1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Fujifilm X20 review

Discussion in 'AP Magazine Feedback & Suggestions' started by P_Stoddart, May 16, 2013.

  1. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Well the performance of the sensor in this camera is quite amazing. :)

    I have seen test shots that seem to be clean at 400ISO, and still pretty good at 800ISO.

    It makes you wonder what a 1" sensor using the same technology would give a shooter. If say used in a CSC.

    It's a shame they did not develop this 2/3" sensor earlier and put it in the X-S1. :(

    Still I suspect we will see a update to the X-S1 very shortly. :rolleyes:
  2. Richard Sibley

    Richard Sibley AP Deputy Editor

    The results are really exceptional.

    The one point of interest is that there is an area of the resolution chart that appears to have some artefacts. It looks like some kind of moire, a very faint curved blur on a tiny area of the chart where you would expect the resolution to drop off on a 'standard' sensor of this resolution.

    However, after this faint mark, all of the lines are once again distinguishable.

    Given the size of the sensor, and the resolution, it is very impressive. And yes, I would be very interested to see what a 1inch sensor, with the same filter arrangement, would be capable of.

    What is great is that there seems to have been a slight shift in the last year from worrying about how many pixels a sensor can produce, to worrying about getting the most from a sensor/resolution with the current technology available.

    Exciting times.
  3. AlexMonro

    AlexMonro Old Grand Part Deux

    I expect it's some form of moire effect. Although the X-trans filter layout is very clever at minimising colour moire, since there is no AA filter there must still be some artefacts at some spacial frequencies, and particularly with a high contrast B&W test chart. It's unlikely to show up very often in real world photos though.

    Fuji do have a history of innovative unconventional sensor layouts, e.g. the Super CCD SR types (large and small pixels for extended dynamic range) in the S3 Pro and S5 Pro. It looks as though with the X20, the rest of the camera - handling, AF, etc. is catching up with the sensor. I'm also very interested to see what they come up with next.

    I just wish my new camera fund could keep up! :) (Though I see refurbished X20s are listed on the factory shop website at under £400 - currently out of stock. :( )
  4. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I have an X10 with the EXR sensor technology and will hang on to it. It seems to do high Iso rather better but wilh fewer pixels.
    But I will probably get an X20 as well ! If not that then its successor.
  5. nippa

    nippa New Member

    This review worries me.

    With the acceptance of the poor jpeg engine and resolution that exceeds what I found , I find myself disbelieving what's written.
    AP has been my source of inspiration since the 60s so I'm not happy.

    I bought an X20 to supplement my X10 just as soon as I could.

    The improvement in resolution over my X10 12mps image is there but not the equivalence of even 20mps let alone 24mps.
    With jpegs that resolution reduces enormously ; images showing considerable smearing.

    The X20 doesn't like Green and jpegs with foliage look just awful. Skin can also be smeared in an ugly way.

    The good news is that RAWS are fine especially in LR 4.4 ( although greens are a bit off ) and the camera is a sheer delight.
    After 4 days consideration I reluctantly returned the camera to my Dealer having decided that I couldn't live with the JPEGS.

    When Fuji sorts out the JPEG Processing I'll buy another but until then I'm sticking to my X10.

    As for resolution...my 20mps RX100 shows far more detail than the X20 so IMO AP has over-egged the resolution advantage of the XTrans sensor.
  6. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Well, for me it does not make sense to shoot jpg on a highend camera.

    Post raw to jpg is much more better for any camera.

    But it could be that Fuji will look at the jpg handling and make a firmware adjustment. :)
  7. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    My major gripe with the X20 is that its IQ/size/cost coefficient (a new concept I've just coined!) is poor. An APS-C sensor-ed CSC that is smaller and lighter can deliver better IQ at a lower price. I had a good long look at the X20 and frankly whilst the lens was decent enough the IQ is only excellent when given the caveat of "for a compact." Factor in that it isn't really compact in size and that it costs too much and it is quite underwhelming. Which is a shame as it is ridiculously good looking.
  8. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Well we are back to AP testing issues maybe.

    There are only four APS-C CSC around, Canon, Sony, Samsung and Fuji.

    Only the Fuji tops this camera because it uses X-Trans technology.

    The Sony NEX7 also just gets above it.

    Which is what the reviewer is pointing out by talking about the D5200 a APS dSLR.

    A CSC is a different beast because it has much more flexibility.

    As I said what happens if you build a X-Trans sensor to 1" and put it into a reasonable zoom bridge.

    But for now Fujifilm will give you the X-S2 instead. :)

    What we are seeing is the move away from the bayer design and new approachs to increase noise ceiling and pull more resolution out of smaller sensors.

    As for IQ/size/cost coefficient being poor I don't see it. A lens for a APS CSC going 28-112mm (35mm equiv) is going to be more bulky. Also probably heavier.

