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

[jsrockit]

So, I use the X-Pro1 and just got the X100s and noticed something I cannot explain. I use the same Sandisk Extreme 16gb cards in all of my camera. Using these cards, I get 644 images on the X-Pro1 and 485 images on the X-100s. I have both set to RAW only (i.e. not with jpeg) and the card were formatted in each camera. I tried a few different cards in the X100s.

I would have thought that I would get the same amount of images on each camera since they are both 16.3 mp, 14 bit sensors.

Any ideas to explain the difference? It's not a big deal, but I'm curious.

 

[jsrockit]

No ideas? 😕

 

[FA Limited]

Have you compared the manuals to check expected filesize?
Maybe the X100s is embedding a higher quality jpeg file?

 

[Exdsc]

Xpro-1 RAW files could have compression applied to them while X100s RAW files are not compressed, or in the case of Xpro1 its lossy compression while X100s is lossless.

 

[jsrockit]

I've tried to check around but couldnt find anything. Some good theories though. Thanks guys.

 

[Particular]

John, perhaps you accidentally shot a video. They usually save to a different folder, so you may have missed it.

 

[f16sunshine]

There may be more info in the x100s files for example ... relating to focus point and Phase Detect pixels. Are the individual files the same size between tge two cameras?
Do you have exif/metadata turned on with both cameras?.. (not even sure if this is an option or not).

 

[jsrockit]

John, perhaps you accidentally shot a video. They usually save to a different folder, so you may have missed it.

No, these are formatted cards... right after formatting.

In any case, I'm not going to stress it. It's still a lot of files.

 

[macfiend]

John, what are the actual RAW file sizes out of each camera?

 

[GaryLH]

What is the raw file size from the x100s versus the one from the xp1? If they are the same size then it is not raw compression. The xp1 raw file has an imbedded jpg. This is why programs that cannot support its raw file (such as aperture) can preview the raw files prior to import. The imbedded jpg size may have also been made smaller or removed.

If both files are exactly the same size, then it could be associated w/ the file system. The operating system used by the camera may using different size sectors (lowest unit for building blocks). One could be using 16k byte sectors and the other would could be using smaller size sector such as 2k bytes. Which can cause waste if u have a lot of smaller files or the raw file size is such that during the last write to the last sector there is a lot of waste (not a good modulo of the sector size).

The other possibility is that one of them has a lot more hidden files or system database related files then the other.

Anyway just a lot of guesses here.
Gary

 

[SausalitoDog]

Are you using roughly the same lens? Try the x100s vs. The xp1 with the 18mm.

Are you shooting the same scene, not one more detailed than the other?

As someone else mentioned, look at the exact file size of a raw from each taking the same scene. If they are different, there is a real mystery.

I would reformat the x100 card and try again.

Tom

 

[jsrockit]

I could be wrong - but my understanding is John is comparing the # frames available after a format between the two cameras. No pictures taken. Please correct me if I didn't get it right.

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.

 

[SausalitoDog]

Have you tried the same card in each camera (think you probably should format in each camera separately).

If not this, you have a true mystery 🙂, but I'm sure someone else will be able to try the same thing and see if their result is the same.

 

[jsrockit]

Have you tried the same card in each camera (think you probably should format in each camera separately).

Yes, that is what I was trying to get across in the first post.

 

[jsrockit]

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

 

[GaryLH]

That's a pretty good size increase. The bigger question is how do u like it so far?

Gary

 

[Particular]

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

Why are they bigger? Seems odd to me, unless they embed a welcome video in each frame.

 

[kbg32]

From what I have read, the X100s actually has an updated, improved sensor.

"The newly-developed 16.3 million pixels APS-C X-Trans CMOS II sensor and EXR Processor II, which increase resolution by approx. 25%** and reduce noise by more than 30%***, have the ability to capture high resolution images comparable to those taken on full-frame sensors. Thanks to the removal of the optical low pass filter and powerful processor, the FUJIFILM X100S will produce a clear image with minimal graininess even at a high ISO setting."

 

[GaryLH]

From what I have read, the X100s actually has an updated, improved sensor.

The basic mega pixel is still the same as the xp1 - 16mp though. I wonder if they are not able to strip out the PDaf info that are part of the center cells of the new sensor.

Gary

 

[kbg32]

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.