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 .
Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Alright, these are my personal take-aways so far:

1 - assuming anybody shooting either camera does some minimal pp on her/his raw files, nothing can be said about the color differences of the two cameras. In particular, looking at low-res flickr output and saying one camera is better than the other is non-sense.
2 - even though the Leica generates a little more detail, both cameras make very competent images. Keep in mind that the x100s can still be bought new for almost 10x less dollars than the M + VM Ultron.
3 - LR is not a good tool for Fuji RAW processing.
4 - The UV/IR filter makes a noticeable difference in clarity of the final output. For morning landscapes like the above, maybe more so than the MP difference of the two cameras.

3 and 4 will change the way I work with the Fuji, so thanks to the contributors.

I still don't understand the DOF difference, and should investigate further. But then again, real shooting is probably more fun then further testing 🙂

Roland.
 
For you pixel-peepers

For you pixel-peepers

littleearth said:
Fuji corners are so much softer ! Easy one !
Click to expand...

Not really. Went out, took a similar shot again, similar settings as yesterday, similar time of day, but used UV filter on X100s, a tripod, and focused both cameras at infinity.

The attached are with my personal color corrections, and include crops to check resolution. No sharpening in post was applied.

Overall picture:

Image6-day2.jpg


Center crop (100% on X100s, and 80% on Leica for "MP fairness")

Image7-day2.jpg


Corner performance of both.

Image8-day2.jpg


This was my last lens test of the year 🙂 You all celebrate well tonight.

Prost !

Roland.
 
On your second photo the difference is negligible, although I much prefer the Leica colors on both.

On your original samples the difference is obvious, specially on the fence. Much sharper on the Leica.
Untitled_1.jpg
 
shawn said:
"edit2: thought i should just post a quick crop comparison of the two for completeness"

That Fuji crop is about 200% though, isn't it?
Click to expand...

According to LR I had selected 1:1


ferider said:
Alright, these are my personal take-aways so far:

3 - LR is not a good tool for Fuji RAW processing.
4 - The UV/IR filter makes a noticeable difference in clarity of the final output. For morning landscapes like the above, maybe more so than the MP difference of the two cameras.

.
Click to expand...

agree with 1 and 2

for 3, I slightly disagree and I think the answer here is more of a "it depends".
Depends on the subject matter, desired output, required detail and sharpness, as well as the time needed to use a different program other than LR, if that's what one is used to. For me it works just fine in about 90% of the situations where I shoot RAF's*. The proof being not just on my screen but also on large'ish prints (16x10 in photobooks). Really even foliage and stuff prints nicely for me. By no means am I suggesting my photos couldnt have been made better with a different piece of software or using a different camera, but I'm pretty happy with them. Taken the fujis one two big trips and never regretted it.
2015 Trip and 2014 Trip

The only real difficulty I seem to have with the fuji sensor is when I really push its capability, such as when trying to generate false color IR or shooting in lower light.
These 3 photos come to mind, yet each in their own way, I'm still somewhat OK with them.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25459970@N05/18360056859/in/album-72157654148437141/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25459970@N05/17925622023/in/album-72157654148437141/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25459970@N05/18546476385/in/album-72157654148437141/

for 4, i must have overlooked the UV/IR usage in the original post. at least that explains what i was seeing. that difference is striking.

edit:
*Before someone points out that hypocritical statement, since I am a self-professed mostly Fuji JPG shooter, I think it's reasonably fair for someone to say that i also think LR isnt suitable for RAF processing, but for me, it's really just about a time and economics standpoint. When I bring my fuji's on a trip, I'll generally come back with a lot of photos. As such, JPG is just so much more efficient in that I dont need to bring extra memory cards (I just use the one 32gb in the camera) and the time it takes to download and process when I get home is cut by a significant amount. Also, I've never really been unhappy with the detail, sharpness, and latitude available in the fuji jpgs given the right settings. (I generally use NR-2 and highlights shadows at a -1 value in anticipation of post) When I know a jpg wont work, I shoot RAFs.
 
pechelman said:
for 4, i must have overlooked the UV/IR usage in the original post. at least that explains what i was seeing. that difference is striking.
Click to expand...

Just to make sure, I wasn't trying to mislead with the UV/IR filter, I just experienced some funky colors on the 240 indoors in the past. I think the 240 has a thinner filter layer on the sensor than the M9, and does generate Magenta casts sometimes. So I use IR filters.

Totally surprised myself by the benefit of the UV filter here, in a good way 🙂

Thanks again,

Roland.
 
didnt think you were trying to pull the wool over, i just overlooked.

either way, Im glad you used the filter too....has me thinking about picking up a couple just in case and to play with. Never seen that much different before either with one. It also has me thinking that maybe I should try IR shots on the m240...
 
No. 2 seems to have a tad more shadow detail (look at the fence) but gawd the colour is awful. The greens remind me of old 5247 cine film shorts spooled in cartridges and sold by Seattle Film Labs. 😱
 
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