always wished that someone would make a digital Contax G and they did.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Thanks everyone for the additional input. Based on all your comments, it does not seem to make sense for me to spend the money for a new model X100. Instead I will just keep using the original I have. All those new features are beneficial to some of you, just not me. My only interest is the way my prints look and I can't find much that would be an improvement in that area. Now I will say that I am quite happy with the technical aspects of my prints. My limitations still are my talent, not equipment.
FWIW, my main digital cameras are an XT-1 and an X-Pro 1 where I also see no need for a newer model. Just like my Zeiss Ikon rangefinders or my Mamiya 7.
Willie 901 - I have a question about the different sensor as you seem to be knowledgeable about the differences. Do prints after post processing look any different? If so, how?
FWIW, my main digital cameras are an XT-1 and an X-Pro 1 where I also see no need for a newer model. Just like my Zeiss Ikon rangefinders or my Mamiya 7.
Willie 901 - I have a question about the different sensor as you seem to be knowledgeable about the differences. Do prints after post processing look any different? If so, how?
willie_901
Veteran
In Some Cases There Are Differences
In Some Cases There Are Differences
The primary difference for prints involves the increased raw file dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratio offered by the newer cameras.
For prints we consider the system MTF50 - a combination of the lens, rendered image noise level as well as the printer and paper MTF properties.
The lenses are similar so the optical MTFs are similar.
The biggest difference in perceived image quality is due to the signal-to-noise ratios. More SNR means more perceived detail in under exposed regions (shadow regions) in the image. This type of under exposure is unavoidable. The difference increases as the level of exposure decreases.
For the newer cameras, all the time-dependent raw file noise is due to photon noise (a.k.a. shot noise). Noise from the camera electronics is rarely a consideration. The X100T uses digital multiplication instead of electronic gain at ISO 3200 and above to produce image brightness consistent with the light meter's prediction. The X100F uses dual conversion-gain technology so digital multiplication occurs at ISO 12800 and above. Dual-conversion gain offers high dynamic range in bright light as well as high sensitivity in low light. Sensors without dual conversion-gain technology must use a conversion gain level that compromises maximizing dynamic range or maximizing sensitivity.
For scenes in bright the primary difference would be in shadow region rendering. This is particularly relevant when one wishes to selectively increase raw file shadow region brightness. Even in bright light at base ISO shadow regions can be many stops underexposed compared to the brightest regions. This also is the case when using the FUJIFILM in-camera JPEG DR exposure/rendering options.
Often it is aesthetically desirable to have shadow regions with little or no detail. Intentionally avoiding post-production, selective, shadow-region brightening means the SNR differences in bright light are less important.
For scenes in low light the newer cameras' higher signal-to-noise ratio offers significant advantages which can be seen in prints.
My X100 exhibited time-independent noise (color banding) starting at ISO 800. This affected shadow regions that were pushed by one or more stops. I have not seen this with my X100T. I owned one of the first X100 cameras sold in the midwest US. I suspect later examples of the original X100 could not have this level of banding.
What about the pixel density differences?
Unless the prints are very large (or the viewing distance is very close), the newer cameras' increased pixel density is not that important for prints. This assumes one routinely composes before pressing the shutter button instead of cropping in post production to optimize composition. Many printers interpolate pixels above 300 - 400 ppi, so a X-100F 24.3MP image (5616 X 3744 pixels) gives you 295 dpi for a 13 x 9" print. At smaller print sizes the dpi can not exceed the printers maximum native dpi. So the effective printer MTF50 does not increase. For expensive printers the pixel density difference may be more relevant.
Similarly, the paper stock characteristics can limit the system MTF50 as well.
Matte paper surfaces have a lower MTF50 than glossy paper surfaces. The increased pixel density may not impact perceived print quality as the paper stick MTF50 decreases.
In Some Cases There Are Differences
The primary difference for prints involves the increased raw file dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratio offered by the newer cameras.
For prints we consider the system MTF50 - a combination of the lens, rendered image noise level as well as the printer and paper MTF properties.
The lenses are similar so the optical MTFs are similar.
The biggest difference in perceived image quality is due to the signal-to-noise ratios. More SNR means more perceived detail in under exposed regions (shadow regions) in the image. This type of under exposure is unavoidable. The difference increases as the level of exposure decreases.
