Sound like the X100V is a great camera overall.
The one thing that concerns me a little is sharpness and coma correction wide open. All the samples I've seen so far show that the lens produces quite soft images.
Here an example (by dpreview), center crop at F2: https://uploads.keepcoding.ch/x100v_central_sharpness_f2.jpg
Even though it is in focus, it is lacking sharpness. The textures are washed out.
In the night shots it is also quite obvious that the lens has a lot of astigmatism.
Crop from the left side of the frame (sample by dpreview): http://uploads.keepcoding.ch/x100v_coma.jpg
keepcoding wrote:
Sound like the X100V is a great camera overall.
The one thing that concerns me a little is sharpness and coma correction wide open. All the samples I've seen so far show that the lens produces quite soft images.
Here an example (by dpreview), center crop at F2: https://uploads.keepcoding.ch/x100v_central_sharpness_f2.jpg
Even though it is in focus, it is lacking sharpness.
In the night shots it is also quite obvious that the lens has a lot of astigmatism.
Crop from the left side of the frame (sample by dpreview): http://uploads.keepcoding.ch/x100v_coma.jpg
Truthfully I never found dpreview images a good representation. Just my two cents for what it’s worth.
fotografur wrote:
Truthfully I never found dpreview images a good representation. Just my two cents for what it’s worth.
Well, are there any better full-res sample images available?
BTW: one doesn't need a lot of skill to take sample photos for demonstrating sharpness or aberrations. So I don't see why dpreview shots shouldn't be a good representation ;-)
brafman wrote:
A valid point. Notably, it can be applied however, to practically every camera line by every camera manufacture. The Sony A7rii was the cat's meow until the A7riii made the A7rii unusuable, until the A7riv improved on the ergonomics ... etc. Nature of the beast I guess!
Why, yes, that's quite true. It was, in fact, on my mind as I wrote the post that it really isn't just a Fujifilm X100f/v thing. ;-)
New cameras virtually always are better than the models they replace in at least some ways – higher MP sensors, faster AF, small changes to their physical interface, etc. It is very rare for a succeeding camera design to be only literally equal to the previous model and even rarer for it to be a step back.
It is in the interests of the camera companies to portray create or allow the impression that the changes are of a great magnitude, that they will make a profound difference in the quality of one's photography. And it is also in the interest of folks who are gear-centric and/or who love to buy new things to believe the most optimistic claims and implications.* (Few of us are immune to this, and I include myself.)
*I write "implications" here because the camera companies rarely ever actually say that "Model X(II) is TWICE as good as Model X." They simply gush about Model X(II) and let reviewers and buyers make overly optimistic assumptions about the new thing.
The new thing IS good. The new thing usually IS better.
But just not anywhere nearly as much so as some think.
The X100v is a fine example. A few points;
1. The difference between 24MP and 26MP is so small as to be meaningless. (Calculate out the difference in print size at 300ppi to see what I mean.)
2. The improvements to the lens, while being described in hyperbolic terms (sound familiar?) in some quarters, are already turning out to be less monumental than some hope. (Keep in mind that the very publication from which some of the extraordinary claims come proclaimed the X100f a "camera of the year" not that long ago...
3. The interface changes are either welcome and useful (if they appeal to you) or a step back (if you enjoyed the d-pad). In either case, they aren't going to Change Photography As We Know It.
4. The flip-out screen is a good thing in my view. It will make the camera a bit more useful in a small percentage of shot. Worth replacing a camera for it? Not for very many of us.
And, yes, you could do a similar list for just about any new model from any brand. The new thing is good and a bit better, virtually always, but the old thing is not all that much different.
If I was a first time buyer looking for a camera in the X100() line, I'd be happy to buy the X100v. It looks like a very nice camera, with a well thought-out design.
If I owned a X100f there is no way in the world I would move from it to the X100v. The X100f is a fine camera that will feel and perform probably 95%-99% the same as the X100f for most users. If I had an older version of this series and could identify some actual issues that I was having with it (say the X100t or X100s) I might well be looking to upgrade to the X100v.
I'd be willing to bet that once the camera gets into the field and into more wide use we'll figure out the the new lens is better, but that the increment of "better-ness" is far short of monumental. It likely won't even be a visible difference in a most cases, even when people look really closely.
I don't know how DPR processed and produced the examples in the post — I've watched their video but I haven't gone further than that. However, if this is essentially an unsharpened RAW file image at 100% at f/2, the sharpness isn't really bad at all. RAW files are always soft before they are sharpened. I'd be interested in seeing what it looks like with typical RAW file sharpening applied.
