Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Fuji X100 - Better ISO Comparisons
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 10:58 pm    Post subject: Fuji X100 - Better ISO Comparisons Reply with quote
A poster on an earlier thread suggested I use a good bit of blue sky in
my comparison images in order to get a better idea of artifacts and
mottling against the solid blue color.

So, here are some images from 1600 to 12800. Anything lower than 1600
didn't show me any differences, at least to my eyes.

One thing that seems to happen, is that in the conversion for uploading,
it introduces pixelated sections where there is a color gradient. This is
not evident when I bring them up in Photoshop, so the uploader is
somehow "adding" the pixelation to the images. However, if you can
ignore that, you can look for the usual "grain" rendering for the ISOs.


ISO 1600 Resized for Screen


ISO 1600 Full Crop at 100%





ISO 6400 Resized for Screen


ISO 6400 Full Crop at 100%





ISO 12800 Resized for Screen


ISO 12800 Full Crop at 100%


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think for 8x12 prints 1600 is fine. For web use anything would work.

I nice camera that I'm waiting to see in the 2nd hand market in a couple of years.


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I see no issue at all with the noise, Larry, great performance.
I also am unable to detect any gradient artifact here on my monitor screen.


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, seems to be pretty decent at high ISOs, nothing to get all excited
about, but not bad. Of course, with some NeatImage and other subtle
processes, they could probably all look pretty decent.

I have already gotten a standard 8x10 print back from an ISO
6400 image. I wanted to give the high ISO shot a chance to be
seen as a print, which is a more definitive test to me. The print
looks fantastic, actually. I have to get my loupe' to start detecting
anomalies that I can't see with my eyes alone. Shocked

Not sure how big I would want to go with a 6400 print though...


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Really nice high ISO abilities, looks like to me, Larry. Your ISO 6400 shot looks about the same as my camera's ISO 1600. Cool


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice indeed Shocked

If only they make an M-mount camera and call it M800!


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Really nice high ISO abilities, looks like to me, Larry. Your ISO 6400 shot looks about the same as my camera's ISO 1600. Cool


That's good to hear, Michael! Well...at least to me. Laughing But remember,
and I'm sure you DO remember, it's the photographer and not the
camera so much. And from what I've seen of your images, you ARE
the man!


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Very nice indeed Shocked

If only they make an M-mount camera and call it M800!


aleksander! I think you need to get busy, get our your hammer and nails,
and make us all a nice Fuji M800 in Leica-M mount. I LIKE your idea!


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Really nice high ISO abilities, looks like to me, Larry. Your ISO 6400 shot looks about the same as my camera's ISO 1600. Cool


it's nearly like a deja vu ... as i said befor in another tread here ...
Laurence, you can be sure, the x100 is "the" camera!

btw: the next photomagazin (chip foto video) in germany is full of commendation for the x100

greets leo


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
leo_b wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
Really nice high ISO abilities, looks like to me, Larry. Your ISO 6400 shot looks about the same as my camera's ISO 1600. Cool


it's nearly like a deja vu ... as i said befor in another tread here ...
Laurence, you can be sure, the x100 is "the" camera!

btw: the next photomagazin (chip foto video) in germany is full of commendation for the x100

greets leo


Leo, I'm glad that the X100 seems to be considered a good camera. I
frankly wasn't sure what to expect, because I think it was bit "over hyped".

But I am pleased with the ability to shoot decent images in low light.

I find myself shooting more and more with the EVF versus the OVF, as
I can get a lot of nice info with the EVF, plus I can see real-time changes
for dynamic range, exposure, depth of field, etc.

I finally figured out how to have the image "stay" on my LCD screen
for 5 seconds. The default was 1 second, and it was barely enough to
glance at the image. I tend to do any "chimping" with the LCD, although
the EVF certainly gives the same info.

Back on the EVF, I'm AMAZED at how real and clear the view looks
through that finder, and I really like that there is an overlay that can be
turned on and off.

I'm still finding myself shooting at -2/3 of a stop for best exposure. I
suppose many digital cameras need to be compensated for exposure
as opposed to the default exposure in the camera? In any case, it's not
a deal breaker for me, it's so easy to just keep it at the setting because
it is "manual" instead of electronic.

So far, I am feeling the camera is practical for even a mostly landscape
shooter like the category that I fall into.


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:

I'm still finding myself shooting at -2/3 of a stop for best exposure. I
suppose many digital cameras need to be compensated for exposure
as opposed to the default exposure in the camera? In any case, it's not
a deal breaker for me, it's so easy to just keep it at the setting because
it is "manual" instead of electronic.


Keep in mind, Larry, that every camera maker has its own concept of what "correct exposure" is. I don't know if their attitudes have changed in the ensuing years, but back in the 80s I always felt that Canon seemed to prefer from 1/2 stop to 1 stop more exposure than Nikon did. Canon seemed to like the bright, airy look, where Nikon seemed to like a more somber look with deeper color saturation.

So this -2/3 stop may be nothing more than a difference in preference between you and Fuji. And, far as that goes, all the photos you've posted so far look well exposed to me.


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Laurence wrote:

I'm still finding myself shooting at -2/3 of a stop for best exposure. I
suppose many digital cameras need to be compensated for exposure
as opposed to the default exposure in the camera? In any case, it's not
a deal breaker for me, it's so easy to just keep it at the setting because
it is "manual" instead of electronic.


Keep in mind, Larry, that every camera maker has its own concept of what "correct exposure" is. I don't know if their attitudes have changed in the ensuing years, but back in the 80s I always felt that Canon seemed to prefer from 1/2 stop to 1 stop more exposure than Nikon did. Canon seemed to like the bright, airy look, where Nikon seemed to like a more somber look with deeper color saturation.

So this -2/3 stop may be nothing more than a difference in preference between you and Fuji. And, far as that goes, all the photos you've posted so far look well exposed to me.


That's what I like about this fine forum - I'm always learning something.
I had no idea that the big camera companies would tweak things so that
their cameras would have to be "compensated" for exposure. But of
course it makes sense, as the engineers all probably have different
"eyes" for exposure.

If I set the exposure comp to zero, it looks to me like all the highlights
are blown out. However, the histogram shows otherwise. At first, I took
some shots according to the histogram and they just looked way
overcooked. So now, I almost always need to go with -2/3 stop;

I do, however, like to use the histo for dark shots with no
bright highlights, and adjust the histo until it almost touches the
"high" side of the graph. Of course I benefit also from not being
in a hurry with landscape shots.

Oh...one more thing...I can't tell you how NICE it is to be free of the
tripod! It seems to be opening up the ease of finding more and improved
angles to shoot from. Quite a free feeling, actually.

I don't even think about the tripod while I'm shooting with the Pentax 645,
of course. It's all a part of the system in that case, and so I'm used to
it. LOTS of different tools out there! Shocked

And yet one MORE thing: I bought a GGS Hard Crystal Glass Screen Protector from photogearetc on the auction site. I can't
believe how well it works. Extremely forgiving of scratches, and for some reason it does not collect ANY oils from my hands. Shocked I'm not
affiliated with the seller, just wanted to pass this on to the forum.


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
larry,
i don't know which metering method you use.
but keep in mind, that spot, integral or midweigthed can influence the result heavily!

so try out which method is best for you, may you would not adjust the metering any more. Wink

greets leo
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Page 1 of 1