Indication of X20 Raw ISO performance

Discussion in 'Fuji X10, X20, X30, XF1, and X-S1' started by carlb, Mar 17, 2013.

  1. carlb

    carlb FujiXspot Veteran

    267
    Feb 6, 2013
    twin cities, minnesota
    Carl
    Compare the raw ISO performance (noise and resolution) of the X20 to the X-E1:

    http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews...eras/fuji-x20-1122191/review/3#articleContent
    vs.
    http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews...ids/fuji-x-e1-1094565/review/6#articleContent

    X20:

    (Raw)
    ISO 100: 24 resolution score, no noticeable noise
    ISO 200: 22 resolution score, still almost no noise
    ISO 400: 20 resolution score, now some noticeable noise

    X-E1:

    (Raw)
    ISO 200: 26 resolution score, no noticeable noise
    ISO 1600: 24 resolution score, still almost no noise
    ISO 3200: 24 resolution score, now some noticeable noise

    So, to get the best out of the X20, definitely shoot ISO 100 or 200 max. For the X-E1, ISO 1600 is almost as good as ISO 200 - Amazing.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. pniev

    pniev Guest

    Thanks for the info. Definitely good to know.
     
  3. the sardonic iconic

    the sardonic iconic FujiXspot Veteran

    218
    Feb 2, 2013
    NYC
    Yeah... even with my X10, I consider it a ISO 100 camera, and am willing to go to ISO320 only in emergencies.
     
  4. nippa

    nippa FujiXspot Regular

    50
    Feb 26, 2013
    Cheshire UK
    Dennis
    Interesting but I was put off Techradar when it showed the X10 as resolving the same as the Canon G1X and Leica X1 (22 lines).
    Now the X10 is good but not that good and the G1X is better ; so it'll be fun to see what another site makes of the new resolving power.
     
  5. carlb

    carlb FujiXspot Veteran

    267
    Feb 6, 2013
    twin cities, minnesota
    Carl
    I tend to agree based upon what I see below. But when comparing a camera to itself at other ISO settings, it's probably more valid.

    Although the absolute numbers are a bit subjective, it's nice is they give you the image they based the numbers on.

    X10 jpeg:
    <img src=http://cdn0.mos.techradar.futurecdn.net//Review%20images/PhotoRadar/ResolutionCharts/Fujifilm%20X10%20resolution/JPEG/Cropped/Fujifilm%20X10_28.4mm_f5_i100_Crop-900-90.jpg>
    X10 Raw:

    <img src=http://cdn4.mos.techradar.futurecdn.net//Review%20images/PhotoRadar/ResolutionCharts/Fujifilm%20X10%20resolution/Converted%20RAW/Cropped/Fujifilm%20X10_28.4mm_f5_i100_Crop-900-90.jpg>


    Canon G1X:

    <img src=http://cdn0.mos.techradar.futurecdn.net//Review%20images/PhotoRadar/ResolutionCharts/CanonG1X_Resolution/Converted%20RAW/Cropped/Canon_G1X_53.9mm_f5.6_i100_Crop-900-100.jpg>

    Leica X1:
    <img src=http://cdn0.mos.techradar.futurecdn.net//Review%20images/PhotoRadar/Leica/Leica%20X1/Leica%20X1%20Resolution/RAW/Leica_X1_24mm_f5.6_i100_1020726c-900-90.jpg>

    X20:
    <img src=http://cdn4.mos.techradar.futurecdn.net//art/cameras/ResolutionCharts/Fujifilm/Fuji%20X20%20Resolution/RAW/Fuji%20X20_i100_Crop-900-90.jpg>

    So, looking at the X10 jpeg to X10 raw, their test seems prone to some type of error creeping in - focus? Looking at the url for the two, the X10 raw has "converted" in it's path. Perhpas their raw converter wasn't that great at resolution for the X10? Perhaps their numbers comparisons were for jpeg, as I'd guess they were able to see the problem with the X10 raw conversions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. depscribe

    depscribe FujiXspot Regular

    82
    Feb 17, 2013
    It's funny (he says, putting on his old-man hat): for many years, every Nikon shooter's favorite lens was the 105mm f2.5. This was the old manual-focus, non-AI, singly-coated lens. It had great contrast, seemed very sharp, and the pictures from it were a delight to look at. I still have one around here someplace, though I carry the manual-focus 105mm f1.8 in my bag. Anyway, after we had loved this lens for years, one of the camera magazines did an extensive test on it, and found it wasn't especially sharp at all. The same magazine did tests and concluded that the Leitz 35mm f2.8 Summaron was just about the sharpest lens available for 35mm photography. But pictures taken with it seemed kind of lifeless, compared to the less-sharp 35mm Summicron. For this reason, I tend to pay relatively little attention to pictures of test charts, because test charts are something that I never am called upon to photograph. (Nor do I pixel peep, any more than I would pull over to the side of the road and walk up to a billboard with a magnifying glass!)

    There seems to be a subjective factor, an X factor, that makes the pictures taken with some lens-sensor combinations pleasanter than others. We used to describe it as "a good, contrasty lens," but contrast is only a part of it. The same holds true for the "Leica look" of song and story: I cannot tell you what it is, but I can certainly see it in pictures.
     
    • Like Like x 2