« A Real Retro Motorcycle (OT) | Main | Canon's Excellent Zoom »

Friday, 25 May 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

So, Mike... are you getting one? The kit 15-45mm power zoom isn’t a bad piece. With or without the zoom, make sure you get the 23mm Fujicron. Or do you already have it with the X-T1? Just don’t waste your time with the crippled 4K video on the new camera. Other than that, it’s all good.

I owned the first 16 megapixel X-A1 model that also used a Bayer sensor back in 2014, and combined with Fuji's image processing goodness, that modest little camera produced startingly good image quality, notably better than the 16 megapixel Olympus OM-D E-M5 and E-M1s I owned at the time. Imaging Resource also said at the time it had amongst the best high-ISO noise performance of any camera they had ever tested. Given the passage of eons in the digital camera world, i.e., four years, and utlizing a newer sensor technology, I would expect the X-T100 to produce excellent image quality as well. BTW, the X-T100 will shoot at AF-C at 6 FPS and given that the EVF is the same exact one in the X-T20, I would predict pretty snappy performance in the real world. One cool feature that Fuji implemented was that you can use the vertically oriented rear command dial as a shutter release when holding the camera with one hand and using the LCD in "selfie-shot" mode. Given that and the X-T20's EVF, I expect the X-T100 to be pretty hand-and-eye friendly. Fuji's got the ergonomics thang down, IMO.

Now if they would only update the 18mm/f2 lens.

I'm, amongst other things, a OMD-EM1 II and Sony A7RII owner. I use the Sony for Primes and the Oly for Zooms and a 300mm Prime.

So I have a combination of light weight kit and great fuzzy backgrounds when needed.

My good friend has a number of Fuji long lenses and they are tolerably light compared to Oly and Sony offerings(- or +).

This camera may be in the sweet spot I'm looking for. Have to see the reports on handling and ease of exposure compensation when using ISO Auto and aperture shutter speed 'manual' (my now preferred method of shooting). IBIS though is important as I am of a certain age.I did own a Xtrans at one point but was never comfortable with RAW processing).

This iteration is not for me. I've sort of learnt to keep my foot off of the GAS these days.

The next bayer iteration with IBIS is a must. Even at a higher price point.

I'm watching this one with great interest, as I'm currently in the market for a new camera. My choices are between this one (with kit lens) and the Olympus E-M10 mk 3 kit.

Having used both company's systems in the past, it may come down to the small things. Stay tuned!

Top-Secret special message to Mike: (No IBIS.)

Cameras like the Fuji X-T100 are what is killing the camera market . Only the old-at-heart gear-obsessed are attracted to old-fashioned stuff. The young and more artistically inclined, want a camera as easy to use as an iPhone–no arcane BS wanted/needed.

"ill-conceived X-Trans." How so?

WRT the E-M10 Mark III, the Olympus looks to have image stabilization, so there is that.

I'm curious about the video implementation on the Fuji. If it's still worse than a Sony A6000 or similar, which now sells for $475 - $575 new, that would be disappointing.

" . . . the new Fuji's sensor is larger in dimensions and number of pixels."

Pendantic Notes on Formats and MegaPickles:

When talking generally about MPs, it easy to forget that they are area measures, whereas resolution is linear.

At 25%, the increase from 16 to 20 MP in the latest µ4/3 bodies seems significant. However, the linear increase in pixels/mm is 13%. This is below the level that's usually detectable in actual images.

Ctein says "As someone who currently has both an E-M1 II and a E-M5 II . . . The difference in pixel count is insignificant." I can't think of anyone better qualified to test this.*

When talking about formats of different shapes, it is easy to forget the resolution implications. The 24 MP X-T100 sensor is only 3% larger in pixel count vertically than the 20MP µ4/3 sensors, 4,000 vs. 3,888 pixels (21% in mm.)

Almost all the extra MPs are in the horizontal direction. Good for landscape, right? But then, the actual linear pixel increase horizontally is only 16%, and any amount less than 20%** is unlikely to be visible as increased subject detail.

The likelihood of any noticable increase in resolution of fine detail between the latest 20 MP µ4/3 sensors and the 24 MP Fuji APS-C sensors is close to zero.

What about the comparison you make between 16 MP E-M10 III and 24 MP Fuji X-T100? The horizontal increase is 30%, probably significant for those who like the wide format. At 16%, the vertical increase is not significant.

