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 .
tom.w.bn said:
The first picture suffers from the XTrans mess in foliage and grass. You can see it in the tree on the right and in the green along the fence.
Click to expand...

I don't really see that, just the general haze/lower sharpness of that shot. The watercolor foliage is (or mostly was) an Adobe issue. JPGs from the camera didn't have it and other raw developers (C2, Iridient, RPP64 and others) handled it better than Adobe's initial attempts.

Shawn
 
Is this like the old joke?

'How do you keep a bunch of pixel peeping gear hounds in suspense?'

'I'll tell you later!' 😛
 
Doesn't matter which is which; what is clear is that the Leica provides no compelling advantage to the X100S/T, for this particular use. There's very little between these.
 
i dont understand, is there a point to this comparison?

both cameras take nice pictures, just use the one you want to use and be done with it.

and really, who out there would simply take the raw files from either camera and hit export to use as a final product? this is just pointless imo.
 
pechelman said:
i dont understand, is there a point to this comparison?

both cameras take nice pictures, just use the one you want to use and be done with it.

and really, who out there would simply take the raw files from either camera and hit export to use as a final product? this is just pointless imo.
Click to expand...

I personally agree with you. Others don't, see, for instance, http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153700. Then there are those who use jpg straight out of the camera. A comparison like this allows you to separate raw performance from the jpg engine. Etc.

A picture says more than a thousand words and all that. Plus, it's a fun riddle, I think.

Roland.
 
yea i figured that this was a result of that other thread

personally, I own both cameras just as you
I love both, but for very different and distinct reasons. If I could have only one, I know which I would sell tomorrow.

To my eye, there's something about the first image that reminds me of the "Adobe Standard" color palette on my fuji RAF's. I cant really tell otherwise with the detail in the images since it's at a lower resolution.

I think a slightly more interesting comparison might have been:
Fuji RAF exported as you did
Fuji RAF exported with one of the camera presets in LR
Fuji JPG using the same preset used above
Leica DNG exported as you did
Leica DNG tweaked to your standard preset
Leica JPG straight from camera using whatever you like best

To me the issue worth discussing here about these two cameras is the files and how long it takes to process to satisfaction. Of course, everyone is different, so not sure it's of much value but to each person individually. I know , for example, I struggle a bit with Fuji RAF's, and because of that, mostly shoot jgs which I always tweak on an individual basis. I feel like I spend a good amount of time on each.

With the M240, I have a preset I've been using from David Farkas that I really like. I do very minor adjustments after that, so as a result, I spend much less time in LR and am happier with my results.

Also, lately with the M240, I've been reveiwing my Fuji images and have been finding the colors a bit over the top in some scenarios.
 
My only response is that there isn't enough difference to matter. Clearly modern digital sensor design and computer-designed lenses has pretty much leveled the playing field.

Thanks for the comparison, Roland. It helps me to stop stressing about not being able to afford Leica. 🙂
 
Thank you Helen ! 🙂

First is the Fuji, second is the Leica.

Here is something else that might be interesting: even though I cropped the same segment as best I could, the slightly different FOV gave different results. Also, both lenses have different distortion characteristics; you can click on the following link for an animated gif overlay of the two pictures:

https://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/X100S-to-M240-Color-Blind-Test/i-n4GppJG/0/O/comp.gif

Hope that was fun !

Roland.

PS: as a side note, in camera color jpg for me is not an option as I generate B+W jpg in both cameras to help me preview exposure and composition.
 
Thank god I was correct Roland ... but I do think that anyone who owns and is familiar with the 240 output would pick the second as being the Leica. I find the Fuji image very clinical colour wise which was something I didn't like about the X100 when I had one.
 
Very subtle differences, Keith, certainly not enough to pick one camera over the other. And - as mentioned above - straight raw camera output is not very meaningful in practice. Also resolution-wise the X100s is doing quite well, even though there are less MP.

In any case, I like the X100s, mostly for its size. Perfect carry-everywhere camera (meaning for me, that it has to fit in a handle-bar bag on the bike).

Thank you all for participating,

Roland.
 
I suspected it, as LR from my experience is really bad with x-trans raws. It turns fine details into mush & artefacts.
I'd love to play with the raw a little bit in capture one 🙂
 
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