Fuji X100

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 4 5 6 end

Archive 2010 · Fuji X100

nikt
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #1 · Fuji X100

I prefer and enjoy the depth of field I get with APS-C with some lenses more than I do with an FX body. I rather enjoy the fact I can shoot wide open for the low light but get more in focus.

Love the EP-1 with the 17mm f2.8 pancake and the D300 with the manual focus 24mm f2.

Plain and simple, this is a photographers camera. Simple look through the pages and pages of responses on the forums.

Sep 22, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Kittyk
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #2 · Fuji X100

nikt wrote:
I prefer and enjoy the depth of field I get with APS-C with some lenses more than I do with an FX body. I rather enjoy the fact I can shoot wide open for the low light but get more in focus.

you dont. you get about as much DOF and light as if you would use lens stopped down on FX.

Sep 22, 2010 at 11:26 AM

ht1948
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #3 · Fuji X100

Why would the light gathering capability be different?

Sep 22, 2010 at 01:27 PM

brett maxwell
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #4 · Fuji X100

ht1948 wrote:
Why would the light gathering capability be different?

A larger sensor gathers more light. Yes, f2 is f2, but f2 on a larger sensor has gathered more photons.

Given the same sensor technology, 35mm FX at ISO800 f2.8 will look essentially just like 24mm DX at ISO400 f2.0. Essentially the same field of view, depth of field, and noise.

Sep 22, 2010 at 05:27 PM

brett maxwell
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #5 · Fuji X100

Smiert Spionam wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
Yes, indeed. An FX-sensor version of this would be nice:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Indeed, it would.

FX would be terrific, but I'm thinking that stuffing an FX sensor in there would increase the cost exponentially.

Besides, the 35ti has a 35/2.8 lens, which is essentially the same DOF and light gathering as the 23/2 lens on DX sensor of the X100.

I am ridiculously excited for this camera. I will use it for a ton of personal work, and I think it may be terrific for some PJ work at weddings when the size and sound of a D3 affects the subject.

Sep 22, 2010 at 05:32 PM

ht1948
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #6 · Fuji X100

brett maxwell wrote:
ht1948 wrote:
Why would the light gathering capability be different?

A larger sensor gathers more light. Yes, f2 is f2, but f2 on a larger sensor has gathered more photons.

Given the same sensor technology, 35mm FX at ISO800 f2.8 will look essentially just like 24mm DX at ISO400 f2.0. Essentially the same field of view, depth of field, and noise.

Hmm, I'm still confused. Let's say under the same lighting condition, at the same aperture, shouldn't the shutter speed the the same on both DX and FX? I thought the quantity of light captured by both sensors are the same, it's just that on FX sensor, it spreads out on a larger surface.

Sep 22, 2010 at 05:44 PM

nikt
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #7 · Fuji X100

Kittyk wrote:
nikt wrote:
I prefer and enjoy the depth of field I get with APS-C with some lenses more than I do with an FX body. I rather enjoy the fact I can shoot wide open for the low light but get more in focus.

you dont. you get about as much DOF and light as if you would use lens stopped down on FX.

But I don't want to stop down my lens. From the same distance of about 8 feet (for instance), I prefer using the D300 with the 85mm f1.8 than I do the D700 with the 85mm f1.8.

Sep 22, 2010 at 11:45 PM

Kittyk
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #8 · Fuji X100

ht1948 wrote:
brett maxwell wrote:
ht1948 wrote:
Why would the light gathering capability be different?

A larger sensor gathers more light. Yes, f2 is f2, but f2 on a larger sensor has gathered more photons.

Given the same sensor technology, 35mm FX at ISO800 f2.8 will look essentially just like 24mm DX at ISO400 f2.0. Essentially the same field of view, depth of field, and noise.

Hmm, I'm still confused. Let's say under the same lighting condition, at the same aperture, shouldn't the shutter speed the the same on both DX and FX? I thought the quantity of light captured by both sensors are the same, it's just that on FX sensor, it spreads out on a larger surface.

and that is the point. that you shining on plastic around sensor while on FX you put most of it onto the sensor.