* I personally compared the last generation Fuji 20 MP vs. µ4/3 16 MP sensors, using DPReview's studio samples, flipping layers on and off in PS, and came to the same conclusion. Slightly different for some of the test subjects, one or the other a tiny bit better, but essentially the same. If there was a subtle edge, it was in favor of the Oly body (but could be signal processing, and/or lens, not sensor.)

** Although there are good reasons that could explain why this is true, it's an empirical number, not calculated; probably more in most cases.

I saw a few videos on this, one from Fuji and One from one of the camera stores and wondered why? One emphasized its "vlogging" capabilities and the ease of using a dial to select the Fuji film imitations (Velvia etc.) However, not being burdened by an X-Trans sensor might just make it worthwhile. We can still attribute any mysterious magic to the lenses, Fuji's magic color science or something,

I echo the comment above asking why X-Trans is "ill-conceived". One of the things I love about the Fuji X cameras I've used (X-E1 and X-E2S) is that the rendering seems wonderfully film-like in some ways, particularly with regard to noise. I don't know how much of that is attributable to X-Trans, but I like it and wouldn't want Fuji's images to become more like typical digital cameras.

My understanding is that at least part of the motivation for X-Trans was to reduce the moire that typically occurs with Bayer sensors. This seems to have been successful; at least, I've never encountered moire in my Fuji X photos.

I guess there are people who prefer cameras to have no form of grip, but after having used an E-M5, which has a very modest grip, to put it generously, I found that I liked the camera much better with a J&B grip mounted.

Now any time a rangefinder-styled and/or retro-styled camera appears on my potential purchase radar, I search for a suitable grip for it (one that doesn't block battery access for example), since I would have to budget for one.

I loved the images from my X100 but found it too frustrating!
I love the X100F but am not wedded to the xtrans.

On balance I do think that those clever folk at Fuji can get a lot out of a Bayer sensor so like the look of this for its simplicity of work flow.

I was impressed that Jonas Rask found that by setting the PASM dial to manual and the other two top dials to ISO and Shutter speed he could use the camera just like his other X cameras. So the camera can be used by a newbie or a pro as a Landscape Camera.

Well done Fuji

Reincarnation of the K-1000? Lots of potential for dumb fun with some adapters to allow hook-ups with "legacy" glass weighing down your shelves. My only beef concerns Fujifilm.ca's current penchant for kiting its prices(e.g.,US$600 becomes C$750 for the X-100T body?!).

At first glance this one somehow reminds me of the 1970 Rolleiflex SL35 of my aunt. As a poor art student I could use it until I saved enough money to buy my own camera. In case of Fujifilm I doubt if you should call it retro or conservatism. When it comes to design, they hardly ever left the Seventies.

Hmmm... I really don't know how the rumour of ,,good old bayer filter'' appeared so suddenly.

I used both and I actually find X-trans pattern superior to bayer one.
And for me Bayer filter on this cam is rather a drawback.

Puzziling that you think the X Trans sensor is ill conceived, Raw files processed in Iridient are utterly amazing. My Nikon friends agree that I get more out of a 24MP file than they do. All reviewers say the out of camera jpegs are very pleasing and they are. I switched to Fuji professionally 5 years ago and never looked back. Just saying.

[That was a QUOTE. From Oren. I like X-Trans. --Mike]

Re TOP-themed livery: That's amazing. Did you fiddle with the color at all for this post?

And when will you be reporting on your new motorcycle?

[No, no fiddling.... --Mike]

Somebody please straighten me out on this: 4K video at 15 frames per second? Or do I misunderstand the way it is stated? Who shoots 4k video at 15fps?

The x-trans sensor might or might not have some advantages from a physics point of view, but being different means more workflow risk, and workflow trumps many other small advantages. How many forum posts happened on post-processing Fuji files in Lightroom? What a nightmare.

I doubt the “magic” of Fuji is related to the sensor layout, but more to their data processing and algorithms.

Interesting...I have an X100 and an X100T. The T gets 80% of use these days, but the original X100 has unique color properties I can't quite duplicate with the X-Trans camera, especially in available light portraits. It's a pain to use in comparison, but the results are worth it.

You tell 'em, Thom!

Being an elder (I'm told 66 is Elder level), we put the weight of the camera on the deep palmer arch (fleshy "heel" and thumb muscles) of our left hand.

