FlyPenFly wrote:
The JPG engine can't be that bad can it, the Sony JPG engine is only so so.
just different settings. the wicker chair actually seems to contain higher detail on the fuji shot but clearly has less local contrast applied. i think most of the differences come down to how the jpegs are being processed and compressed.
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
how does it do against the x100?
great
AF is faster with the 18, about the same with the 35
The manual focus ring on the 35 is better than the x100 but on the 18 it's like night and day, faster, less laggy, less jumpy, good enough for zone focusing with frequent changes. ISO seems about half to 1 stop better to me, and there is noticeably more real res. The OVF is a bit bigger on the x100 and the XP1 is about as quiet as a film leica. Frameline accuracy is probably a little bit better with the x100, buttons and ergonomics are much easier for long use on the XP1, mostly because of size.
EVF (especially zoomed in) is like watching the first landing on the moon recorded on ISO6400 film and transmitted through a Soviet satellite.
I much prefer the focus mode switch on the XP1. In the x100 the AF-S is the middle setting and sometimes I struggle to stop that tiny switch half way, whereas in the XP1 AF-S and Manual (which are the only two settings most people use) are at the ends of the switch making it much easier to quickly toggle between the two.
Lens chatter is completely unnoticeable in any environment noisier than a library.
Beware of the (alleged) blown out red channel issue, I think I might have already seen signs of it in real life shooting but I need lightroom to confirm.
Spyro P. wrote:
great
AF is faster with the 18, about the same with the 35
The manual focus ring on the 35 is better than the x100 but on the 18 it's like night and day, faster, less laggy, less jumpy, good enough for zone focusing with frequent changes. ISO seems about half to 1 stop better to me, and there is noticeably more real res. The OVF is a bit bigger on the x100 and the XP1 is about as quiet as a film leica. Frameline accuracy is probably a little bit better with the x100, buttons and ergonomics are much easier for long use on the XP1, mostly because of size.
EVF is like watching the first landing on the moon recorded on ISO6400 film and transmitted through a 60's russian sattelite.
I much prefer the focus mode switch on the XP1. In the x100 the AF-S is the middle setting and sometimes I struggle to stop that tiny switch half way, whereas in the XP1 AF-S and Manual (which are the only two settings most people use) are at the ends of the switch making it much easier to quickly toggle between the two.
Lens chatter is completely unnoticeable in any environment noisier than a library.
Beware of the blown out red channel, I think I've seen signs of it but I need lightroom to tell for sure....Show more →
That's great, concise feedback. Thanks.
I do believe from what I've read that the red channel issue can be fixed in the raw converter with good profiling.
I'm really curious as to your impression of the 18. Do you find it as good as the 23 on the X100?
Looks like the ISO1600 in x100 is equivalent to ISO3200 in XP1 in exposure, so can the improvement be just that? The x100 seems to be more detailed to my eyes in that comparison.
Tariq, I think both lenses are fantastic. But I shoot exclusively street and my family photos, which means that if the x100 had soft corners I could spend a lifetime without noticing.
Anyway I popped out to the office stairwell because I remember there is a gigantic wall about 50m away. Dirty glass and glare etc so dont expect to see 100% detail, but just to compare corner and centre. All photos jpeg SOOC without any sharpening.
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Does it take into account the new ISO labeling?
I didnt even check exif to be honest, I was just shooting both cameras in low light at home so I took it for granted that exposure would be the same. The XP1 photos looked cleaner. About one stop worth cleaner if that means anything to anybody
Spyro P. wrote:
Tariq, I think both lenses are fantastic. But I shoot exclusively street and my family photos, which means that if the x100 had soft corners I could spend a lifetime without noticing.
Anyway I popped out to the office stairwell because I remember there is a gigantic wall about 50m away. Dirty glass and glare etc so dont expect to see 100% detail, but just to compare corner and centre. All photos jpeg SOOC without any sharpening.
So what do you think? I reckon it's good enough for most purposes at f8, especially if size and weight is an issue. You gotta hold this lens in your hands, it weighs about the same as a DSLR battery
Spyro P. wrote:
So what do you think? I reckon it's good enough for most purposes at f8, especially if size and weight is an issue. You gotta hold this lens in your hands, it weighs about the same as a DSLR battery
Looks like the center is very sharp, even wide open. The corner is not great which could matter for landscape use but for photographing people, documentary and editorial type subjects would likely not matter.
My primary interest in the x pro 1 is the 35mm 1.4 lens , the bokeh it provides and the sharpness from F1.4 to F2. I have the x100 and really enjoy the size of the camera and the IQ it provides. I enjoy shooting limited depth of field images so if the 35 1.4 is sharp wide open this camera will be very tempting
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I do believe from what I've read that the red channel issue can be fixed in the raw converter with good profiling.
I will be shocked if this issue shows up in the RAW. I can't believe that Fuji, known for their colors, would miss something so basic as the the red channel getting blown out easily.
I asked this before, and I know it is basic, but has anyone shot these blown out red photos and tweaked the internal saturation/hue/film mode settings? We've already seen one blog post that complained about the white balance and then realized he had it set on Velvia.
theophilus wrote:
I will be shocked if this issue shows up in the RAW. I can't believe that Fuji, known for their colors, would miss something so basic as the the red channel getting blown out easily.
I asked this before, and I know it is basic, but has anyone shot these blown out red photos and tweaked the internal saturation/hue/film mode settings? We've already seen one blog post that complained about the white balance and then realized he had it set on Velvia.
I don't know the answer but I do know that the X100 jpegs did not have this problem with the red channel. Shockingly though, the X100 did (and still does unless it has been recently fixed via firmware) have a major issue with jpegs when Adobe RGB is selected as the in-camera profile so I'm not terribly surprised by this bug (particularly given the new filter array arrangement).
If there is enough of a positive multiple applied to the raw red channel (often the case from what I have been reading), this can be fixed with a good raw converter which takes the issue into account I think since it might be possible that the actual red channel data is not lost during initial exposure. I'm sure others know much more about it than me (Joakim/ TheSuede for instance) and I'm just guessing here.
re: ISOs - Steve Huff has a comparison up with the NEX-7- cameras are set to the same ISOs, shutter speeds and apertures and exposures all look essentially identical. He says the XPro-1 was overexposing when left to its own devices.
Cross posted on x100 forum: The indoor shot Fuji looks a little underexposed compared to NEX, don't think it is one stop difference though. For the outdoor shot, Fuji is ISO200 1/2900, NEX is ISO100 1/2500, NEX looks underexposed.
