xdayv
Top Veteran
- Location
- Tacloban City, Philippines
- Name
- Dave
Hi. I would be interested to know what are your thoughts and experiences about the high ISO improvements of the X100s over the X100?
In my experience, its a stop or nearly a stop better. The X100 was very good at ISO 3200 and was useable but pretty rough at 6400. The X-Pro, X-E1, and X100s, with the X-Trans sensor are all quite good at 6400 and sort of useable but rough at 12,800 (which isn't a native ISO - its a jpeg only option). There's a question of how these ISO values compare to other cameras, but clearly they're pretty comparable between the X100 and newer X-Trans Fujis.
So, I'd say about a stop, give or take.
-Ray
I find X100S to underexpose up to 2/3 stop compared to X100 with equal ISO, aperture and shutter speed. Taking that into account, I am not sure how much improvement X100S is in terms if image quality. It also looks as X100S has more aggressive NR than X100. I have just compared up to ISO 3200.
That's interesting. We had a recent discussion of Fuji ISO inflation and I'd seen it with the X-Pro and (to a slightly greater extent with the X100s). I never noticed anything that gave me any reason to do any comparisons when I had the X100, but given that it was a Bayer sensor, maybe the changes in the way it exposes at a given ISO started with the X-Trans sensor?
-Ray
Thanks Ray. Interesting thread. It only raises my curiousity whether there is any difference between the X-Trans generation I in X-Pro1/XE-1 and II in X100S regarding higher ISO and the noise reduction, even in RAW? I don't recall posts anywhere complaining about this "plastic" skin effect for X-Pro1/X-E1.