Pocketable APS-C: Fujifilm X70 real-world samples

@Angst, read it in context, let me help you.
1. DPR don't produce the best images...probably a time factor in setting the camera right...hence...
2. There are some excellent Fuji shooters who will know what to do with the X70...so i'll wait for them.
3. The rest is self explanatory.

I would love the Coolpix A if the AF was faster. But then the used price would be higher.

CoolPix A died cause its a VERY SLOW camera.
everything was slow.

They gave a very good clearance price. If you got it at clearance then its
a great bargain.
Fuji X70 is at Coolpix original intro price. and is a MUCH FASTER camera.

At 18.5 inches, can't you just aim close enough and have a pretty good shot at it? And even if you have critical corners, unless you are like 80 and can't see anything close, it's not that hard to look at the rear lcd. I have a Ricoh GR and can't think of a single time I couldn't frame without a precious viewfinder, even in dreaded sunlight. Maybe you're use to one, but good photog's can change process.

Viewfinders are a plus when you follow fast movement which does not work well with LCD screen, otherwise what you say makes good sense.

@AbrasiveReducer I think there are a lot of people looking for a small camera who actually understand the quality difference between fixed focal lengths and zooms, but need a zoom anyway because it is more versatile. As far as I'm concerned, the new Panasonic DMC-ZS100 (which is also a $700 compact) makes more sense that the X70, although I know that the fixed X70 lens is optically much better.
So I'm just wondering if the X30 will have a successor with a small zoom and a better sensor, which is somehow what I was expecting from a X** series camera.

What I see from the Fuji X-sensor sample pictures, low-light capabilites are superior to the GR's. The GR is a totally nifty little thing, and I love it (bought it because the X100S was so much more expensive at the time), but as low-light pictures are a large part of what I do, I'd buy the X70 for the same price today.

Always remember loylty to a brand is the main reason new designs are introduced . As it is far easier to sell to this type of photographer.

When you compare the size of this to the GR, it's not the same. I can fit a gr in my jeans pocket. No way this thing fits. That right there is a huge difference for many with this segment. If it can't fit in a small pocket, then it might as well be any camera, because it needs a bag or a coat.

According to DPReview, the sizes are:
X70 113 x 64 x 44 mm
GR 117 x 61 x 35 mm

Not that much of a difference, I'd say. I'd like both, funds permitting (which they don't :–).

Should have teleconverter... :-)

AbrasveReducer- better quality but not for the $$$, rather buy a nice lens for my interchangeable lens camera then waste cash on a fixed focal length camera that my phone already is, or close to it anyways.

You are so right . The phone camera is reaching its peak of perfection and can only give challenge to some users to get more creative in buying traditional cameras . As a user you have nothing to be concerned about but spare a thought for camera makers and workers .

i guess they simply used the wider dynamic range mode, then you end up with ISO400(at DR200%) and ISO800 (and DR400%) as lowest posibble ISO.

apart from that, there is basically no difference between ISO200 and ISO800 with this sensor. unless you want to push another 2 or 3 stops that is.

godiwa,
do you actually title every pic you take? :-)

title them? nah should I? I delete most if they are not good enough but easier for ppl to figure out which you talk about when you describe whats on em

One should not call others "idiot", if he does not understand, how increasing dynamic range on an "iso-less" Sony-sensor avoids blowing out highlight on an image - e.g. in the snow.

Yes - please use ISO 800, to shorten the exposure and don't overexpose the white snow... Fuji DR-modes can automatically pull up the shadows two stops where needed - or do it yourself later in RAW.
Current Sony-sensors have so much details in shadows you can use this trick without sacrificing IQ in shadows relevantly.

@Messr Britton: Do you think they're sharp? Do you see purple fringing?

Detail, possibly, but it's not sharp detail.

Some people don't understand these sample tests are not for professionals , mainly for the average user . But if an example challenges a mind to do better ..... It has done its job buy it and do better !

Except for, well, it's not.

They are ugly and taken in high ISO settings, that shows us exactly and in all detail what a mess the X-Trans sensor is.

I think they are deliberately exposed for their purpose: real world test shots.

Your philosophy of what may make a good test shot may disagree, but I think they are fine test shots.

Nahh, I stand corrected. If they want to show high iso performance, at least find real low light situation. Who underexposes and shoots high iso in broad daylight? At least repeat the same scene from iso200 to iso800 for the sake of comparison. Lenstip, photozone, all take better sample shots, they just don't provide the raw, too bad.

@Greynerd - those photos look like normal circumstances - if you never shoot with other than a mobile phone.

Kewlguy, the high ISO daylight shots are maybe fuji's DR modes. They deliberately underexpose and then apply a tone curve to bring it up and preserve up to 2 stops of highlights. It's particularly useful when you don't want to do much RAW processing.

With all the stupid things one sees in today's world, people won't even notice it.

For me, shirt pocketable means too small to handle properly. I guess it's good that cameras come in many sizes.

Haha, shirt-pocketable... in witch pocket will the pocketability category end?

if your size is xxxxxl also a D5 is shirt-pocketable:)

Nice location. Where is it?

