X100s vs. X-Pro1 images per 16gb card?

[SausalitoDog]

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x100s/specifications/

Number of effective pixels 16.3 million pixels
Image sensor 23.6mm x 15.8mm (APS-C) X-Trans CMOS II with primary color filter

Apparently, something is different. I am not a technician, maybe someone else could explain.

I still think it must have something to do with the combination JPEG/raw settings.

Isn't there someone else out there with an X 100 S who can chime in and let us know the size of the files he/she is getting?

 

[DtheG]

That's correct PKR. I'll check all the stuff people are stating when I upload the images to my computer later (went out for 5 hours with the camera this morning / afternoon). I was just curious since it's a 150 image difference. It struck me as odd last night before I even used the camera based on formatting.

If it is just the estimate of rames remaining then it implies whatever algorithm is used to estimate average file size has changed. That may be because the 100s files are larger, that is the same picture taken with the two cameras does produce files of significantly different size. Or, it could just be a difference in the estimate. Perhaps the method of storing files, or metadata has changed, and applying a revised estimate of probable file size leads to the new result.

 

[jsrockit]

The bigger question is how do u like it so far?

I think it's a great improvement in functionality. Unfortunately, LR doesn't support the files yet, so I'll be waiting to work on the images until then. I don;t expect to be disappointed since I like the X-Pro1 a lot.

 

[ZlatkoBatistich]

Ok, so it is simple as the X-Pro1 files being 26.1mb and the X100s files being 33.6mb.

That is big difference considering they are both have the same resolution. I wonder why?