Fuji X20 by Sony RX100...

[Puma Cat]

[Puma Cat]

[TommyC]

How are you liking the RX100 Stephen?

[Puma Cat]

It's very nice camera; it's quite small and pocketable. It will fit in a man's shirtpocket, for example. Image quality up to 800 ISO is very good, but interestingly, no better than the X20 up to ISO800, which I attribute to the X20's superior lens. At ISO 1600, it's a smidge better for luminance noise than the X20. The lens is good, but it's 1.8 aperture at 28 mm ramps down quite quickly through it's 100 mm zoom range. Doesn't remain anywhere near as fast as the X20 through it's zoom range. Once you figure out it's controls, interface, and set it up to your liking, using it is quite fluid. The autofocus is really fast, and the 1.2 million dot display is gorgeous.





Pics comparing the X20 and RX100...
X20


The RX100 doesn't quite have the gorgeous Fuji color...
RX100

[AudioNut]

Nice comparison Stephen. I had seriously considered the RX100 to replace my Canon S-100, but with recent expenditures on my Fujifilm system (X-10, X-E1 w/18-55 and a 55-200 on order, hopefully to ship this month) I put off the purchase.

The RX100, with its much larger sensor size, will, no doubt, take "better" pictures than my little Canon, but is not nearly so pocketable as the S100, - which I essentially keep in my car to carry everywhere, usually in a tiny little case attached to my belt - a little smaller in size than my iPhone.

And, quite frankly, I've never found much to complain about with the Canon images. 11"X14" prints are extremely sharp with very natural colors. (With images taken outside with ISO's under 400 - and pics taken inside with the built-in flash)

What is your recommendation? You got me into this Fuji stuff - so help me out here.

[jdandy]

Stephen.......I find the X20 photo most pleasing. Contrast, sharpness, edge detail, texture, and saturation are more appealing to my eye in the X20 photo.

[Puma Cat]

Hi Julian,
I haven't owned or used any of the Canon S-series since my Canon S45, which was quite a bit bulkier and larger than the current S-series as you know.

In terms of pocketable, the S100 is a little shorter and thinner, but not all that much. The RX100 fits easily in a man's shirtpocket. I would expect something like a little Tamrac Cordura case for it would only be a little larger than the case for your S100.



I got the RX100 to replace my aging, and nowhere near as functional Fuji F31fd, which I've used as a pocketable camera since 2007 as I hadn't to date found anything that could match it for quality of color, image quality and high ISO/low noise performance, even though it is a 6 mpixel camera.



A top view shows that the RX100 is only a skosh longer than F31fd, and thicker only because of the lens collar and larger lens on the RX100.



I haven't played with an S100, but AF on the RX100 is VERY fast, and accessing the camera's key functions, e.g. exp. comp., white balance, and varying either shutter speed or aperture is quite fluid.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by jdandy

Stephen.......I find the X20 photo most pleasing. Contrast, sharpness, edge detail, texture, and saturation are more appealing to my eye in the X20 photo.

Dan, I agree. While the RX100 image straight out of camera has more absolute detail when viewing at 100% because of it's 20 vs 12 megapixel sensor, the difference is trivial for all practical purposes (I can sharpen the X20 image to have as much detail, for example). While the RX100 has a Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* lens, I personally think the Fujinon 28-112/2.0-2.8 on the X10/X20 is a superior lens. Having used the Fuji X-mount 35 and 18mm primes, and the really excellent (no, superb) Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 "kit zoom" which Julian also owns on my X-Pro1, I've become convinced that Fuji's glass is as good as best lens manufacturers (Zeiss, Olympus, and Leica) in the world. While it's not well-known in photography circles as the big names, Fuji is one of the 800-lb gorillas for cinema lenses, which have even more stringent performance requirements than photo lenses because of the size at which cinema images are presented (projected).

Also, I haven't found any camera system that can match Fuji for quality of color. Olympus comes close, but not quite as good.

Sidebar:
The Fujinon 18-55/2.8-4 "kit zoom" is a ridiculous designation, as it's a good or better as any "standard zoom", e.g. the Canon 24-70 or 24-105, that I've ever used, and the optical test numbers on this lens are pretty ridiculous: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...t/1540/cat/108

[TommyC]

To me, the most important aspect of a photo is the colour. Nothing else matters if the colours aren't right. Fuji is the winner IMO.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by TommyC

To me, the most important aspect of a photo is the colour. Nothing else matters if the colours aren't right. Fuji is the winner IMO.

I agree, and I think Fuji is unmatched for color. I have a buddy who've I've shot motorsports with for years that had one of the original Nikon-bodied Fuji dSLRs, and he used to tell me for years that for studio work, for skin tones, for naturalness of color, that nothing touched his Fuji dSLR. He shot Nikon bodies also, so he could use his Nikon glass with this Fuji dSLR.

I didn't discover Fuji color until I got my little F31fd, but I was alway impressed;here's the X20 taken by the little F31fd...