Dan
keepcoding wrote:
Sound like the X100V is a great camera overall.
The one thing that concerns me a little is sharpness and coma correction wide open. All the samples I've seen so far show that the lens produces quite soft images.
Here an example (by dpreview), center crop at F2: https://uploads.keepcoding.ch/x100v_central_sharpness_f2.jpg
Even though it is in focus, it is lacking sharpness. The textures are washed out.
In the night shots it is also quite obvious that the lens has a lot of astigmatism.
Crop from the left side of the frame (sample by dpreview): http://uploads.keepcoding.ch/x100v_coma.jpg
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that once the camera gets into the field and into more wide use we'll figure out the the new lens is better, but that the increment of "better-ness" is far short of monumental. It likely won't even be a visible difference in a most cases, even when people look really closely.
I don't know how DPR processed and produced the examples in the post — I've watched their video but I haven't gone further than that. However, if this is essentially an unsharpened RAW file image at 100% at f/2, the sharpness isn't really bad at all. RAW files are always soft before they are sharpened. I'd be interested in seeing what it looks like with typical RAW file sharpening applied.
The sample is out-of-camera JPEG with sharpening applied.
Maybe I am just spoiled by the quality of Sony FF, but the samples of the X100V I've seen so far are underwhelming.
keepcoding wrote:
The sample is out-of-camera JPEG with sharpening applied.
Maybe I am just spoiled by the quality of Sony FF, but the samples of the X100V I've seen so far are underwhelming.
Yes, I just (finally) spent a little time looking at some of those images, and I see that the files online are .jpgs. (As, of course, they would have to be.)
I don't necessarily disagree with you when it comes to very close inspections like this, as you may have figured out from some of my other posts in which I express my doubts that this very fine new camera is going to bring remarkable and monumental increments of improvement.
I would imagine that using a FF Sony body with an excellent lens and shooting carefully (e.g. - not handheld, for example) you could get somewhat better IQ under 100% magnification inspection. I know I can using my 5DsR and the best lenses and working with care... though at the largest aperture virtually any lens will be less sharp than at more moderate apertures.
But given that this camera is likely to be used for handheld photography nearly all the time, the performance seems pretty decent.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Yes, I just (finally) spent a little time looking at some of those images, and I see that the files online are .jpgs. (As, of course, they would have to be.)
I don't necessarily disagree with you when it comes to very close inspections like this, as you may have figured out from some of my other posts in which I express my doubts that this very fine new camera is going to bring remarkable and monumental increments of improvement.
I would imagine that using a FF Sony body with an excellent lens and shooting carefully (e.g. - not handheld, for example) you could get somewhat better IQ under 100% magnification inspection. I know I can using my 5DsR and the best lenses and working with care... though at the largest aperture virtually any lens will be less sharp than at more moderate apertures.
But given that this camera is likely to be used for handheld photography nearly all the time, the performance seems pretty decent.
I don't need to shoot carefully or on a tripod, all my lenses for Sony perform better wide open (even zooms). But I guess that is just a tradeoff when designing a pancake lens. It simply cannot perform great at max. aperture.
The new lens is sharp enough for me; the old one was, too; just different. I can say I never had an images from one of the earlier X100 cameras that was ruined by unsharpness, unless I missed focus, which was not unusual with the original model.
I will now return to reading it, but anything that starts out like this leaves me cold right out of the gate: " Words cannot describe; I will let the photos do the talking. And please keep your credit card at bay because at the end of this blog post the chances of you being the owner of the new X100V is relatively high. Resistance is futile or now is the best time to leave this page."
keepcoding wrote:
The sample is out-of-camera JPEG with sharpening applied.
Maybe I am just spoiled by the quality of Sony FF, but the samples of the X100V I've seen so far are underwhelming.
I have owned many Sony mirrorless cameras. I now have the A7, A7Rii, A7Riv and A9..along with plenty of lenses and this is the first time that I have been interested in updating my unused X100 and X100s. The new lens is pretty impressive at f/2.0 for such a compact design and these cameras have always been great with out of camera JPG and also the leaf shutter allows for great fill flash. The ND filter also adds a level of extra flexibility. I guess that flexibility isn't a forte of a fixed lens camera, but I love 35mm and if the responsiveness of this camera is there, I suspect that I will be carrying it more than any of my other cameras. I might even sell a few 35mm lenses. One added bonus is the hybrid viewfinder. I love shooting rangefinder cameras, but even 26 MPix is high resolution and a real rangefinder is somewhat challenged at f/2.0, not to mention calibration/maintenance issues. The Hybrid viewfinder is a nice compromise that I don't get with my Sony cameras... and for the most part, would not want in that form factor, but a small carry camera with a hybrid is what made the original X100 such a hit.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I will now return to reading it, but anything that starts out like this leaves me cold right out of the gate: " Words cannot describe; I will let the photos do the talking. And please keep your credit card at bay because at the end of this blog post the chances of you being the owner of the new X100V is relatively high. Resistance is futile or now is the best time to leave this page."
keepcoding wrote:
Sound like the X100V is a great camera overall.
