Quieter Shutter - in the Fuji Cameras

<p>Does anyone have experience comparing and contrasting the Fuji, X-Pro 100 and the X100.<br>

Specifically my question is:<br>

Which of the two has the <strong>quieter shutter</strong>: the Focal Plane of the former or the Leaf Shutter in the latter?<br>

Thank you</p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

<p>Leaf shutters are quieter...unless the XPro1 defies physics.</p>

<p>Thanks for the quick response. <br>

Yes, I am coming from a premise of 'thinking' that theory, also is the fact.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>Haven't tried either Fuji, but...</p>

<p>Leaf shutters aren't always quieter. Depends on the overall design. I recently received a very nice Ricoh 500G compact rangefinder with non-interchangeable lens and leaf shutter. The shutter sound is surprisingly sharp and clangy for a small camera. Not distractingly loud, but distinctly sharper and with more reverb and felt vibration compared with the similarly sized Olympus 35 RC compact rangefinder (another fixed lens leaf shutter camera).</p>

<p>Similarly, my Yashica 635 TLR leaf shutter emits a sharper, tinnier sound than my Rolleiflex 2.8C TLR. As with the Ricoh, the Yashica body seems to amplify the shutter sound, rather than damping it.</p>

<p>I've had a Nikon V1 for a little over a month and was surprised to find the mechanical vertical focal plane shutter sound is much more subdued than I'd expected based on comments from some reviewers and users. The sound is more discrete than the leaf shutters of some of my older film cameras. I find the tactile feedback helpful too - there's a barely perceptible vibration that accompanies the mechanical shutter release.</p>

<p>Not quite an answer to your question, but my limited personal experience indicates leaf shutters aren't always quieter than focal plane shutters.</p>

<p>I don't have the x pro, but I do have the x100. And let me put it this way, sometimes I have trouble hearing the shutter fire. It is extremely quiet.</p>

<p>@ Lex – Thanks.<br>

Yes – I haven’t used the Ricoh 500G – but I do know that ‘clangy’ sound. <br>

I would say ‘metallic sound’ – it occurs to me that it is the pitch issue rather than the decibles which makes it apparently ‘more audible’, more ‘easily noticed’.<br>

I also understand your 'reverb' comment.<br>

That’s why I carefully placed the reply: <em>"I am coming from a premise of 'thinking' that theory, also is the fact."</em></p>

<p>@ Benny – Thanks. Very useful.<br>

That is also the view which is held by a few other people I have asked. “very quiet indeed” – and that view seems to hold a lot of water, theoretically, especially considering the ‘general build’ of these two new Fuji cameras - I expect that both these camera bodies will be reasonably well ‘sound baffled’. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the X-100 and the X-E1 (which I believe is the same shutter mechanism as the X-Pro 1. There is no comparison. The XE-1 / X-Pro is quieter than my quietest dSLR (Pentax K-5) but noticeably louder than the X-100. Really, you can only hear the X-100 fire when it is right up to your head, and even then you have to be paying attention to hear it.</p>

<p>Perfect!<br />Conclusive enough comparison for me even if the X-E1 has a lighter body and / or less audio baffle (than the X-Pro 1): thanks so much for sharing that, Frank.<br />Your comment about the X-E1, relative to the Pentax DSLR, also is useful to me.<br />Cheers,<br />WW</p>

<p>The X100 is very quiet indeed. The XE1 on the other hand is not. In fact I recently parted company with my XE1 on performance grounds, and the loud shutter didn't help.</p>