Sep 23, 2010 at 04:20 AM

Kittyk
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #9 · Fuji X100

nikt wrote:
Kittyk wrote:
nikt wrote:
I prefer and enjoy the depth of field I get with APS-C with some lenses more than I do with an FX body. I rather enjoy the fact I can shoot wide open for the low light but get more in focus.

you dont. you get about as much DOF and light as if you would use lens stopped down on FX.

But I don't want to stop down my lens. From the same distance of about 8 feet (for instance), I prefer using the D300 with the 85mm f1.8 than I do the D700 with the 85mm f1.8.

it is of course fully your right to not wanting stopping the lens, but with FX, you just have flexibility. You can opt to stop down lens to get even better image quality and have DOF same like on DX wide open, or you can keep lens open and get more shallow DOF then you can ever get on DX.
That is also why pros are able to pay more for lenses which have similar rendering quality stopped down or not (as 85f1.4) in compare to uglier bokeh of 85 1.8 - you lose no advantage, but gain flexibility.
Then, especially if you bought expensive glass, it is a must to have FX body. Because buying 24G for 2000Eur makes no sense when in the end you gain only same what 350Eur 35f2 would give you on FX. Then it is cheaper to buy D700 and 35f2 then D7000 and 24G. So, with FX, you can ALWAYS reproduce what DX does (except reach), but with DX you can never go where FX goes. Especially when the promise of cheap and small lenses for DX never really materialized - pro DX glass costs north 1k Eur anyway and no f2 zooms giving you what f2.8 on FX is were introduced.

What i am not sure about and cannot sadly verify is, if dedicated DX lenses are calibrated same as FX lenses or as DX equivalents. So if 17-55f2.8G is in fact same bright (albeit cropped) as f2 would be on FX?
Maybe somebody with DX glass can confirm /test it?

Edited on Sep 23, 2010 at 04:34 AM · View previous versions

Sep 23, 2010 at 04:26 AM

ryankarr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #10 · Fuji X100

But the same light hits the sensor per square inch regardless of the sensor size. You can use the same exposure calculations for a crop sensor and an full frame camera. Put a D700 and a D90 side by side in the same lighting conditions, ISO and aperture and they'll give you the same shutter speed.

Agreed on DOF, FOV and noise. But a FX camera does not "gather more light" in any practical way.

Sep 23, 2010 at 04:31 AM

Kittyk
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #11 · Fuji X100

ryankarr wrote:
But the same light hits the sensor per square inch regardless of the sensor size. You can use the same exposure calculations for a crop sensor and an full frame camera. Put a D700 and a D90 side by side in the same lighting conditions, ISO and aperture and they'll give you the same shutter speed.

Agreed on DOF, FOV and noise. But a FX camera does not "gather more light" in any practical way.

try it, you get f2 of light into large sensor or f2.8 of light on small sensor. light per cm² is same, but if you get more cm² per image - so you get more light per image. It is same like with projectors. closer you get, brighter the image is, power of lamp is same.

Sep 23, 2010 at 04:39 AM

Osprey01
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #12 · Fuji X100

This analysis doesn't seem right. You're capturing more light with a larger sensor, but spreading it over a proportionally greater area, so that the total exposure remains the same. The image is not brighter at the same exposure on a larger sensor. At the same ISO, exposure on APS sized, 35mm sized and Medium Format sized sensors should be identical.

