Jump to content

A summary of problems with the x100s


Mklives

Recommended Posts

In the case of a 30 sec nighttime exposure, the x100s takes about 30 sec afterwards to process the file (applying NR, I suppose). I haven't experienced that in other cameras.

Once again you are displaying a basic lack of understanding of how ALL digital cameras work.

If you have "long exposure NR" turned on an ANY digital camera the process that the camera uses is to take an image of X seconds then takes a second "black" image of the same length to compare the two images for noise reduction purposes. Having "long exposure NR" set to on on ANY digital camera effectively doubles the processing time for EVERY photo.

In this respect Fuji are no different from Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus or any other camera. That is how they operate and is the reason why most people have this function set permanently to OFF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

In the case of a 30 sec nighttime exposure, the x100s takes about 30 sec afterwards to process the file (applying NR, I suppose). I haven't experienced that in other cameras.

Once again you are displaying a basic lack of understanding of how ALL digital cameras work.

If you have "long exposure NR" turned on an ANY digital camera the process that the camera uses is to take an image of X seconds then takes a second "black" image of the same length to compare the two images for noise reduction purposes. Having "long exposure NR" set to on on ANY digital camera effectively doubles the processing time for EVERY photo.

In this respect Fuji are no different from Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus or any other camera. That is how they operate and is the reason why most people have this function set permanently to OFF.

Oh I didn't know that. Must have been set to on when I bought it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turning long exp NR off has solved both these issues. It seems the camera was applying long exposure NR even to short exposures, which is what was causing the delays between shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The camera taking 2 seconds to process after you shoot raw isn't converting to jpg - which it does very quickly. It's storing the raw to the sd card. You can only improve the time by putting in a faster sd card. The same card in a different camera that shoots the same size raw files will be equally slow.

The reason it saves a jpg preview is that a raw file is undisplayable. It's B&W data taken through the color matrix filter. It must be demosaiced and converter to a final image to display on screen. That final image is saved in the jpg preview so that the image can be called up quickly instead of having to demosaic each time it's displayed.

The convert to DNG step is unnecessary. All it does is run the file through Adobe raw converter and spit out a file in DNG format. But the fact that Adobe raw converter converted it means that the DNG file is an Adobe conversion of you original raw file. If you just left the raw file alone and opened it in Lightroom or Photoshop etc. the effect would be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The camera taking 2 seconds to process after you shoot raw isn't converting to jpg - which it does very quickly. It's storing the raw to the sd card. You can only improve the time by putting in a faster sd card. The same card in a different camera that shoots the same size raw files will be equally slow.

The reason it saves a jpg preview is that a raw file is undisplayable. It's B&W data taken through the color matrix filter. It must be demosaiced and converter to a final image to display on screen. That final image is saved in the jpg preview so that the image can be called up quickly instead of having to demosaic each time it's displayed.

The convert to DNG step is unnecessary. All it does is run the file through Adobe raw converter and spit out a file in DNG format. But the fact that Adobe raw converter converted it means that the DNG file is an Adobe conversion of you original raw file. If you just left the raw file alone and opened it in Lightroom or Photoshop etc. the effect would be the same.

Adobe doesn't support photoshop cs4 anymore. So I can't open any raw files from any camera that was released in the last 3 years without converting to DNG using adobe dng converter, even though cs4 is only about 5 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adobe doesn't support photoshop cs4 anymore. So I can't open any raw files from any camera that was released in the last 3 years without converting to DNG using adobe dng converter, even though cs4 is only about 5 years old.

Take a look at "MetaRaw" from the Plugin site. It's a very cheap plugin and it enables you to open the Fuji RAF files in CS4 raw convertor directly. You can also use MetaRaw own convertor but I prefer to use PS raw. There is a 15 day free trial too. FAQ page here with links to download and trial. http://thepluginsite.com/products/metaraw/faq.htm

Vic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"cs4 is only about 5 years old. "

Five years in the world of software development is an eternity. Consider upgrading. Shifting to PS CC is an excellent option that circumvents having to plunk down hundreds upfront for a new version AND the software is constantly updated. AND Adobe offers free cloud storage and dozens of other goodies, such as the latest LR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's best not to drill down too deeply into the OP's specifics: far too easy to find faults. And if he's selling/sold his X, I'm confused about why the series of complaints goes on.

@Mklives, have you decided to hand onto the X?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's best not to drill down too deeply into the OP's specifics: far too easy to find faults. And if he's selling/sold his X, I'm confused about why the series of complaints goes on.

@Mklives, have you decided to hand onto the X?

Yes, I think I'll get rid of it, mainly because I don't like the name "x100s".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canon sx50 should do for a while. You can take a handheld video of the moons of Jupiter with that camera.

And there was NASA wasting all their funds on probes when they could have just bought a bunch of Canon SX50s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To deflect this thread onto more serious rails for a moment, what would X100/s owners look for in the next iteration of the model, assuming Fuji stick with a fixed lens APS-C sensor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From those three Matt's appeals most. The X-M1 has an articulated screen, and while it certainly comes in useful at times, a waggly screen doesn't fit the street photography image. Much as I like and use video provision, there are better platforms for it than a fixed 35mm lens camera. Macro is good so long as it doesn't compromise normal lens resolution.

True rangefinder focusing would take the camera into Leica territory in a serious way, and open up a new constituency of users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing it into a film camera would be good.

The operating simplicity of a film camera with the convenience of digital would be good. I suspect putting in a true rangefinder would be an expensive business, but we can always hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I suspect putting in a true rangefinder would be an expensive business, but we can always hope.

I suspect you're right, probably also make it bigger unless they of course do it electronically rather than mirrors.

Im sure it wouldn't be popular enough to be worth Fuji's while and tbh my X100 is perfect as it is, RF focusing was all I could think of.

I guess if I had to be pushed Id go for mechanical focusing and maybe FF, but I dont think fuji are going there and FF would only REALLY be of use if I were dropping my voitlander 35mm on it so it wouldnt be an X100 anyway at that point. I have no problem with APS-C 35mm equivalent.

maybe throw in 3 free batteries with each purchase? and a soft release?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuji seem as committed to EVFs and fly by wire focusing as every other manufacturer, but some of us still crave manual optical focus and see the advantages of digital sensors. I don't think anyone is going to service those needs below Leica prices, which is why there are still so many film shooters still out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...