Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Welcome to Fuji X Forum!

Welcome to the Fuji X Forum, the largest online community of Fujifilm X camera users!

Creating a forum account is FREE!

The primary benefit to registering is so you can post in the community, and be notified when discussions are updated.

Other benefits include uploading photos, creating a photo gallery, getting answers to technical questions and assistance with trouble-shooting, communicate with other members via private messages, elgibility for contests, and more!

Registering is a simple process that requires minimal information. Become a part of the forum by signing in or creating an account. For your convenience you can sign in using Facebook, Twitter or Google.

We take pride in being the friendliest photo forum on the net.

Come on in join the fun!
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo

X100 vs D700 ISO 6400

X100

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 videogamemaker

videogamemaker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Local time: 05:53 AM
  • LocationIceland

Posted 08 March 2011 - 11:32 AM

Downloaded this from X100 rumors, d700 vs x100 comparison images.

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

(not sure how long the megauploads link will last, but it's 350 mb)

This is the ISO 6400 images from both cameras. Unfortunately it seems the metering wasn't kept consistent, as the d700 image was definitely brighter, and I think that will give the benefit to the shadow noise. I'm also not sure if these are from raws, or from in camera jpegs (but the raws are in the download). Jpegs are from in camera. In my opinion in the bright area (from the center) the X100 is definitely sharper and losing less detail to noise. In the dark areas (not fully in the corner, but in the lower right of the image) the D700 has more information, but again, it could be a combo of the darker exposure and/or in-camera noise reduction. D700 had noise reduction set to off, and the X100 set to low (it can't be turned off) I think the x100 is slightly behind in the dark part to a lesser extent than the d700 is to the X100 in the lighter part. But it's minor griping, they both look really nice. I would give the edge to the d700, but it's pretty amazing that the X100 is holding up to a full frame sensor at ISO 6400.

Posted Image

#2 JSRockit

JSRockit

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 823 posts
  • Local time: 12:53 AM

Posted 08 March 2011 - 11:53 AM

I actually prefer the X100. It seems sharper and clearer to my eyes and the noise seems more grain like (instead of blotchy). I wonder what lens was used on the D700...

#3 Mat McDermott

Mat McDermott

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Local time: 01:53 AM
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 08 March 2011 - 11:56 AM

I actually prefer the X100. It seems sharper and clearer to my eyes and the noise seems more grain like (instead of blotchy). I wonder what lens was used on the D700...


In terms of detail in the center the X100 wins hands down to my eye. In the darker part it looks like the lens may be the weak link rather than noise performance per se. I too wonder what lens was used on the D700. It's obviously sharper than the X100 lens.

#4 videogamemaker

videogamemaker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Local time: 05:53 AM
  • LocationIceland

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:04 PM

Sorry, it was the Nikon 35mm 1.4, and for both images they were set to f/4 (but the shutter speed wasn't mentioned and the Exifs were not intact that I could see.

#5 videogamemaker

videogamemaker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Local time: 05:53 AM
  • LocationIceland

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:06 PM

In terms of detail in the center the X100 wins hands down to my eye. In the darker part it looks like the lens may be the weak link rather than noise performance per se. I too wonder what lens was used on the D700. It's obviously sharper than the X100 lens.


If either lens in this test is sharper, it's the X100S, look at that wood grain detail in the center, it's just not there in the D700 image. It looks sharper in the shadows, but I think that's more relating to noise and exposure differences than lens sharpness.

#6 videogamemaker

videogamemaker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Local time: 05:53 AM
  • LocationIceland

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:41 PM

If either lens in this test is sharper, it's the X100S, look at that wood grain detail in the center, it's just not there in the D700 image. It looks sharper in the shadows, but I think that's more relating to noise and exposure differences than lens sharpness.


