Jo Christian Oterhals (oterbloggen)

Six months with the Fujifilm X100: The shortcomings

2012-01-21T12:29:14+01:00

Since the launch of the Fujifilm X100 camera, there has been lots of positive reviews of it. Although you won’t believe it after reading this post, I have to say I think the reviews have been deservedly positive. Still: Having lived with the camera for six months, I feel obliged to point out for potential buyers that the X100 is a beautiful but deeply flawed machine. These flaws get more apparent the more you use the camera. Sadly I think the reviews don’t emphasize them enough.

I guess there are two kinds of people that own the X100: Those who learn to live with the shortcomings and find a way to work around them, and those who give up. Even though I have produced some good photos with the X100, I have to admit that I belong to the latter group (I consider myself an experienced hobbyist, so my humble claim is that it’s not my knowledge of cameras that’s to blame for my giving up).

Anyway, the X100 is decidedly not a camera for everyone. I wouldn’t normally write a post like this, since it’s too easy to read it as me hating/bashing the camera. I’m not: As I said it’s capable of producing top-notch quality; given the right user, perhaps more so than similarly priced DSLR equipment. But still: Considering the cost of the camera I think the downsides need to be pointed out, so that’s why this post will concentrate more on the contras than the pros.

Design/usability

As you probably already know, the X100 is a point and shoot camera with a fixed lens. What makes it special is the sensor size (APS-C, such as the sensors found it the majority of DSLRs sold), the high quality lens (a very bright 35mm equivalent f/2.0 Fujinon lens), the design and the hybrid viewfinder. I think the latter two are the most noteworthy elements of the camera, and also the two things that have most potential buyers lusting for it.

The Fuji is reminiscent of Leica M series cameras, the now classic M3 in particular. After some use it becomes apparent that the design is not only inspired by Leica, the top plate and the front is a blatant rip-off. Although some of the dials have different functionality, they're made to look like Leica M parts. Take the lever that lets you switch between viewfinder modes as an example: It looks exactly like the mechanical self-timer on the Leica M3. And since the X100 is not a range finder, a flash takes the place of (and look a little like) the rangefinder window of the M series. The only thing Fuji haven't tried to copy or give another function, is the film advance lever and the film rewind knob (the knob is there, only placed on the opposite side of the camera, next to the shutter speed dial where it functions as an exposure compensation dial).

Apart from that the X100 is almost a dead ringer for the M3. In my opinion that's not a bad thing: Not only is copying the most sincere form of flattery, in practical use this camera is well proven and very usable: The camera has an aperture ring on the lens, perfectly placed and easy to reach and adjust. The shutter dial is also easy to reach while holding the camera to your eye, as is the exposure compensation dial.

The backside of the camera is obviously different from the M3, mainly because this is a digital camera. A 2.8-inch LCD screen takes up most of the backside. There’s also a combined four way controller and dial back there. This gizmo controls functions such as drive mode, flash mode, etc. There are also a few buttons for menus etc. Additionally, where the Leica had a film lever, the Fuji has a small and amputated jog dial. What I can say in general, though, is that where the top and front design excels from 100 years of camera evolution, the functions located on the backside are not nearly as refined. I'll give five, in my opinion telling, examples:

After six months, the menu system is still a mystery to me. Granted, Fuji has tried to simplify it by grouping items into just two categories. However this means that way too many functions are grouped together, including functions that don’t belong together. What's worse: In some cases functions who belong together and even control the same aspect of the camera, are split over two different categories. Take Automatic ISO as an example: You have a way to select ISO in menu 1, but you have to enter menu 2 to turn Auto ISO on. And even if you've enabled Auto ISO you can go back and set ISO anyway -- though Auto ISO will still be on, unless you go back into the other menu and explicitly turn it off. What Fuji tries to achieve is that you can set both minimum and maximum ISO for Auto ISO (one is set in the ISO menu, the other in the Auto ISO menu); but why didn't they make Auto ISO a part of the ISO menu, and max and minimum ISO a selection in the same window? If you have access to an X100 you should try this. It’s actually less logical in real life than it is when I describe it.
On the jog dial you can select flash mode; on, off or slow sync. That's easy in itself. But add an external flash and the madness start. Try it: It won't fire! What you have to do is to enter the camera settings menu and explicitly turn on "external flash". There are several problems with this approach, in my opinion. My main gripe is that on every other camera in the world, a shoe mounted flash will fire when you attach it to the hot shoe. Why on earth would you have to more than that to make it work?
What’s worse is that even if you accept Fuji’s thinking, calling this function "external flash" makes the whole thing even more obscure: I think most flash users today will think of external flash as synonymous with controlling external flashes wirelessly.

Third, if it really is necessary to explicitly turn triggering of shoe-mounted flashes on (and by extension turning the built-in flash off), why isn't that function a part of the regular flash menu?