<p>Hi Cousin, trust you are well.<br>

Thanks.<br>

From the information here and a link I was given elsewhere I have my answer.<br>

I am now waiting in anticipation for the X100s - it appears to be the 'ant's pants' and exactly what I want.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Cuz! One thing to bear in mind with the X100s is the fact that currently there is no mainstream RAW support for X Trans files. There is Capture One, and it's better than anything Adobe or Aperture currently offer, but it's not perfect. In other words, at least for a while, you will be shooting JPEG only. I recently had a fairly detailed face-to-face talk with a couple of heads at Fuji and all I can really tell you is that there will be "some improvement" from Adobe over the next few months. The problem is that the X Trans RAW algorithms are vastly different from those applied to traditional Bayer output and therefore these software houses would need to invest considerable resources in developing them. The delay is due to lack of commitment from both sides, for a variety of reasons. I'm digressing somewhat from the shutter sound debate but felt it necessary to point out the RAW issues, in case you weren't already aware of them.</p>

<p>I don't know about the X100S but some of the cameras with X-Trans sensors have raw support in Adobe. E.g., I can read X-E1 raw files in Lightroom, and I know it handles X-Pro1 files as well, so I'd assume the newer cameras will also be added in a foreseeable-future update. Aperture relies on the Apple raw converter, which doesn't support any of them - it handles X100 files, but that's not a X-Trans camera, right? - and neither does DXO.</p>

<p>Andy, the fact that Lightroom is able to recognize the RAW files is largely irrelevant, the problem is that the files are not interpreted very well by the software. This is quite well documented and the problem generally reveals itself in areas of detail and texture such as hair. This is one of the reasons why I was unable to incorporate the XE1 into my professional kitbag. A certain communication flow between Fuji and Adobe will be necessary to get this sorted out but the key lies with some demonstrable commitment from Fuji to the new technology. This is indicated with the introduction of the two new impending X Trans cameras (the X100S and the X20), so one can "hope" that Adobe and Apple will subsequently feel confident enough to invest the necessary manpower into building the algorithms.</p>

<p>X100 files would never be an issue since they follow a traditional Bayer design, totally different to the architecture of an X Trans sensor. I'm digressing again, but I very much prefer the quality of the current X100 files to X Trans. That is just personal preference though. </p>

<p>I don't know how you feel about the quality of Adobe raw support for XE1 raw files, but it's certainly enough to qualify as "mainstream RAW support for X Trans files." Have you tried it lately? On the current release of Lightroom, I can get good results with a bit of work. It would be better if they had profiles for the Fuji lenses.</p>

<p>Andy, the current RAW support issues for X Trans are a contentious area for many, to the point where it is very much a deal breaker and I have been a fairly prominent writer on the XE1. The current state of affairs most certainly does not qualify as full RAW support. If you feel you can get good results then that's what matters - but I'm afraid not everyone feels that way. It partly depends on what you're photographing and the output size. As a professional portrait photographer the current X Trans RAW output is untenable for me and for many others who had hoped to adopt the system and JPEGs aren't suitable for many of the situations we find ourselves in. But as I said, users can expect some improvement over the coming months - and let's hope it's a big improvement. I cannot say anything beyond that however communication between Fuji and Adobe is continuing (I have no information on the state of play with Apple/Aperture though). </p>

<p>double post 'time out' problem </p>

<blockquote>

<p>“Hi Cuz! One thing to bear in mind with the X100s is the fact that currently there is no mainstream RAW support for X Trans files. . . The delay is due to lack of commitment from both sides, for a variety of reasons. . . In other words, at least for a while, you will be shooting JPEG only. . . I'm digressing somewhat from the shutter sound debate but felt it necessary to point out the RAW issues, in case you weren't already aware of them.”</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, thanks.<br>

Thanks also for that info about Lightroom, Andy. I use mainly Adobe Products.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>There are several matters to consider and I was already aware of this matter you raised: but I do thank you for bringing it to my attention, with much more detail than what I had.</p>

<p>I have also been considering the X100; being much older than I was several years ago, I have learnt the art of moderate patience – always difficult for a boy – so I would like to be in the position, around March or April this year, to have a choice of either the x100 or the x100s. We shall see though if I am gambling too much as the stocks of x100 are quite depleted, at least down here on our Big Island.<br>

