X20 Images really not good news.

Discussion in 'Fuji X10, X20, X30, XF1, and X-S1' started by nippa, Mar 31, 2013.

  1. nippa

    nippa FujiXspot Regular

    50
    Feb 26, 2013
    Cheshire UK
    Dennis
    Slowly getting used to the quirks of the X20.
    I think I have a better handle on why there is so much smearing ; for some reason this camera underexposes low contrast scenes by up to 2 stops and then struggles with the absence of detail in the low lights.
    I've read that Fuji handles XTrans sensors this way but it's not working for the X20 and I hope Fuji tweaks this behaviour sooner rather than later.
    Where the X10 is a brilliant Jpeg Shooter , the X20 needs RAW and a good converter ... if you can find one although the RAWs look processed too showing similar smearing.
    DR seems OK. Here's an example of DR 400

    8605726849_e742eb001c_b.

    I still believe that the X10 would have done better.
    And a couple more from this morning's outing but certainly not justifying my purchase of the new camera.

    8605697523_1f1ee024f4_b.
    8605693015_d76a8af7e3_b.
     
  2. Armanius

    Armanius FujiXspot Top Veteran

    691
    Feb 1, 2013
    Texas
    Muttley
  3. garylh

    garylh FujiXspot Regular

    71
    Feb 7, 2013
    Out of curiosity which raw converter are u using? I wonder if the issue is associated w/ dr..

    Gary
     
  4. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. FujiXspot Veteran

    409
    Jan 31, 2013
    Albuquerque, NM
    I'm using Lightroom 4.4 for processing the .raf files, and I'm not finding any smearing in my processed files. But I agree that the jpegs out of the X20 are sub-par. It looks like aggressive noise reduction coupled with aggressive sharpening, a recipe for ugly, smeary jpegs with hideous artifacts. The jpeg only Pro Low Light setting, which I used a lot on the X10, where it gave really good results, is pretty useless on the X20.

    There is a slight advantage in resolution with this camera, but if I had it to do over, I think I'd keep my X10. I find the jpegs not usable. I thought Fuji's online samples were just bad samples, as sometimes happens. It appears that they really to reflect the jpeg engine in the X20. Too bad.

    It's still a nice camera, but like the Olympus XZ-1, a raw shooter only, at least for me.
     
  5. garylh

    garylh FujiXspot Regular

    71
    Feb 7, 2013
    In the x100 u can change sharpness, highlight, shadow, and noise reduction. Does x10/20 have this setup as well? On my x100 these are set to
    - sharpness -std
    - highlight m-soft
    - shadow m-hard
    - noise low

    The "m-" usage on the x100 I believe represents medium... These parms have an affect on the jpg but I do not believe they do on a raw file.

    Gary
     
  6. nippa

    nippa FujiXspot Regular

    50
    Feb 26, 2013
    Cheshire UK
    Dennis
    I have been using Silkypix. I know that it gets a bad press from the Adobe Fans but I've used it , Bibble 5 ( now gone ) and Lightroom for years.

    Just downloaded Lightroom 4.3 RC 4.4 ( currently running Lightroom 3 ) to run some final tests.
    Sadly I took some sunset shots in scenic mode and that's enough. I've decided to return the camera for a full refund.
    The jpegs are from a bygone era and the RAW conversions are little better.
     
  7. Armanius

    Armanius FujiXspot Top Veteran

    691
    Feb 1, 2013
    Texas
    Muttley
    Darn. That's disappointing for a camera that had a lot of promise. Bummer.
     
  8. crsnydertx

    crsnydertx FujiXspot Regular Subscribing Member

    94
    Feb 4, 2013
    Houston, TX
    Chuck
    I had considered the X20 but backed away when I found the LX7 to be a good performer. Guess I'm lucky I resisted the temptation to be an early adopter...
     
  9. depscribe

    depscribe FujiXspot Regular

    82
    Feb 17, 2013
    Yup, I have returned mine as well

    Me, too, for much the same reason. Some detail had the same effects that caused people to squawk about the F70exr, and that was, what, four or five years ago, and a tiny-sensor travel zoom.

    I bet Fuji will get it fixed with firmware, but I do not bet $600 they will . . .
     
