Jump to content

A summary of problems with the x100s


Mklives

Recommended Posts

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

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Point 4 indicates that you have no idea how digital cameras work.

Good luck with the sale I hope you don't drop to much cash in such a short time. Maybe you could let us know what camera it is that fulfills all your requirements that you will be migrating to. Another Canon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had my x100s for about five months and have never had any of the serious issues mentioned, especially your issue with raw files.

I use an older version of Lightroom and it opens and converts my files with no issues. I also have never converted a file from raw to jpg in any digital camera I ever owned. You could always shoot raw+jpg, which is what I do and there is never any noticeable write lag.

It looks like you were looking for something else when you chose to buy the x100s. Disappointing, yes, but some of the issues you had (ie. making movies) you shouldve known beforehand that this wasn't the right camera for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point 4 indicates that you have no idea how digital cameras work.

Good luck with the sale I hope you don't drop to much cash in such a short time. Maybe you could let us know what camera it is that fulfills all your requirements that you will be migrating to. Another Canon.

I can take a video showing my camera taking 2 sec to be ready for the next shot after taking a raw file if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had my x100s for about five months and have never had any of the serious issues mentioned

Try taking a photo of your face at ISO 3200. Try taking a photo of a dog walking at ISO 1600 and look at the smearing of the hairs into a mess that looks like paint. Take a photo of a garden at f8 and look at various parts of the foliage blend into green blobs.

There are hundreds of discussions on various sites about the smearing and lack of fine detail in the x100s, plus problems with raf conversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@photogirl, nice examples.

I use my X100S almost exclusively for landscape work. Some of my river-based work is blown to 24" x 36" images and hangs in corporate lobbies. Detail is exquisite. Stunning, in fact. And it's the camera, not me.

"Smearing"? "Green blobs"? I'm personally clueless about what @Mklives references. Perhaps some of X100s exhibit this issue. Perhaps not. Once again though, we're reading about a problem and the OP posts nothing in support.

@Mklives, rather than complain, post some images with EXIF data. That would allow us to objectively look at detail and settings. We might actually be able to help. This sounds an awful lot like classic user error.

Btw, you mention, "People are still having trouble opening, converting, or using RAF files over a year after the x100s was released." Who is? What digital experience do these "people" have? I use both Aperture, Iridient Dev and LR and never have problems. The process is seamless and fast.

Your entire post seems to beg ignorance of very basic camera procedures. As you never link your posts to your photo website or even Flickr images, tracking any of your claims is, perhaps purposely, impossible.

Come on, dude, cough up some examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you should take garden shots at a different aperture.

This one is at F11

Through The Rushes

F16

Pathway

F11

Little Bridge

I think it's a brilliant camera and the IQ is top class.

These look like they were taken on a 6 year old canon sx120, which currently sells for about $20 second hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some examples.

I took this photo from my bedroom yesterday morning. I was unable to retain anything from the shadows.

sunrise

My face, at ISO 6400, with NR down to -2. I'm even uglier than this, which I'm unable to show, as there is no way to turn the NR off, and I didn't shoot raw.

nr

100% crop showing the smearing of foliage. This isn't a focus/dof issue. The point of focus was the house.

100crop

AF. I tried to focus on the legs of the bird in front. Instead, the camera chose to focus on the bird at the back. I know this is maybe because this is backlit. But I tried various time, with different focus points, and then gave up, although admittedly I could have used manual focus. This is a crop.

focus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm just having you guys on a bit. This camera isn't bad, although there are a few issues, and Fuji's attempt to plug its ISO performance through excessive NR and increasing exposure times is a little immature of them, and annoying for anyone used to honest ISO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can take a video showing my camera taking 2 sec to be ready for the next shot after taking a raw file if you like.

Nothing to do with the 2 seconds (although I don't think mine take that long)

EVERY SINGLE digital camera uses the embedded jpeg inside it's RAW file to display the histogram and to show the image on the camera LCD. No cameras show the RAW image on the LCD, No cameras do any processing of RAW images, No cameras operate any differently from the way Fuji work.

That is what you apparently do not understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% crop showing the smearing of foliage. This isn't a focus/dof issue. The point of focus was the house.

100crop

So you are using software that was on sale from 2009 to 2010 (Adobe CS4) to edit files on a camera that was introduced in 2013 then complaining about the cameras ability to optimize image quality?

It is well known that the X-Trans sensor is a little finicky regarding what software is needed to optimize it's output and that was common knowledge to anybody who bothers to do even basic research well before you purchased your X100s.

To be continuing this anti Fuji rant of yours and leaving yourself exposed to ridicule because of your lack of understanding how digital cameras operate or your deliberate attempts to discredit the camera using 5 year old processing software or in the case of the "unable to extract detail" shot an obsolete program (Snapseed) is just an exercise in self flagellation as far as I can see.

Linking your photos to your Flickr account and leaving the full Exif visible is hardly a clever idea when you are either trying to stir or are not able to understand where you are going wrong.

No camera is perfect and Fuji cameras area long, long way from being perfect but every time you post in this manner you just make yourself look silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% crop showing the smearing of foliage. This isn't a focus/dof issue. The point of focus was the house.

100crop

So you are using software that was on sale from 2009 to 2010 (Adobe CS4) to edit files on a camera that was introduced in 2013 then complaining about the cameras ability to optimize image quality?

No editing done here. Crop only. Raw and Jpeg were the same.

As you can see in the link I posted at the beginning of this post, many other have complained about this smearing of fine detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can take a video showing my camera taking 2 sec to be ready for the next shot after taking a raw file if you like.

Nothing to do with the 2 seconds (although I don't think mine take that long)

EVERY SINGLE digital camera uses the embedded jpeg inside it's RAW file to display the histogram and to show the image on the camera LCD. No cameras show the RAW image on the LCD, No cameras do any processing of RAW images, No cameras operate any differently from the way Fuji work.

That is what you apparently do not understand.

Just a wild guess. If he has Image Disp. turned to ON in the Setup Menu, then waits for the review image to clear, it would cause a 1.5 or 3 second pause. However—at least on my X100 and X-Pro1—another shutter press will over-ride it and make the exposure. If one is viewing the EVF or LCD, it will look as if the camera is indeed frozen. Set Image Disp. to off and the view returns immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point 4 indicates that you have no idea how digital cameras work..

++!!!

This forum appears to have any number of members who do not have a strong understanding of how digital cameras work. I actually think Fuji's retro styling and the "traditional" nature of the products tends to appeal to some types of buyer who may not be well versed in digital photography. (I'm not saying this is the case with the original post in this thread - just that he is far from alone in not understanding how the cameras work).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or in the case of the "unable to extract detail" shot an obsolete program (Snapseed) is just an exercise in self flagellation as far as I can see.

Yes, I was just kidding about that photo. I just wanted to boast about the view from my bedroom. In fact, I was able to recover a lot of details from the shadows. The clouds were much darker (almost black) in the original jpeg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point 4 indicates that you have no idea how digital cameras work..

++!!!

This forum appears to have any number of members who do not have a strong understanding of how digital cameras work. I actually think Fuji's retro styling and the "traditional" nature of the products tends to appeal to some types of buyer who may not be well versed in digital photography. (I'm not saying this is the case with the original post in this thread - just that he is far from alone in not understanding how the cameras work).

It would be very useful if questions on digital camera basics were posted here. I for one, would be completely happy to explain as best I can, that which may not be obvious to someone coming from film, or from a simple camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can take a video showing my camera taking 2 sec to be ready for the next shot after taking a raw file if you like.

Nothing to do with the 2 seconds (although I don't think mine take that long)

EVERY SINGLE digital camera uses the embedded jpeg inside it's RAW file to display the histogram and to show the image on the camera LCD. No cameras show the RAW image on the LCD, No cameras do any processing of RAW images, No cameras operate any differently from the way Fuji work.

That is what you apparently do not understand.

Just a wild guess. If he has Image Disp. turned to ON in the Setup Menu, then waits for the review image to clear, it would cause a 1.5 or 3 second pause. However—at least on my X100 and X-Pro1—another shutter press will over-ride it and make the exposure. If one is viewing the EVF or LCD, it will look as if the camera is indeed frozen. Set Image Disp. to off and the view returns immediately.

This sounds right. I'll give it a try. I'm unsure why the camera needs to process for so long though. Previous cameras I've owned did this instantaneously. 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some examples.

My face, at ISO 6400, with NR down to -2. I'm even uglier than this, which I'm unable to show, as there is no way to turn the NR off, and I didn't shoot raw.

nr

100% crop showing the smearing of foliage. This isn't a focus/dof issue. The point of focus was the house.

100crop

In Steve Huff's review of the X-T1 (same basic sensor), he posted a very good example of the way that X Trans renders fine detail in random subjects like foliage. He took the same photo with a Bayer pattern sensor camera (in that case, an Olympus OM-D) and it made an interesting comparison. Both files were jpegs from the camera.

Having been using a X Pro 1 for over 2 years now, I think X Trans is a mixed bag. On test charts the sensor and demosaicing seem to be able to render very high resolution of linear details (horizontal and vertical lines). However, diagonal and circular details become a bit of a mess, and although the files are low noise (not withstanding what I believe is Fuji's "generous" exposure and potentially inflated ISO figures), they can be difficult to post process (input sharpening, output sharpening and sometimes NR settings), and in some cases I feel very fine textural detail such as pores in skin seem to be slightly missing.

Whether any of this is reflected in the results you are reporting I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...