Ok, so the D700 seemed to be misfocused, because the F/2 versions, the center is really blurry, but the roofs are sharp, so I did another comparison. Since the D700 was misfocused I skipped the f/2 images (in the in focus areas the images shared, the X100 was as sharp or sharper) and used f/4, of which ISO 800 was the lowest ISO. This is a direct comparison of the most sharp areas of the two images, and is from close to the center.

I think this shows it more clearly. The D700 seams to leave the images smoother with less grain, but at the same time holds less detail and is less sharp. I also hate how there is an exposure difference, because I feel like the areas of the X100 image that truly go muddy, might have more detail were it exposed at the same brightness as the d700 image. Either way, it's still extremely comparable, with sharpness and detail retention going to the x100.

Posted Image
  • videogamemaker and dyh888 like this

#7 Mat McDermott

Mat McDermott

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Local time: 01:53 AM
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:46 PM

If either lens in this test is sharper, it's the X100S, look at that wood grain detail in the center, it's just not there in the D700 image. It looks sharper in the shadows, but I think that's more relating to noise and exposure differences than lens sharpness.


Sorry, meant the Nikon lens appeared sharper in the corner not overall. Agree that in the wood grain and on the metal parts the X100 lens is clearly better. Knowing that they were taken at f4 though, I'm inclined to back off from the lens being the difference as from everything I've seen by f4 the X100 lens is fine across the image. Big Caveat: I'm judging based on jpg sample files.

#8 Mat McDermott

Mat McDermott

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Local time: 01:53 AM
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:47 PM

[...] Either way, it's still extremely comparable, with sharpness and detail retention going to the x100.


Yeah, really pretty impressive.

#9 videogamemaker

videogamemaker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Local time: 05:53 AM
  • LocationIceland

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:55 PM

Sorry, meant the Nikon lens appeared sharper in the corner not overall. Agree that in the wood grain and on the metal parts the X100 lens is clearly better. Knowing that they were taken at f4 though, I'm inclined to back off from the lens being the difference as from everything I've seen by f4 the X100 lens is fine across the image. Big Caveat: I'm judging based on jpg sample files.


The x100's f/2 wasn't borked, so here are some 100% samples from that image. Extreme upper left is the only problem area, and even then it's fine. Keeping in mind that most of the time at f/2, your corners are going to be an out of focus area, I'm not bothered at all. the center and edges not in the corners are excellent.

Posted Image

#10 Anaxagoras

Anaxagoras

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Local time: 05:53 AM

Posted 13 March 2011 - 06:47 PM

Yes, the woodgrain is indeed better with the X100. But everything below the wood shows a very clear win for the Nikon!

#11 brkl

brkl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 211 posts
  • Local time: 07:53 AM

Posted 14 March 2011 - 01:17 AM

Detail retention is really impessive. D700 should by all accounts win by a mile, but that's not the case. X100 is superior in areas with at least a bit of light, while D700 wins the shadows. You gain some you lose some.

#12 Gareth

Gareth

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Local time: 05:53 AM

Posted 15 March 2011 - 05:14 PM

well, since it was i who made that pack i can tell you a few things.

1. you got it from X100 rumors, but i originally posted it on nikon runmors. there are many relevant things which you have failed to mention.

2. the focus point of the d700 pics was on the triangular roof. I was able to focus on it using "live view" as it was brighter than the front of the building. I was unable to foucus on anything with any means using the X100. I paced out the distance to the building and set manual focus at 10m as it was 10 paces. I would have had to use the hyperfocal distance and hope for the best if I was unable to pace it out.

3. the fact that some areas are out of focus with the D700 tells of it's much shallower DOF.

4. The D700 has less noise, more detail, and the pics are much brighter at the same shutter speed, iso and aperture. The reason the X100 pics look darker, is because they are darker. it is the camera not me who did this, I was keeping the shutter speed as close as possible to the D700 for comparison purposes. it is a lot harder to meter in these very dark conditions with the x100 than the d700. and I had only had the x100 for 2 days when I made the shots.

