X100s vs M240 color blind test

X100s vs M240 color blind test

  • First is the X100s, second the 240

    Votes: 20 50.0%

  • First is the 240, second the X100s

    Votes: 19 47.5%

  • They look too similar to me

    Votes: 1 2.5%
  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
ferider

ferider

Veteran
Local time
11:22 PM
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
11,218
View My Gallery
Same boring scene taken with X100s (1/500, f5.6) and M240 with VM Ultron 35/1.7 (1/250, f8), both at ASA 200. Naked Fuji (no filter), UV/IR filter on the Ultron - because this is how I shoot the two. I shot at different apertures to make the DOF equivalent. Focus is on the center fork of the tree.

Raw files imported into LR, exported as TIF without any changes. Then straightened the horizon, slight crop (my Ultron is actually a 37mm lens), and resized to 2000 pixel max. width.

Which is which ? (click on picture if you want to see enlarged)

Image1.jpg


Image2.jpg


Roland.
 
How as WB set? If both are 'as shot' can you set them both to Daylight? Sorta looks like WB differed between the two (looking at cloud) which would also alter the colors somewhat.

Thanks,

Shawn
 
Darthfeeble said:
I voted for the 240 as the first. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if I was wrong. Thinking slightly better detail in the first as a result of full frame vs. Crop.
Click to expand...

It is always interesting to see everyones different interpretations on shots like these. To me the second looks sharper and more detailed.

Shawn
 
I voted #2 as the 240 because of the warmer color, but the field of view of #2 seems to be wider, which makes me think it could be the x100, which is a little wider than 35mm as I recall. Or am I thinking of the RX1?
 
Well, what this is evaluating is essentially the difference in raw file format interpretation (and perhaps in scaling from 16MP or 24MP to 3MP). Not much of the cameras left there, apart from the variation in white balance bias.
 
I have both of these cameras as well. What a testament to the progress the sensors have made, and the fuji as a cropped sensor compared to the full frame. You could have put either one up alone, and stated they were shot with....XXX...and without any comparator, we would appreciate the image.
 
Judging by the manner in which foliage turns to fuzz (left side of the picture), I'll say the first is the X100s.

The color representation in the second photograph is not appealing, IMHO, but what do I know-- I'm a B&W guy....
 
I'll go with the second image being the 240 because of the slightly warmer tones ... the 240's WB has this tendency IMO. And there is a little more detail in the second shot to my old eyes which indicates a slightly better lens and larger sensor.
 
The second is definitely the superior image IMO and I will be mightily disappointed if that turns out to be the Fuji. 😀
 
My selection is that the Fuji X100s is number 01 and the Leica (Typ 240) is number 02... the Leica 240 as it's a bit darker directly out of the camera. I ignore the 1.4% difference in data size.

However it turns out, for anyone who only posts on the web, the Fuji may be a "good" choice.

Casey
 
BillBingham2 said:
Don't have enough knowledge about either to say, but as it's caucus time here in Iowa, I'm going with Nbr 2 being the Leica/Ultron combo.
Click to expand...

And just like it will happen in Iowa, it appears the vote is changing depending on who posts what in the thread, Bill (= exit poll) 🙂

Both cameras were shot with Auto WB. You all carry on ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

honozooloo
X-Pro 2: Weird(er) artifacting in RAW Files?
Replies
16
Views
4K
om.ch
O
Back
Top Bottom