  10. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. FujiXspot Veteran

    409
    Jan 31, 2013
    Albuquerque, NM
    My raw conversions look good. I have no complaint there. But I'm a bit disappointed; I expected better, and I certainly did not think the jpegs would be as awful.

    I'll keep it, though, as I shoot raw anyway, though I'll miss the Pro-Low Light mode. Below are some raw conversions. I have no quarrel with the camera working from raw. Clicking on the pictures will bring you to smugmug where you can view them at much larger sizes.

    iso 200 f4
    [​IMG]


    iso 100 f8
    [​IMG]

    iso800 f2.8 1/30 sec
    [​IMG]
     
  11. Armanius

    Armanius FujiXspot Top Veteran

    691
    Feb 1, 2013
    Texas
    Muttley
    I'm perplexed that Fuji would have screwed up a good formula Fuji had with the X10. I also enjoyed pro lowlight a lot. It was very effective in reducing high iso noise while keeping good details. Hopefully, Fuji will adjust the JPG engine and the pro lowlight feature to make them viable again. I guess holding off on the X20 helps my wallet, if nothing else!
     
  12. Penfan2010

    Penfan2010 FujiXspot Veteran

    291
    Feb 1, 2013
    Central-ish NJ
    Ed
    Great light and subtle colors on the last photo, Larry. Reminds me of the X-100's (non-S) color rendition.
     
  13. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. FujiXspot Veteran

    409
    Jan 31, 2013
    Albuquerque, NM
    x10 vs x20 Pro low light in advance mode

    These are both straight ooc jpegs, no adjustment at all has been made. The X20 auto white balance did a better job in the very dim corner of the room. I do think it smooths things a bit more, but it's not as bad as my first attempts using that mode that smeared the dog hair. I deleted it or I'd show it. This object is the only direct comparison I can come up with right away. Both cameras boosted the iso to 3200.

    x10
    [​IMG]

    x20
    [​IMG]

    I'm not sure how much useful information this gives anyone, but I thought I'd share it anyway.
     
  14. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. FujiXspot Veteran

    409
    Jan 31, 2013
    Albuquerque, NM
    More from raw. I do think the X20 is an exemplary raw shooter. With appropriate treatment the files can yield sharp, detailed, tonally gorgeous results. ('Warning! Test shots below. Boring photographs.)

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  15. CaptZoom

    CaptZoom FujiXspot Regular

    166
    Mar 22, 2013
    You know what, the samples look fantastic to me, especially considering the sensor size. ISO 3200 is something that's literally not an option on my FF camera, and if were the resulting files wouldn't look anywhere near as clean). Amazing how far digital photography has progressed in the last 3-4 years.
     
  16. garylh

    garylh FujiXspot Regular

    71
    Feb 7, 2013
    Anything under m43 size sensor to do decent iso 3200 is really doing good. I don't expect anything better than 800. Every stop past that is gravy in my book.

    Gary
     
  17. demiro

    demiro FujiXspot Regular

    93
    Jan 31, 2013
    PA-USA
    Dean
    I'm certainly not ready to write off the X20 just yet, but as a JPEG shooter (with an X10) I am not seeing any evidence that I should consider upgrading. Can't say that I am too disappointed about that.
     
  18. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. FujiXspot Veteran

    409
    Jan 31, 2013
    Albuquerque, NM
    I don't think the X20 is a camera to write off. I just think that if you shoot jpeg you are not only as well off but a good deal better off shooting the X10. Below are two files of the same shot. One the ooc jpeg with just a bit of color adjustment as it was quite pink, the other my processing from the raw file, with "grain" added, as I thought it looked better than the noise. It is certainly noisy if you blow it up, but I prefer noise to lack of detail, as long as the chroma noise is under control. Shot at 1600 f2.8

    First the OOC (with white balance problems I could not correct in Photoshop)
    [​IMG]

    Now two versions from raw, the first with less noise reduction. This is the one I prefer.
    [​IMG]

    and this second with more NR
    [​IMG]
     
  19. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
  20. Deer_Dodger

    Deer_Dodger FujiXspot Rookie

    22
    Mar 1, 2013
    Really great clear images, I struggle to get anything like that clarity with my X10.

    I'm guessing the X Trans sensor with its lack of an AA filter really helps here.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD