Fuji X20 first 6 hours

[nippa]

I'm keeping my X10.
After the trauma of the orbs and two journeys back to Fuji I kind of feel attached to it and besides it is almost my perfect compact camera.
The X10's only weakness for me was that resolution couldn't quite match my LX5 but those colors and body made up for it.

Enter the X20.
This is one fast little beast with a great viewfinder and where those promises of better resolution have been kept.
The silver body is a joy to hold and look at.
Line detail is resolved really well but poorly lit areas are being smeared even at NR-2 and my pathetic attempt at RAW processing with Silkypix shows similar effects.
As the ISO increases to 3200 it is clear that my X10 12mps JPEGs are showing less noise ( or at least better processing ) than the X20. Now that's a surprise.

I like my new acquisition but from what I've seen there would be no compelling reason to upgrade based on IQ.

 

[Lawrence A.]

I've only had my x20 for 2 1/2 hours, but I thought I'd jump in with a couple of test shots. Two of of my dog Peggy, what else? They are just quick test shots with no pretensions to being anything else, but they do tell me that I'm going to like this camera. All were process from raw in Lightroom 4.4, which seems to handle the X-trans files as well as it claims to. I added a couple of 3200 crops at the end of 100% and 50%. I think the iso is probably usable at smaller sizes.

With flash at iso 100


iso 400


iso 3200 at 100%


iso 3200 at 50%

 

[depscribe]

I agree. I shot about 150 pictures this evening under admittedly difficult lighting and found the image quality to be marginally better than I got several years ago in similar lighting with an F70EXR. I need to shoot tough low-light stuff tomorrow night as well, and will be using the X10. I know that this is a fan site, but that's the truth.

 

[pniev]

Thanks for your post.

I haven't tested ISO3200 jpeg so it's interesting to know that the X10 software does a better job dealing with noise. My question is: does it do so at the expense of detail or not?

I just compared 2 raw shots at iso400 and I found the x20 to be less noisy.

The thing is I am not sure of is if you can link overall IQ to noise at iso 3200. It is definitely important when you're shooting a lot in low light (such as descripe) but I don't. To me the IQ of photos with clear skies and clouds is more important. And the X20 has an edge here, when you're shooting at 12mp.

Having said that, the X10 is a unique camera with a unique sensor that is capable of shooting great photos (see sardonic iconic). Likewise, the X20 is a very nice camera. Whether it's worth upgrading, is very personal. But probably Fuji did not launch the X20 to convince X10 owners to upgrade. ;-)
They're the same yet very different cameras as Rico already said.

Personally I am happy that the unique features of the X10 are still recognized. The same holds probably true for the X100 vs the X100s.

But...I am also very happy that I do own a X20 now. My wife uses the X10 now, so we're a happy couple!

 

[nippa]

I'm still using Lightroom 3 so I don't have the opportunity to try the RAW files in it.
Although Silkypix gets a reputation as being difficult I've been using it ( on and off ) with m4/3 gear for years.
What you say about the files at ISO 400 is interesting and I must check that out. At the moment I feel that ISO 800 is the highest I would go to as a rise to 1600 degrades the jpegs considerably.
First proper try out this morning and I had to use the new soft filter.

I really appreciate the extra resolution of the new sensor and its blistering speed

Perhaps I should have used DR400 here but the noise issue is making me think ISO 100 more than I normally would

This X Trans sensor is going to take some getting used to but much as I like the camera it won't be going with me into low light situations any time soon.

 

[pniev]

Nice shots!

 

[nippa]

Thanks but actually the image of the lock illustrates the X20's weakness as I see it.
When I look at the layers of the lock I see a degree of smearing and this is the unattractive effect I've seen with skin ,roof tiles and foliage.
Looking again at the RAW file things are better so if Fuji could modify the Jpeg Processing in the next firmware that would help me , meanwhile RAW seems the way to go.
Sometimes you just don't want to shoot RAW as here

Happy Easter.

BTW that's ice in the Pond - it was freezing!