    We know Panasonic are building new ideas into MFT sensors to cut into the dSLR further.
  9. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Nothing to do with the AP test (which I haven't read) but everything to do with both my own hands-on with the camera and Fuji's official sample images. Even at base ISO there is mushiness and smearing - you wouldn't confuse its output for anything but a small sensor camera. On the other hand the images from any of the m4/3 or larger sensor compact or CSCs trounces it. Its only possible advantage is its fast lens, which keeps IS0 a couple of stops lower than a kit zoom, but even this seems to be negated as these other cameras are just so good at higher ISO values.

    So basically I'm saying close but no cigar. It's in the same boat as the Pentax Q/Q10 for me. Perfectly adequate for maybe 60% of my photography but just not quite there for the remainder. When other options are available at a lower price without IQ compromises which are smaller and lighter - it starts to look decidedly underwhelming.
  10. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Are there "better" cameras ?... more pixels, less noise, larger sensors, better lenses, more waterproof and faster in every way?... of course there are.

    All cameras are a compromise.

    The Fuji X20 sets the quality of this compromise at new levels and very high indeed.

    Few of us "need" a general purpose walk about camera to make prints much larger than A3, and we will rarely do even that.
    Few of us use a non high end camera to shoot sport or other professional work.

    The results of the better CSC and the new generation of quality compacts are "more than good enough" in real life to serve our needs... The X20 has certainly lifted the medium small sensor cameras in to this category; especially as far as image quality and focus speed and handling are concerned.

    All camera images viewed at 100% show imperfections, It is something we would not have even commented on when using film. Our “expectations” are now unreasonable , unobtainable and unneeded.

    I am certain that in almost every respect the quality of images we can produce today and in practice, far exceed that obtainable with earlier comparative analogue equipment. With the possible exception of the tonality available from bromide and chlorobromide prints.

    The X20 has brought these qualities into the digital equivalent of the old high quality "Rangefinder" camera, used or aspired to by many of us.
  11. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    Although the X20 test in AP was written by a What Digital Camera writer I thought the review was luke warm rather than ground breaking exciting.

    Although the line pairs per mm figure of 30 at ISO 100 is undeniably a big number, the reviewer goes on to say that "it may be difficult to distinguish any extra detail in real world images from those of other enthusiast compacts beyond what would ordinarily be expected for a 12-million pixel compact"

    In addition the optical viewfinder has no parallax markings and is thus only an approximate guide. The LCD screen with just 460,000 dots lacks bite compared with the 920,000 dot screens on virtually all it's peers.

    The overall score of 85% as an advanced compact camera does not merit an "excellent" rating.

    So all in all not much to rave about IMHO. The Sony RX100 seems to have it beaten.
  12. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    But the Sony RX100 does not have an eye-level viewfinder at all.
    All the parts for a true enthusiasts compact exist; unfortunately not in the same camera. Until some manufacturer puts all the required pieces together I suggest that we decide which compromises are least important, buy what we perceive to be the best of a pretty good bunch, and stop whinging. On that basis we will not all buy the same camera.
    Almost incidentally my idea of a parallax corrected viewfinder is not the provision of marks but a moving bright frame that moves according to the focussed distance.
  13. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I was rather surprised that they had not done that.
    I can only suppose that the frame jumping to a new position as it focussed might be rather odd. But the movement could have an slight inbuilt lag to make it more acceptable.
    perhaps this is on the books for the X30... along with a larger field of view, as was found on Rangefinders with parallax correction.
  14. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    This moving frame was common back in the last century. In this century there is an additional problem. In the olden days lenses had a fixed focal length; now they are zooms. I suspect that a moving frame would be tricky to achieve, by purely mechanical means, in a zoom viewfinder. There would need to be a bit of clever firmware and also a servo system to respond to the output of the firmware for this all to work. When the ultimate compact is achieved we can stop whinging about the camera. Imagine what we would say about the price.
  15. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    If they were to try it mechanically you are right. However all the necessary information is collected for the exif data and for the camera screen display. Only the centre point of the frame and its size change, and they can be calculated from the Focus distance and the focal length settings.

    As it stands the Zoom is already set into the viewfinder.
  16. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    You still need a bright frame system to move, and a servo to move it.
    Also the issue of viewfinder coverage needs to be addressed. The 85% does not seem too bad until you start using the camera and realise that the 85% refers to linear and not superficial.
    For all its faults the camera is still very pleasurable to use and yields very good pictures.
  17. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    Had another look at both X20 and XE-1. The re-opened Jessops at Cribbs Causeway had both in silver.

    Neither looks as good in the flesh as in pictures in my view. The silver, which is metal, has a cheap surface finish that makes it look more like plastic trying to be metal. The black lens is very plasticy - nasty shiny look.

    Will reserve judgement and purchase of XE-1 until I can see a black one.
  18. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Not so.... the frame would be part of the display screen not the optics. as I mentioned earlier the finder should have a wider coverage, which would be necessary for the frame to move within.
    As now the Zoom would be mechanical, altered by by hand in the moving of the lens zoom. All the information and the frame would be on the overlaying display.

Share This Page