I have to agree that the waterfall image looks darn rough... or perhaps I should say interpolated+sharpened to death. Is this yet another case of "distinctive" Fuji demosaic artifacts? There are some slightly interesting sharpening artifacts in the tree branches of the house photo too....

I think you are expecting too much, I've tried shots just like that one on my D750 (which can recover detail from basically pitch black) and although less noisy and retaining slightly more detail the Nikon does not hold colours as well as this has.

@SSantana75
Actually, the color was crap before I cranked up +50 contrast and cranked down -50 blacks (after +1.5EV exposure and +60 shadows) and then +30 vibrance too. So, now it looks just like ACR edit in DPR gallery :)
However, I wasn't criticizing the colors, it's not such a dark scene to worry about colors. It's the mushiness of ... everything basically, even the well lit parts. Seems like ISO 800 is just too much for it.

ISO800 indicates that this was shot with DR400, in other words ISO200 underexposed by two stops. So the underexposure is -3.7EV in total, not just -1.7EV.

@kolyy
What are you talking about? Are you saying that Fuji invented a special shooting mode to make pictures look bad? :))

No, the purpose of the DR modes is to underexpose the image in order to save the highlights from clipping. This is mainly useful for jpeg shooters - the OOC jpegs are then selectively brightened and labeled as higher ISO images. In this case the photographer used an implicit -2EV underexposure by invoking the DR400 mode and a manual -1.7EV underexposure on top of it. I am not sure such a heavy underexposure was really necessary for this scene, but it explains the image quality toll.

Well, I'm a Canon shooter, but even by Canon standards this image doesn't look dark enough to justify the mushiness. So, the RAW must be precooked, badly.

Which picture is not dark enough? Remember, the OOC jpeg is already pushed by 2EV. Therefore we are looking at around 4EV shadow boost of the raw capture. It is equivalent to an ISO3200 image.

The waterfall picture, the RAW. I don't care about OOC jpeg, I just ignore them :)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3f4pSjoPzBuZ1JKQmNuU1lBaGM/view?usp=sharing

My original comment was that the -1.7 EV @ ISO 800 was too much for the sensor, which it is. Of course, underexposed areas suffer much more from luminosity noise when you bump the EV enough to notice it. I'm not surprised to see it at all. What I was looking at favorably was the noise present when more reasonably-exposed images were converted from raw.

@agentlossing : Sorry, you misunderstood my comment to Mr. Britton

No, I just stuck my reply in the wrong place apparently, due to DPR commenting's weird format. Calm thyself.

@agentlossing : and now you misread my mood :)

ecka84: Lightroom already applies the 2EV push by default, as it reads the metadata. Try to pull down the exposure slider by 2EV to see how much the capture is underexposed.

agentlossing: your original comment was that "underexposing to -1.7 EV is too much for this sensor", not that it is too much at ISO800. This is a big difference. The sensor can handle a -2EV underexposure at base ISO just fine.

True - I was in a hurry and missed that writing that element of my thinking.

@kolyy
It's not lightroom, it's fuji who decided to produce precooked RAWs.

The sensor is 'ISO-less'. It's the old Sony 16MP that we've seen in a load of other cameras.

ecka84: this is not about "precooking" anything, it is about a heavy underexposure of a scene.You are boosting the shadows by about 5EV (+2EV implicit push, +1.5 EV explicit push, +60 Shadows). But if you do not wish to understand, I will leave you with that.

Barney Britton: ISO-less or not is not really the case here. I hope you understand that when you dial a -1.7EV exposure compensation in the DR400 mode, you are not just dropping ISO, you really give the sensor less light. And the DR400 mode already starves the sensor by 2EV of light.

@kolyy : The underexposure on the waterfall shot is 2 stops before the highlights start to blow out.

Of course I understand. Like I said, this is an extreme push, but one intended to show the potential for wide dynamic range capture in a single exposure. For most practical purposes, the resulting file is absolutely fine. A bit mushy in some places, a bit gritty in others, but with pretty clean and accurate color everywhere from the sky to the rocks in the foreground.

if you question camera bashing you didn´t fully grasp the purpose of the forums on sites like this!

@ Misspiggy, sometimes I wonder what is the purpose of the forums on sites like this? Seems as if we should discuss the merits of a particular camera or cameras v. SIMILAR cameras but but so many times people compare cameras like 1D Mark II and a micro 4/3rds or point and shoot mega zooms v. fixed lens single focal length cameras. It seems as if a lot of people on here compare Ferraris to Honda Civics or even to SUVs, both great cars but very different markets. The fanatacism is kinda weird too, as if the camera companies are sports teams or have political agendas.

Normal people are here to learn things, share things, have fun and enjoy watching how photography evolves. Not for some kind of camera worshiping cult or a holy war against sane people :)
Honestly, what do you expect? I'm reading most of the articles here, regardless of the camera brand involved and when I see (in the comments) all kinds of lies, delusions, propaganda, paranoia and ignorance, I try to 'fix' it. Some silly people just love bashing everything they don't like or understand. So what? That doesn't mean they are being paid to do it. There is no perfect camera. Just accept it and be critical, seek the truth and don't be a troll.
Good luck.

sharpness I guess.