 

[BBW]

Happy Easter weekend to you, as well, Dennis - and thanks so much for your photos and your impressions.:tiphat: Glad to see that Mr. Toad was out enjoying the sun, even with that ice on the pond!

P.S. Lawrence, Peggy and her leash @ 400 - plus the street - look very, very good.

 

[Lawrence A.]

I like my X20, but largely because I shoot raw and do my own processing. I find the jpegs from it far inferior to those of the X10. The Pro Low light shots I've taken, unlike the 3200 shots above, are smeary and lack detail, unlike those from the X10 using the Advance mode.

I'd definitely recommend any jpeg shooter to stay with the X10. Any gain in resolution with the x-trans sensor is compromised by aggressive NR and oversharpening. It's a look I do not like for my own stuff. At this point I'd only recommend the X20 as a raw shooter, where it is very, very good.

 

[MitchGtz]

I haven't had much time time to play, but the size and the silent mode make for some fun with street photography. I hope to play around a little with it in the upcoming weeks to get a better command. I also have a feeling that the issues that some are concerned with may only be a firmware upgrade away.

NYC Skyline by Mitchgtz, on Flickr

 

[Lawrence A.]

I'm getting perfectly good results up to 800 shooting raw, and quite acceptable ones at 1600. I'm not particularly bothered by noise, though, if the color noise is dealt with effectively. Between the exemplary raw performance and the new viewfinder, the X20 is a definite keeper for me. I find the jpeg performance frequently disappointing (it seems to be uneven), but as I almost always shoot raw that is not a deal breaker. And using it is still as much fun as ever.

For the sensor size, I find the 1600 shot below perfectly acceptable. Either version will do, but I prefer the second version with less NR.



The version below has less noise reduction; it's grittier, but I prefer it.

 

[flysurfer]

I have no problem with luminance noise, either, as long as I can make it look like grain. I don't accept chroma noise, but that's the beauty of the X-Trans sensor: there is almost none.

ISO 800, Lightroom&Aperture

 

[ermethic]

I finally got my X20 and did a couple of test shots...

After few hours of playing around, I must say I have really mixed feelings.
On one hand low ISO looks a LOT better than I was expecting, on the other, high ISO - low light ones
are disconcertingly worse than what I was hoping for.

Someone said that it's a camera to shoot raw with, and I can confirm, OOC jpegs are dissapointing as soon
as you zoom a little on details, and the problem gets worse as lighting drops.
Raw processing on the other hand gives a lot more pleasing results, although I haven't had the chance to
test that many raws in low light.

I will probably just stick to raw for now, until maybe some firmware fixes the smearing and / or noise issue,
in the end the sharpness and IQ in good lighting is so good that it's making up for any of its' shortcomings.

Anyway, imho was worth switching from an old EOS350 to the X20

...these are raw through ACR

 

[Armanius]

Those are some nice portraits there!

 

[ermethic]

Those are some nice portraits there!

thank you !

I would also like to add something to my first day observations.
But first I'd like to mention that I don't want all of this to sound like nitpicking or pointless discontent, I still love the little camera even more than I was expecting to...

One of the things that I liked and that I used to practice a lot with my old EOS that derived from my need for low-light photography was slow-sync flash with rear-curtain sync.

As I have found out, this is pretty much not possible with the X20, because rear-curtain is not an option. Only way to do it is with camera on M, with flash triggering before the exposure instead of after.

Also, on A and P modes the camera limits the exposure time if slow-sync is selected (I don't understand why ?!) to 1/8 and this results in very underexposed photos if aperture is set to min.

 

[Lawrence A.]

My own feeling is the camera does pretty well in low light if you shoot raw. At the moment, though, even at low iso, I consider it a raw shooter. The jpegs are just overprocessed for my taste, though Nr-2 helps.

Like you, I like the camera, and am not nitpicking (I don't think so, anyway). Shot raw, it performs very much to my liking for its class, even up to iso 1600. But I find the jpegs very disappointing, even ugly when you enlarge the smearing.