5. I don't know why your exif is damaged. i just unzipped the zip I had made and all the exif data is fine.

FYI

f/2
ISO200 10" both cameras
ISO400 5" both cameras
ISO800 2.5" both cameras
ISO1600 1.3" both cameras
ISO3200 0.625" both cameras
ISO6400 1/3" both cameras

f/4
ISO800 13" both cameras
ISO1600 6" D700, 6.5" X100
ISO3200 3" both cameras
ISO6400 1.6" D700, 1.5" X100

where shutter speeds are not the same I tried to use the closest possible speed, but was unable to use exactly the same speed.

I leave you with this final pic to compare.

Posted Image

The D700 pic has more detail IMO as the X100 pic seems to have been over sharpened already even on low settings. The D700 has far better colors, but this could be partly due the the X100 being underexposed.

The D700 has less "haze" of "flare". I problem that others have been reporting.

The D700 shoots NEF which can be touched up in LR3. The RAF files from the X100 can only be touched up in silkypix. I dare you to give silkypix a try, i did, and I think the out of camera pics are better.

The D700 can shoot 14-bit RAW which would have got immense detail out of all of the shadows in these extremely underlit photos. The X100 only does 12-bit.



FINALLY

The X100 is a good little camera, but don't kid yourself that it even comes close to a D700 with 35 1.4G.

#13 videogamemaker

videogamemaker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Local time: 05:53 AM
  • LocationIceland

Posted 15 March 2011 - 05:44 PM

The X100 is a good little camera, but don't kid yourself that it even comes close to a D700 with 35 1.4G.


Thanks for clarification, I was just working with what I found since I don't have one myself yet. Hope it was ok to post these.

The clarification is still just very minor differences. I don't think anyone is "kidding themselves" to say the results are very similar. Any improvements are minor, and could be relating to not having a good RAW interpreter yet. A print made from the two cameras would be hard to distinguish. For a 1,200 dollar camera and lens combo to get this similar results to a full frame camera 2x as expensive with a lens that cost another 100% the X100 cost is indeed impressive and more than I need for my uses.

#14 Gareth

Gareth

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Local time: 05:53 AM

Posted 16 March 2011 - 05:14 PM

yes, post it on here. i made the pack for people to view and compare.

it really is a good little camera with outstanding high iso performance. but it is slow to focus and not up to professional standards in image quality.

i think, when you are finally able to buy one, you will agree. but as you said, and the reason I too bought one, is that it suited a need.

#15 cfsalicath

cfsalicath

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Local time: 06:53 AM
  • LocationStavanger, Norway

Posted 17 March 2011 - 12:43 PM

but as you said, and the reason I too bought one, is that it suited a need.


I guess few people will buy the X100 as their only camera, but it suits a need and I think the ISO-tests you show here suits those needs. I think it is impressing a little camera can give out so good pictures and the high ISO will be useful for discreet shooting in low lights. The need for an X100 comes from the need for a handy, smart camera that takes great pictures anytime, anywhere, and that recuires a good ISO.

Thanks for sharing your test! Makes me want the camera even more!
- CF Salicath


My Portfolio My blog

#16 nrecob

nrecob

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Local time: 12:53 AM

Posted 18 March 2011 - 08:21 PM

Fuji has a great camera with wonderful potential in the right hands....
--
Another interesting comparison--The 5D Mark II Fuji X100 Leica X1:

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content




and also:
The Shootout between a 18MP FF Leica M9 [$7500] and a 12MP APS-C Fuji X100 [$1200]:
here:

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content



#17 robert

robert

    Founder

  • Administrators
  • 5,101 posts
  • Local time: 12:53 AM
  • LocationDriftwood, TX

Posted 18 March 2011 - 09:21 PM

That's really a shootout between the $12k M9 & 35 Lux and the $1200 Fuji. :)

Take a look at the Provia and Astia pics. Looks to me like the pics are mislabled, or perhaps this is an example of the possible

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

.

--Robert
 
[site disclosures]






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: X100

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users