For the newer cameras, all the time-dependent raw file noise is due to photon noise (a.k.a. shot noise). Noise from the camera electronics is rarely a consideration. The X100T uses digital multiplication instead of electronic gain at ISO 3200 and above to produce image brightness consistent with the light meter's prediction. The X100F uses dual conversion-gain technology so digital multiplication occurs at ISO 12800 and above. Dual-conversion gain offers high dynamic range in bright light as well as high sensitivity in low light. Sensors without dual conversion-gain technology must use a conversion gain level that compromises maximizing dynamic range or maximizing sensitivity.
For scenes in bright the primary difference would be in shadow region rendering. This is particularly relevant when one wishes to selectively increase raw file shadow region brightness. Even in bright light at base ISO shadow regions can be many stops underexposed compared to the brightest regions. This also is the case when using the FUJIFILM in-camera JPEG DR exposure/rendering options.
Often it is aesthetically desirable to have shadow regions with little or no detail. Intentionally avoiding post-production, selective, shadow-region brightening means the SNR differences in bright light are less important.
For scenes in low light the newer cameras' higher signal-to-noise ratio offers significant advantages which can be seen in prints.
My X100 exhibited time-independent noise (color banding) starting at ISO 800. This affected shadow regions that were pushed by one or more stops. I have not seen this with my X100T. I owned one of the first X100 cameras sold in the midwest US. I suspect later examples of the original X100 could not have this level of banding.
What about the pixel density differences?
Unless the prints are very large (or the viewing distance is very close), the newer cameras' increased pixel density is not that important for prints. This assumes one routinely composes before pressing the shutter button instead of cropping in post production to optimize composition. Many printers interpolate pixels above 300 - 400 ppi, so a X-100F 24.3MP image (5616 X 3744 pixels) gives you 295 dpi for a 13 x 9" print. At smaller print sizes the dpi can not exceed the printers maximum native dpi. So the effective printer MTF50 does not increase. For expensive printers the pixel density difference may be more relevant.
Similarly, the paper stock characteristics can limit the system MTF50 as well.
Matte paper surfaces have a lower MTF50 than glossy paper surfaces. The increased pixel density may not impact perceived print quality as the paper stick MTF50 decreases.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Willie 901, thanks for the clarifications. While I do not care about all the engineering technicalities, I do think I understood your conclusions that any differences in the print would be increased dynamic range, primarily more shadow detail and DPI sent to the print driver.
I find that increased DR does not do much for me. Decades of shooting film cause me to create prints with reduced DR. Most of those HDR prints look unreal to me. For 20 years I have been doing post processing adjustments by what make the image look best to my eye and not by histograms. I almost always end up with a curve that results in less shadow detail in the print than I have in the file.
I think I have a good feel for final DPI and the actual print from 20 years of digital printing. The math is easy while the print viewing is subjective. I can make good looking 11 x 16.5 prints from 12 mp files.
Interestingly, my observation is that those detail fine points that some photographers obsess over are totally overlooked by 99+% of photo viewers. They are only interested in the impact of the photo subject.
thanks again.
I find that increased DR does not do much for me. Decades of shooting film cause me to create prints with reduced DR. Most of those HDR prints look unreal to me. For 20 years I have been doing post processing adjustments by what make the image look best to my eye and not by histograms. I almost always end up with a curve that results in less shadow detail in the print than I have in the file.
I think I have a good feel for final DPI and the actual print from 20 years of digital printing. The math is easy while the print viewing is subjective. I can make good looking 11 x 16.5 prints from 12 mp files.
Interestingly, my observation is that those detail fine points that some photographers obsess over are totally overlooked by 99+% of photo viewers. They are only interested in the impact of the photo subject.
thanks again.
jjcha
Established
I'm kinda late to this thread, and your conclusions make sense to me.
The only thing to mention is if you do waist level shooting? The new tilt-screen on the X100V does allow for waist level shooting not entirely unlike using a TLR or other waist-level finder on a medium format SLR.
Obviously it's not the same as shooting a proper medium format manual camera, but at the same time, there is something about the perspective that is different (much like shooting a rangefinder with an OVF I suppose), and the new tilt screen adds a nice real functionality to the X100 series.
It’s always a beautiful thing when you decide NOT to buy a camera. It’s almost as good of a feeling as buying sometimes...
tbhv55
Well-known
I've been in that situation more than a few times, jsr........ though, on reflection, probably not as often as I should have. (as my gear collection will attest!
)