Jump to content

Camera Comparisons


eelekim

Recommended Posts

Exec. summary, please? ;)

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

"Well as to make a camera, many photographers and a viable vocal sounds like it does not feel enough let alone used as the main sub-camera. There can be compared with Miller Resumoderu minute replacement lenses can not be felt some kind of graciousness. It can be said that digital camera users can be recommended to consider the next one."

 

There we have it. Says it all. Makes Erwin seem like Shakespeare. :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well as to make a camera, many photographers and a viable vocal sounds like it does not feel enough let alone used as the main sub-camera. There can be compared with Miller Resumoderu minute replacement lenses can not be felt some kind of graciousness. It can be said that digital camera users can be recommended to consider the next one."

 

There we have it. Says it all. Makes Erwin seem like Shakespeare. :eek:

 

Perfectly reasonable. Thats certainly put my mind at rest now......

 

Allan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lost in translation. I have no idea what that all meant. Google translate just ain't there yet.

 

"I decided to see than I will but fragmentary... I compare them a little painful... The FinePix X100 finder like dying... It is possible to shoot blur-conscious..."

 

But who needs words? Tab down for nice comparo pics including the traditional brick wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I looked at the guitar pictures and the X100 pictures are kind of digital, you see "blocks", the X1 is clearer. On the other hand the X100 seems to have a little bit better high iso performance. The X1 picture are more yellow and the X100 are more blue, so this is just a difference in color temperature from factory. The fact that you see more "blocks" could mean that the x100 sharpens the pictures more then the X1 but who knows which mode they used on both cameras. Also important is to test both cameras on a tripod because the X1 guitar picture F8 Iso 100 is totally shaky while the same from X100 is not.

 

I would love to see a comparision with both cameras fine tuned to the best, with equal settings. That means same color temp mode, more or less same sharpness, saturation and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This test just confirms something that I have known for a long time : the Foveon sensor is the best ! (at low ISO's at least). If only Sigma could fix the camera's quirks in a large sensor DP3 ..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why u think that the foveon Sensor is the best? I have the Sigma DP1s as well and its a bad camera in my mind, the IQ isnt very good and the Lens is also bad. The biggest disadvantage is the awful resolution and its terrible at high iso!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link. I am not a japanese speaker either, but the images (to me) tell following:

 

- X1 and GXR show similar (very good) performance - both show some CA problems. Very similar high ISO. Clearly both have different WB. X1 seems to produce slightly more exposed images - very obvious from the "wall shots". GXR files show "grain like" structures in the sky. This can hardly be noise as the shadows are clear. But it really gives a bit of film look. X1 sky at low ISO is silk smooth.

 

- DP1x - the per pixel detail is excellent - the images do not have the "digital look". However the DR seems limited and the JPEG engine produces white blotches on the yellow flowers - not so nice. Also the burn-away sky in the last series is a pity. I see no CA and no reason to complain about the lens. I do wish though that the DP2s would have been used instead in this comparison.

 

- X100 - well - the output tends to look quite "digital" (maybe too much sharpening with large radius - reminds of X1 files before last firmware update). In particular the high ISO shots show too much noise reduction. I like the color from the X100 the least. The lens has slightly less contrast at f/2.0, but I would not call it soft. It does seem a bit softer wide open and close-up. The X100 has also the least barrel distortion.

 

Bottom line (for me):

- To see the "true" differences between the cameras one would need raw files.

- The X100 is a nice camera that would (IQ wise) probably profit from some future firmware updates (or maybe just different in-camera settings).

- X100 is a nice camera, but simply not the "magic bullet" so many hoped for. Keep in mind - X200 will come one day and it will be even better :)

- DP1x offers very good price-to-performance ratio (costs about 1/4 of X1 in Germany)

- If Sigma would bring DP3s with large sensor & more pixels (8 - 10 Mpix "true" ones) & improve the DR I would be all over it. I would even be willing to pay 1/2 of the X1 price ;)

- until then - I will keep deciding between X1 and GXR (not easy at all :o)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...