Apropos shooting JPEG, that’s what I would be doing MOST of the time, anyway: but being a Belts and Braces; Anal Retentive; Plan B and Plan C; Double-redundancy Pedant – I would indeed like to continue my practice of always shooting ‘<em>raw</em> + JPEG’ - and at least have the <em>raw</em> file ‘useable’ – so this is indeed a consideration.<br>

I also note oddments such as: (in the x100) if <em>raw</em> is selected, then it is automatically de-selected if the ISO is bumped to 12,800 (or dropped to 100).<br>

But all of these idiosyncratic details are just little challenges for one to find creative work-arounds. And that’s part of the fun too. <br>

The new and supposedly ‘infinitely better AF’ of the x100s is an attraction for me.</p>

<p>In consideration of Adobe and Apple and etc . . .<br>

Well as an example . . . those two, along with Microsoft have been summonsed to testify before the House of Representatives on March 22^nd 2013.<br>

The media speculation – and what is becoming the hot story here – is: as to whether they even will obey the Summons and appear, as the feeling is these three companies do what they like and in flagrant violation of laws which others obey, lest they feel the full impact of prosecution.<br>

So I guess it is an even money bet that if Fuji get their act together and make a commitment (in $ and more camera models supporting it) to X-Trans, Adobe, at least will ‘seriously consider it’.</p>

<p>Meanwhile – come March or April I will choose between the x100 and the x100s – and I believe I should be quite (quiet) happy with either.<br>

Thanks again,</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>I should have been clearer - when referring to 'Adobe' I was referring to Lightroom (as opposed to ACR etc).</p>

<p>Yes, the new hybrid autofocus on the X100S should make it faster than the current model. </p>

<p>I would tend to recommend against being an early adopter of any Fuji camera due to the "quirks" which tend to accompany them to the marketplace.</p>

<p>The rendering of the images from the X-100's sensor is quite different to that from X Trans, it will be interesting to see which you prefer William.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I would tend to recommend against being an early adopter . . ."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>haha !<br>

yes I know - it is tough for a boy when passion sets in - I'll tread slowly and purposefully and will keep you informed.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>I have both the X100 and the X-Pro 1. The X100 has a quieter shutter...in fact, it's almost literally silent. The X-Pro 1 shutter sound reminds me of my Nikon F6 on silent mode when I had it...it's very quiet, but still is a shutter sound (no mirror, though). Neither camera is obtrusively noisy. In fact, I'd say my X-Pro 1 is almost as quiet as my M6, when I had it too (I've gotten rid of a lot of nice cameras :) </p>

<p>The New Adobe Camera Raw handles the X-Trans files very well. I use it for the RAW conversion, then export from Photoshop (where it opens after the conversion by default) as a .PSD 16-bit file and import into Apple's Aperture, my software of choice for cataloging, tagging, and small corrections.</p>

<p>Hope this helps. Off-topic and as a side note, the X100 is a nice camera (and the X-E1 body is similar), but the X-Pro 1 feels more like a professional camera. It's the size of a Leica M body, but all the buttons are larger and better-dampened (ie. usable with gloves) and the Fuji XF glass is world-class (remember, Fuji made bodies and lenses for Hasselblad).</p>

<p>Yes thank you, David, all the information you've provided has been very helpful.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"as a side note, the X100 is a nice camera (and the X-E1 body is similar), but the X-Pro 1 feels more like a professional camera."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, this constitutes a portion of my choice: on the one hand, I very much like the X-Pro 1, but I know myself and I will most likely buy more than one lens for it (I’d get the18 and the 35): but I don't really want "another kit".<br>

Also (with the X-Pro 1), I would be 'making do' with the 18 F/2, as I really would like a lens a tad longer, the 23mm lens on the X100 is 'perfect' for me . . .<br>

but it has occurred to me that the X-Pro 1 would be exactly . . . “feels more professional” as you wrote. <br>

but I am still inclined toward the X 100 or X 100s. . .<br>

the X-100s still not released down here so I can't get to one . . . yet.<br>

Thanks again</p>

<p>WW</p>