Sep 23, 2010 at 05:20 AM

Kittyk
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #13 · Fuji X100

lens projects 36x24mm image of white wall 1cd bright onto sensor --- that is at 8,64cd/cm²
if you crop it, you get 24x16mm lighted with one candela that is 4,16cd/cm²

given the scene is same of course, you get about twice amount of light which eqs one stop.

that is how i understood it.
it is same like photo voltaic cells. you get more power when you have bigger area. crop sensors are just smaller like house with smaller roof (given the sun brightness is same)

if you make bigger lens (f1.4) you grab more light, making it brighter, but when you then grab only part of the projected image, it is lost again

Sep 23, 2010 at 05:30 AM

Kittyk
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #14 · Fuji X100

but dont take me for word, i neither studied it nor ever really cared. i just know that FX rocks DX

Sep 23, 2010 at 05:45 AM

firewireguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #15 · Fuji X100

DX and FX will give the same shutter speed given the same subject, aperture and ISO. End of.

Sep 23, 2010 at 07:07 AM

Osprey01
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #16 · Fuji X100

I think you reversed the numerator and denominator in your calculations. It should be 1cd/(3.6*2.4) etc.. to get cd/cm squared. In any case I don't think that's how light is measured.
The formula for exposure is H=Et, which is luminous exposure= image plane illuminance * time.
Area being exposed does not play a role.

Kittyk wrote:
lens projects 36x24mm image of white wall 1cd bright onto sensor --- that is at 8,64cd/cm²
if you crop it, you get 24x16mm lighted with one candela that is 4,16cd/cm²

given the scene is same of course, you get about twice amount of light which eqs one stop.

that is how i understood it.
it is same like photo voltaic cells. you get more power when you have bigger area. crop sensors are just smaller like house with smaller roof (given the sun brightness is same)

if you make bigger lens (f1.4) you grab more light, making it brighter, but when you then grab only part of the projected image, it is lost again

Sep 23, 2010 at 07:13 AM

Pavel
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #17 · Fuji X100

Technically the larger sensor gathers LESS light (inverse square law) for the same focal lenght. (not that it makes any practical difference)
What people refer to is actually that if you have an FX sensor that is the SAME magapixel count as the DX sensor then the photosites pick up more light as they are bigger. (another detial that now has been made mostly an academic exercise) The D700 is a fantastic high iso camera. It is due to large photosites as well as all the little tech details which reduce noise in cameras. However if you put in a 50 F2.8 to get an identical framing on a DX frame where you use a 35 F 2.0 you would be gathering less light with the 50 and FX combo - and counting on larger pixels etc to make up the noise difference.

But there is more to life than shooting at light levels where normal eyes can no longer see!

Heck, are people forgetting that the singular most important quality in a good photograph is the LIGHT?

These small rangefinders are in their niche mostly for street photography and candid snaps. That is what I would want this cam for. THere is is, I feel a small advantage to have a 23 with the field of view of a 35 on DX rather than a 35 on FX because in the sweet spot of its intended use one will often shoot at F8 or F11 and only settle for wide open with no choice. There we want dof ... and I will take that aproximate 1 stop dof more, just like for a portrait camera I would favor a Medium format size sensor for the very opposite intent.

Of course if you want this as a low light surveilance rig ... ummm ... keep debating FX, but I feel that this is not a all purpose camera - so why dream it into one?

For me, I would likely prefer my GH1 or even more my GF1 for this kind of shooting except for the mild disappointment with both of these for the shutter delay and the hard to use viewfinder. That is what is to me the big question. How responsive will this body be?

But while you all debate the merits of FX vs DX ... I'm going to look around for where I can pre order one.

Sep 23, 2010 at 01:55 PM

Pavel
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #18 · Fuji X100

remember that a longer lens, such as a 35 vs 24 has a larger distance from the nodal point to the sensor. (all the rest of the apples being the same)

Sep 23, 2010 at 01:57 PM

Rooster L200
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #19 · Fuji X100

wohoooo.......around 1000 euro's..... goodbye leica x1.

Dec 16, 2010 at 04:14 PM

bellyface
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #20 · Fuji X100

i want it. SO BAD. I might finally let go of my epson rangefinder for this.

Actually, i bet if it's a success, most likely will be, they release 2 more models in the future, a telephoto version, and an ultra wide version... like they did with the GS medium format line from the 80's.

Dec 16, 2010 at 04:48 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end