X2: Mushy jpgs at ASA 100

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So I don't get slammed, let me start by saying the DNGs blow away the Jpgs....but you already know that. I ran a NON scientific test today...because the description "mushy" bothered me. Enjoying my X2 for only 3 months and lots of photos, I never observed "mushy" Jpgs. And I would not call the Jpgs shot at 100 "mushy" either. But they aren't as sharp as ISO 200 and ISO 400, seemed over sharpened...though not it a bad way. It's just a characteristic of the camera/firmware.

 

I would say there is merit to your observation. But all cameras,lenses and firmware have their strengths, weaknesses and sweet spots. We test to learn the characteristics of the tools we use.

 

 

I agree. And I like this particular tool a lot and for the reasons I had already stated in my above posts. And in fact, I'm not the one who started this thread

 

I got interested only because I noticed with one of my own 100 ISO jpegs what the person who started this thread was experiencing. And then I wondered how people were getting 'superb' jpgs that "even LR couldn't duplicate." I looked at the only jpegs I still had (I normally toss them right away and use the DNGs only) and was surprised to also see this 'mushy' phenomenon.

 

As I've mentioned, it's no big deal for me at all. But I was disappointed that the OP would go as far as returning the camera. As I've already implied, the X2 has great potential (and I picked it up to use as a serious tool specifically for a forthcoming project and not as an everyday P&S.)

 

I'm just curious if indeed others are getting such better results with 100 ISO jpegs. But from what I've now seen and heard/read elsewhere, and including my only experience, the 100 ISO jpgs are 'mushy' unlike the jpgs at other ISOs. But as you say, 'it is what it is.' And personally I'm fine with it.

 

Mushy probably isn't the right term. That was the word that the OP used and I followed suit. 'Smearing' is what it's like (the 'watercolor effect.')

 

fwiw, here's another 100 ISO jpg at 100% crop (and with the DNG the fine lines on the blue plastic bottle cap are very distinct.) Here they 'smear' and so does the bag and the foliage. Anyway, curiosity just got the best of me and that's all. I hope it doesn't ever deter others from this camera, because it's not something that should ever keep anyone from purchasing it.

 

Okay, I'm done (talking to myself.)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[braceman]

Hi,

I am the OP and apologize for not responding back sooner. I really appreciate everyone's help and input. I just want to follow up and say that I shot a number of more photos in RAW and developed them in Aperture. I very easily achieved excellent images. I originally shot the jpgs by accident. I thought I had the RAW+JPG setting on..I had just bought the camera..came home and realized they were just jpgs. To gain persepective, my only other camera is an Olympus OMD and it is the king of beautiful JPGS. In fact I cannot get as good results using Aperture when I shoot the OLY orf. Raw files. The Leica X2 is the opposite. I quickly developed an Aperture preset for the DNG files.

 

With that being said, I did return the X2 to B and H a few weeks ago. I am not sure if I made the correct decision but I was tempted by all the hoopla with the Fuji x100s and now the Coolpix A. My original decision for the Leica was that 1. I have never owned a Leica. 2. I had a special birthday. 3. I wanted a camera like my Contax T2 film and this was the closest. I did not want a small sensor camera again.. I owned the LX5, Olympus EP2. They were great in good light but many family photos are taken indoors and the smaller sensors are not as great.

I did buy the Coolpix A last week and the images are excellent. It is very comparable to the X2. However, it is 28mm and I am back to a "numerous settings" type of camera. The autofocus is no faster than the X2 and the X2 is much easier to zone focus as it had that DOF scale. The Nikon does not. I still may return the Nikon as it just does not give me the warm and fuzzys like the Leica did.

 

I did call Leica about the jpg issue and they were very helpful and called me back. I realize it is a moot point and was not the deal breaker for me as I could shoot RAW anyway.

 

Once gain,

Thanks for your time and help!

[Cheekyguille]

Just shoot at iso 200 then. No camera is perfect, best is to learn its quirks and get the image you want vs stressing about what the camera does not do in one setting.

[ECohen]

"Just shoot at iso 200 then. No camera is perfect, best is to learn its quirks and get the image you want vs stressing about what the camera does not do in one setting. "

 

Good advice.

[Paolo.Battista]

If I remember well, almost all the 16 mp APS-C sensors from Sony are designed with a basic ISO of 200.

That means that you can (obviously) shoot with them at ISO 100, but the results will be always worst (slightly or significantly so, depending on the conditions of the single shot). I tested this behavior clearly on the sensor of the Nikon D7000 and on the Olympus OM-D too (different sensor size but same manufacturer and same ISO 200-based design). I experimented both less dynamic range and worst overall resolution.

 

So there should be no reason at all to use the ISO 100 setting on the X2. If longer exposure is required, some good ND filters can be used.

[prk60091]

If I remember well, almost all the 16 mp APS-C sensors from Sony are designed with a basic ISO of 200.

 

...

 

So there should be no reason at all to use the ISO 100 setting on the X2. If longer exposure is required, some good ND filters can be used.

 

I do not know if the X1 is designed with a base ISO of 100 or 200 - - however,Leica X1 - camera review - Sensor characteristics - Lenstip.com this article was on e of the articles i referenced in an earlier post above:

"The only real difference between Leica and Nikon is that in Leica the lowest native sensitivity is ISO 100 and that’s where the maximum tonal range is obtained. In Nikon this maximum is obtained at its lowest native sensitivity, so ISO 200. That’s why Nikon’s range at higher sensitivities is better, while at ISO 100 it’s Leica that wins."

 

I do not have an X2 - nor have I researched the X2-- but I do believe for the X1 at least the best or base ISO is 100- based on both reasearch and my own shooting.