Image Quality

[dave_petley2]

<p>I would like to find out if anyone on this site has used a Fuji x100 camera and what do you think about the image quality compared to the dx300s or the d700. Can't find one that is in stock so I can compared it to. Thanks in advance </p>

[elliot1]

<p>You can get comparison images here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</a></p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Always take comparisons with a grain of salt but<a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/695|0/%28brand%29/Fujifilm/%28appareil2%29/614|0/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28appareil3%29/441|0/%28brand3%29/Nikon"> here</a></p>

[bgelfand]

<p>You can find dpreview of the X100 here: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/</a></p>

<p>In the review are comparison shots taken with the X100 and many other cameras in JPEG, JPEG (High ISO) and RAW.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/page22.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/page22.asp</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/page23.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/page23.asp</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/page24.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/page24.asp</a></p>

<p>Just click on one of the other camera names and select Nikon D300s to see it as a comparison. For some reason comparison shots of the D700 re not available.</p>

[JakeQ]

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to find out if anyone on this site has used a Fuji x100 camera and what do you think about the image quality compared to the dx300s or the d700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use an X-100 and used to have a D700 (D3s now). Never have used the D300s. The image quality of the X-100 is very good. Pictures look sharper than pictures taken with the D700. Colors are different though and the over-all look of the pics is more...well...digital. The biggest prints I`ve made from shots taken with the Fuji are 30x40 centimeters. No complaints.</p>

[jorish]

<p>I have a D300 and a Fuji X100. I have not really used them on the same shoots, so can't really compare how one of them reacted differently to a same situation. I shoot theatre (outside and sometimes inside) mostly, so very high contrasts, low light, excessive light, strange colours, etc.</p>

<p>I *can* tell you the reasons I bought and use the X100 instead of my D300;<br>

* The X100 is virtually silent (ideal for very quiet performances)<br>

* I can shoot the X100 at slower speeds without camerashake (for me the difference is between 1/80~1/60 (d300) and 1/30~1/15 (X100)<br>

* On the X100 I mind the noise I get at ISO3200 less than the noise I get at the D300. Can't really say why that is (I'm not a pixelpeeper), but it's an overall feeling I get. Might unconsciously be inspired by the cost of the X100 though ;)<br>

* The colours for out of the camera jpg's are 'punchier' (slightly more contrast and saturation). I think this might be what Jake means by more digitial. All this though in the understanding that I have my Nikon on the setting where no tweaks are applied to the jpg's. I almost always use RAW, so I don't really have any advantage of this, but it might be important to you.</p>

<p>All in all I now use *only* the Fuji for paid shoots where I always used to use the D300. I trust it.</p>

<p>BUT! The X100 is (a lot) worse in acquiring focus, especially in low light. It's also slow to work with, and some functions like auto-ISO are several clicks away. And the clicks are hard to make; the menu button is just too hard to push (for me anyway), nested as it is in the multi-function button.</p>

<p>So there is a price to pay. But for me it's not in the image quality...</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>It's often said that comparisons are odious, and in this case they're pretty pointless too IMHO. Either you want a fixed lens compact "rangefinder" or an interchangeable lens DSLR. The ergonomics and intended use of the cameras are completely different, which precludes any comparison of their handling for a start.</p>

<p>In addition, to do a fair comparison of their technical quality the D300S would have to be fitted with a 24mm f/2 prime lens and the D700 would have to be fitted with a 35mm f/2 prime - and which particular lenses would you choose? Then the shallower depth-of-field of the D700 would mean using it at different apertures from the X100 to keep the images similar. The whole exercise is so filled with variables that it's pretty much a waste of time.</p>

<p>Dave, the X100 has a singular design that you either want or you don't. If the image quality that's shown in its many reviews seems like what you can live with, then it's for you. If not look elsewhere, like at the Leica M8 for example, but to compare it to any DSLR is like comparing grapes to grapefruit.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>I have an X100 and am extremely happy with the image quality, especially at higher ISO.</p>

<p>The X100 is the digital camera I've been wanting for years. It has lived up to my expectations. My point & shoot with film was a Nikon 35Ti. The X100 is a perfect replacement. Even better. It does better at high ISOs, and instead of a 35/2.8 lens, I now have a 23/2, with the field of view and depth of field of a 35/2.8, but able to shoot a stop faster.</p>

<p>Anything I could capture with my Nikon 35Ti, I can now capture as well or better with my X100.</p>

<p>You'll be disappointed if any of the following are true for you:</p>

<p>1. you expect SLR-class autofocus<br>

2. you expect to use the optical finder without understanding parallax error<br>

3. you want a zoom or interchangeable lenses</p>

[JakeQ]

<blockquote>

<p>1. you expect SLR-class autofocus<br />2. you expect to use the optical finder without understanding parallax error<br />3. you want a zoom or interchangeable lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>4. you prefer to develop raw files in Capture NX2 ;-)</p>

[rossb]

<p> I like to determine image quality in print which is the final form of a photograph. </p>

[williamchuttonjr]

I own a D300, D700 and a X100.

 

I will restrict my comments to,image quality. The x100's RAW files are significantly better than the D300's. The signal-

to-noise ratio difference is noticeable at ISO 800 and 1600. The X100 has better dynamic range as well. The D700

outperforms the X100. I must say the X100's SNR and dynamic range are much closer to the D700's performance

than I anticipated.

 

The X100 exhibits much lower levesl of artifacts due to over exposure compared to the D300 with any of the numerous

Nikkor lens I own. It is rare to see purple fringing from the X100. In fact, the X100 sensor handles over exposure a bit

better than the D700. Likewise, I notice very low levels of lateral and longitudinal CSA compared to the D300 with any

lens I own. The D700 has superior CSA performance with the same F mount lenses.

 

However the X100 does have a lens problem when point-light sources are grossly over exposed. This behavior is

most commonly observed at night when bright light sources are present. The solution is to be mindful of this issue and

minimize the over exposure of point-source lights. I usually reduce exposure by 2/3 to 1 stop.

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The x100's RAW files are significantly better than the D300's. The signal- to-noise ratio difference is noticeable at ISO 800 and 1600. The X100 has better dynamic range as well. The D700 outperforms the X100. I must say the X100's SNR and dynamic range are much closer to the D700's performance than I anticipated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nobody should be surprised by that. Both the D300/D300S and D700 are over-4-year-old designs besed on the D300 and D3 simultaneiously announced back in 2007. The X100 was announced last year. If you look into the D7000, which was also announced last year, it also beats the D300 easily and is approaching the D3/D700, which have been superseded by the D3S.</p>

<p>Another part of the comparison is lenses. Your result will also depend on which lenses you put on the D300 and D700.</p>

<p>But whether you should get a X100 should mainly based on whether you prefer the type of camera it is. As long as you mount a decent lens on them, most modern DSLRs will deliver good images. The follow behind the camera has far more to do with your final results.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I agree that the way to choose camera gear is to have a firm idea of how you're going to use it. If you are wanting to photo small nervous birds, a D300 + 600mm of lens will likely give you more success. OTOH, if you intend to take candid photos walking around Berlin I'd rather be carrying an X100 than a 600mm lens. Extreme examples, but you get the idea. First decide what kind of photos you want to take, where, and how, and then start looking for the gear that will best deliver that.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[mcclayton]

<p>If you want to discuss superior image quality, you should be discussing Phase one and Leaf<br>

not puny 36x24 24mg sensors. What's that you say..? They're 40k..? <br>

Never mind</p>