The one thing that concerns me a little is sharpness and coma correction wide open. All the samples I've seen so far show that the lens produces quite soft images.
Here an example (by dpreview), center crop at F2: https://uploads.keepcoding.ch/x100v_central_sharpness_f2.jpg
Even though it is in focus, it is lacking sharpness. The textures are washed out.
In the night shots it is also quite obvious that the lens has a lot of astigmatism.
Crop from the left side of the frame (sample by dpreview): http://uploads.keepcoding.ch/x100v_coma.jpg
That looks similar to what I get out of my Fuji X70, but a bit better. I think it's mostly the X-Trans sensor, and that's the reason I don't use the camera. It looks great when there is no fine textures in the images, for example when shooting close up. But as soon as there is a lot of detail, everything gets smeared out.
The lens of the X70 is horrible and doesn't really make it better though. I bet the X100V is much better.
May I ask the experienced Fujifilm owners to chip in with their knowledge and experience?
That new X100V is beautiful and ticks many things that I have ever wanted for the X100 series. I am considering to get one.
I used to have the X100 Classic with its Bayer pattern sensor and my Lightroom catalogue is full of amazing travel photos shot with this little beast. Since the X-Trans sensors were introduced I jumped ship to Sony.
I don't want to start a war between Fuji vs Sony or X-Trans vs Bayer. I am just interested in the camera as an everyday camera and I would like to read your input regarding image quality.
dpreview uploaded a gallery with X100V photos and the thing that I noticed in the landscape photos:
- Is it me or are those photos quite mushy and there is some grade of loss in details? (In comparison to Bayer pattern sensor cameras)
- Is this just a problem of JPG engine and the RAW files are much better (What is your experience with other cameras with X-Trans sensors? Similarities?)?
Makten wrote:
That looks similar to what I get out of my Fuji X70, but a bit better. I think it's mostly the X-Trans sensor, and that's the reason I don't use the camera. It looks great when there is no fine textures in the images, for example when shooting close up. But as soon as there is a lot of detail, everything gets smeared out.
If "everything gets smeared out" on your x-trans photographs in which subject have fine detail, I can only think of two explanations.
1. You last gave x-trans a serious test perhaps 7-8 years ago, when early versions of the raw conversion software sometimes had a problem described as "smearing," where irregular hard boundaries between areas of very different color/luminosity. sometimes "smeared" into adjacent areas. It didn't happen often, you typically had to inspect at 100% magnification and go looking for it in the right places, and it wasn't visible in prints... but it did exist.
OR
2. You aren't using optimal sharpening settings for x-trans files. In general, you'll want to do something along the following lines — assuming you have a conversation app with full sharpening and related settings:
1. Amount should be somewhat high. My starting point is 150 in ACR.
2. Radius should be somewhat small. A decent starting point in ACR is perhaps around .5.
3. Details setting should be kept very low or even set to zero. (A high details setting can create problems, especially in a noisy image or one whit a lot of small, uh, details.)
4. Use masking in noisy images to somewhat limit the intensity of the sharpening in areas of solid color/luminosity and smooth gradients.
Use a separate print sharpening workflow at the time you print.
I get very sharp images from my x-trans sensor camera, and I have no issues making excellent 20" x 30" prints.
I loved using the X100F but I didn't like the corner performance or f/2 @ MFD performance. I'm not expecting nor saying we're going to get GFX-level IQ out of the X100V. All I want is for Fujifilm to have fixed the worst performing elements (pun) of the old lens, and from what I've seen so far, it appears they have.
Basically a significant improvement in this case translates to acceptable performance, and acceptable was all I wanted.
I think the new lens is good enough that I'd feel comfortable relying on it WO. True, the difference isn't huge but it is noticeable from some samples (maybe production models will have more consistent samples).
I also experienced hunting in lower light with the x100f, so I actually used MF a bit (was good). Maybe this newer AF is good enough for that as well to be used reliably.
Seems like they fixed some handling issues of the f as well.
I think it'd be worth upgrading from the f once it hits about $1,000. almost 1.5k with tax...ehh you can get Leica Q for like a few hundred more.
Nature of the beast I guess!