While taking the weight of the camera, one could also manage focus and aperture adjustments, from below, with the thumb and first 2 fingers of the same hand. This worked both vertically and horizontal as the lenses on my Nikons were offset to the left.

This left the right hand light and unencumbered by supporting weight. New cameras with the contemporary materials have formed the machine to fit the hands better. Todays Camera/50mm 1.4 weighs nearly 1/2 pound more than the same combination in the 70s.

So I like light cameras. They are easier for me to wear with straps for long periods and feel lighter and more facile in the left hand. Mirrorless cameras fit right in that spot for me. The Mirrorless X-100T has spoiled me. The lack of weight, the fixed focal length, the immediacy is a pleasure.

That said, any camera that goes down that road gets my support and this is what Fujifilm does well.

There's another photo forum that I won't mention by name but is fundamentally not too hard to find if you really want to, and that deals extensively with X-Trans. One of the guy's most interesting posts IMHO is a detailed comparison between a Sony and a comparable X-Trans. The testing was pretty careful and while there are some differences, I think they would only matter to somebody with severe OCD. Another interesting aspect of the commentary is that the blog writer (a professional photographer) says he really doesn't have time to mess around with different processing softwares, and so sticks mostly to Lightroom -- but he notes that you can't process in Lightroom as you do with Bayer. There are significant changes in the sharpening details. He also notes that Iridient may do an even better job, but that's one of the other software packages that he doesn't want to deal with on a regular basis. If I've misstated any of his views, it's on me; I didn't spend a lot of time at the site, but was impressed by the tests.

"At normal viewing distances, you don't notice the difference." There you go. I guess it's really great to look "down in the pixels." However,I seriously doubt it matters whether the photo is good or not. In the end I suppose it's how one views what is a "good" photograph. I recently had the opportunity to see a Robert Frank exhibit at the Houston Center for Photography described as below which definitely wouldn't have passed Mr. Hogan's pixel level detail analysis. Yet I had no doubt the photos were brilliant.

Conceived by Robert Frank and Gerhard Steidl, this exhibition at HCP, the 6th venue for the exhibition in the United States, shows Frank's work in photos, books and films in a direct accessible manner. Frank's images are printed on sheets of newsprint and hung on the walls. Frank's films and videos, which are so often overshadowed by his photographic work are shown on small portable "beamers," projecting them directly onto the walls. This exhibition is to be disposed of after display, thus circumventing the normal cycle of speculation and consumption in the art market. When the idea for this pop-up show first reached Frank in his small, crooked house in the Canadian village of Mabou, he said: "Cheap, quick, and dirty, that's how I like it!"

I don't pretend to have the slightest expertise in any and all things digital. I use Elements 9 in post (came with my desktop) and my skills thereof are primitive at best. That's not to say I'm oblivious, I can tell my GR is sharper than my X-T1 with comparable 18mm, and my 14mm Fujinon is sharper than any 20mm Nikkor.

But I'm forever seeing these non stop pixel comparisons and arguments concerning this sensor and that software, and the technical expertise and know how is indeed... impressive. Then I see the actual work of some of these experts, expecting to be blown away by their work, only to witness some the most mundane of technically perfect sunsets and vacation snapshots ever! That's not to put down anyone's work- shoot to your heart's content whatever floats you boat. And I very much do value a certain level of technical expertise, particularly when it comes to B&W conversions.

My point is, rather than forever striving to get the most perfect of possible pixels, I think many of us would be better off concentrating a bit more of our energy on developing and then challenging our vision, rather than the technology beholden to it.

Can somebody enlighten me as to why x-trans is so "difficult" to demosaic? The RGB layout is not at all "more random", it is indeed as regular as a Bayer one, just using a different -- but crucially, well known and quite simple -- pattern (see https://goo.gl/images/LkDFff). Why then does it seem so hard to spatially interpolate the missing RGB points in the x-trans compared to Bayer?

This post can't have been written by Michael Johnston. If it had been, it surely would have mentioned that the Fuji X-T100 appears to lack body-integral stabilization...


P.S. FWIW, this looks extremely appealing and the price is the icing on the cupcake.

Try a Pentax.
The Pentax KP is a solid, tiny DSLR and can be fitted with small and sharp "limited" primes, or with legacy lenses. If you prefer a cheaper one, try a Pentax K70

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007