Jump to content

A summary of problems with the x100s


Mklives

Recommended Posts

If you can't have fun with photography because the tools you use "get in the way," then find some other creative outlet. Photography should bring enjoyment. Period.

Or perhaps it's time to reevaluate the criteria of your needs. Some people think that a hammer, is a hammer, is a hammer...but there are finishing hammers, sledges, claw hammers, balpeen....all hammers and most can certainly drive a nail...but I'm not going to try and use a tack hammer and pound in a railroad tie.

Good point. Get whatever camera is best for you to express and share your vision with the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The honeymoon period with my X100s is coming to an end after about 5 months I too am becoming very displeased with it. (I thought I would never say this but its true)

The oil painting at 50% - 100% crop is just ridiculous and is really starting to bother me. Might have to look at the Ricoh GR, or back to Nikon / Canon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply cannot understand how you are getting such poor results from your X100x. Here is an example of a recent capture of mine, with the TCL attached.

Green Oasis

He wasn't talking about web sized reproductions, he was talking about how the very finest textural detail in rendered by the X Trans sensor when viewing photos between 50-100% on the screen (and one assumes on large scale prints). All the X cameras except the original X100 tend to render fine random detail, particularly organic type detail, with a rather painterly effect. If you haven't noticed it then it's nothing to worry about - but for others, it is clearly something they think undermines the quality of the results or the ease of getting them when working from raw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I can't understand how this conversation--started in April--is still going on.

Because the person who posted on August 14 has added to the previous discussion rather than starting a new thread - exactly like people on forums are often told to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wasn't talking about web sized reproductions, he was talking about how the very finest textural detail in rendered by the X Trans sensor when viewing photos between 50-100% on the screen (and one assumes on large scale prints). All the X cameras except the original X100 tend to render fine random detail, particularly organic type detail, with a rather painterly effect. If you haven't noticed it then it's nothing to worry about - but for others, it is clearly something they think undermines the quality of the results or the ease of getting them when working from raw.

+1

It's certainly something that constantly annoys me when I see Fuji shots v the same shot on other cameras of the same scene. Fortunately for me what I mainly use the X100s for this isn't an issue but I fully sympathise with those for whom it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6. The camera is not very useful for extreme close ups.

6.1. The camera is not very useful for taking photos of the moons surface.

The honeymoon period with my X100s is coming to an end after about 5 months I too am becoming very displeased with it. (I thought I would never say this but its true)

Pity you waited 5 months to make your first post. Would of liked to of seen some honeymoon shots :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

After 2 months with the x100s, I've decided to get rid of it for the following reasons:

1. Smearing of fine detail, highly visible at 50% and 100% magnification, particularly of things like green foliage, even at close or medium distance. The x100s is not even capable of retaining enough detail to fill an iMac screen without any weird looking fudgy/smeary areas even in the best conditions. This is not only disappointing, it's a problem if you want to crop photos. It also makes the camera less useful for landscape photography. It's even more evident in large prints.

See this discussion about this problem: Fuji x forum

2. Faked ISO performance. Yes, Fuji faked the high ISO performance by designing the camera to use longer exposures at each ISO setting. So it scores great in ISO tests on review websites, but if you look closely, the shutter speed is always slower than the cameras it's compared to (either that, or the exposure is less bright). So you always have to use a higher ISO setting that you should need in order to get a usable shutter speed.

3. Smearing in high ISO jpegs. This is a genuine issue. Can post examples. The excessive noise reduction even when turned down to -2 is another of Fuji's strategies to win ISO performance competitions in camera reviews. It's ok if you don't mind photos of people looking like paintings when shot in low light. But it genuinely makes the camera less useful in low light when shooting jpeg. You may say shoot Raw, but see next point.

4. When you shoot RAW, the camera takes about 2 seconds to convert the RAW file into a JPEG (complete with excessive noise reduction) for viewing on the x100s LCD screen, even if you didn't ask for JPEG. Yes, the x100s RAF files are not even compatible with its own monitor. Either that, or FUJI is desperate to continue to convince you the x100s is noise free. Maybe this is why you can't view RAW files at 100% on the x100s screen. They don't want you to notice the smearing.

5. People are still having trouble opening, converting, or using RAF files over a year after the x100s was released. I have to convert the RAF files to DNG, and in the process the size of the file becomes 50mb. Don't ask me why.

6. The camera is not very useful for extreme close ups.

7. Due to the faked ISO performance, you need to push the ISO further than you would in another camera in order to get a usable shutter speed when shooting moving subjects in less than full daylight. Then you get the smearing of the jpegs. The camera is thus not very useful for moving subjects.

8. The movie quality is the worst I've ever seen on a contemporary camera. My 4 year old iphone takes much, much better movies.

9. Corner sharpness and corner colour fidelity is not impressive.

Thus, if the camera is not very useful for landscapes, nor for macro or extreme close-up, nor for portraits, nor for moving subjects, nor for low-light photography, you have to ask yourself what it's good for? Maybe for moody daylight street shots, which, let's face it, tend to all look the same after a while. The camera looks great, and is fun to use, but it's not all that useful if you want reliable image quality, and a versatile camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...