The flash related stuff may not be the most crucial stuff for a camera that’s designed as a street camera, but it’s telling: Inexplicable splitting of functions occurs on several functions of the camera.
Another strange usability issue: Some places functions will only be turned on by selecting them and then clicking the central OK button on the four way jog wheel. Other places, however, you can do that or you can just wait a few seconds and it'll be automatically selected.

Which is it; one or the other?

To make matters worse, the OK button is so small that it's easy to accidentally navigate to other options with the jog dial instead of selecting. All of this combined is very annoying, and a potential source of error if you’re trying to do hurried adjustments. My tip: Don’t fiddle with anything while waiting for the decisive moment. If you do, I guarantee you it’ll either be over before you’re finished fiddling, or photographed with the wrong settings.
The X100 has continuous shooting modes, and you can choose between three and five frames per second. When playing back photos, the default action of the X100 is to group the exposures together and play them back like a movie, instead of browsing them. That’s fun the first time you experience it. After that it only gets annoying.

You have to explicitly click to enter a mode where you can browse trough the photos you shot continuously. Here you will only cycle trough these particular photos; you will never reach the photos you shot before or after, unless you explicitly go out of that mode.

As the X100 is, in my opinion, a camera for the seasoned photographer, this is a function for amateurs (and one I believe even amateurs won't like). In short: Those who criticize Sony for having equipped the otherwise excellent NEX-5 camera with an illogical user interface, should have a go at the X100. It’s horrendous in comparison.
The selector for AF/MF/Continuous AF is just horrible. It's small and really imprecise. You have to concentrate to move it from MF to AF, as it has a tendency to skip right down to Continuous AF.

And trust me: Continuous AF is a mode you absolutely do not want to use, as it's even more pedestrian than the single shot AF. If you try to coach it from continuous back to single shot, it skips right back to MF. In short: Selecting single mode AF is an achievement in itself.

To help you avoid errors Fuji changes the focus point visually from a rectangle to a cross when it's in continuous mode. My hint to Fuji: A better solution would have been to make a better selection mechanism!

Viewfinder

Some people hail this camera for its hybrid viewfinder, which basically means that you can choose between using an electronic viewfinder, or an optical (non-mirrored) viewfinder such as the ones you found on film based point and shoots, or even use the optical viewfinder with an electronic overlay showing frame lines, composition grid, autofocus points, level indicator, etc.

The most basic mode is the optical mode. As this mode gives you no indication of how your shot will be framed, so I haven't used it much. Granted it brings a certain surprise element to your photography, but it certainly doesn't bring any control. It was this way in the «good old days» because you didn't have any choice in the matter, but in my opinion this is one aspect of classic photography we don't have to look back on with nostalgia.

The hybrid viewfinder mode is much more interesting. This combines the optical finder with an electronic overlay that indicates framing, focus points, a rule of thirds grid, an electronic lever etc. As you move closer to the subject, the frame lines moves to offset parallax errors. In the beginning I found the mode very interesting, as it combines modern technology with the brightness and visibility of the optical finder. But I soon found the shortcomings.

As the autofocus at times can be slow as molasses, you actually can't be certain whether your motive actually is in focus when you release the shutter. What's worse is that the automatic parallax compensation, i.e. the moving of frame lines depending on whether you're close to or far from your subject, is so inaccurate that very often the focus point won't be over your subject if that subject is a small one. You end up focusing on something else. Worst of all, you can't focus closer than approximately 0,8 meters when using this mode (for some reason you can focus as close as 0,4 meters in the all EVF mode; if you want to go closer than that you’ll have to switch to a dedicated macro mode).

Because of all of this I've used the EVF mode most of the time. Strangely enough this mode uses less battery than the hybrid mode, so that's reason in itself to use the EVF -- the battery life isn't too impressive to begin with. The electronic viewfinder is reasonably sharp too, and gives you a real WYSIWYG experience: Satisfactory magnification and 100 % coverage -- not more, not less. It's sensitive to stray light, though, so if light enters the finder from the sides, which it does more often than you'd think, the picture darkens a lot, making it impossible to assess exposure correctly. I don't know what could improve it, though; maybe a deeper eye cup or an AMOLED screen in the EVF could help (I tried Sony's new NEX-7 a few days ago, and noted it has both).

If you're undecided about the X100 and another camera because the latter only has an EVF and X100 has the hybrid, don't make the hybrid finder be the factor that swings you in the X100's direction. I suppose there's a kind of irony in that, since the hybrid viewfinder is the biggest technological achievement of this camera and perhaps also its number one attraction.

The lens and focus

I have mostly good things to say about the lens. It's sharp, very light sensitive (f/2.0) and has a good all round focal length, although I think, strangely enough, I'd like it even better if it was a little wider (28mm equivalent) or a little narrower (50mm equivalent).

What's interesting about it, apart from the astonishing optical quality, is that the lens provides the shutter mechanism: It incorporates a leaf shutter: The lens uses its aperture blades as the shutter. This brings two good things to the table: One, the camera can sync the flash at almost any shutter speed -- very useful when trying fill flash in bright daylight. Two, the camera's shutter is virtually inaudible. No one can hear you shoot photos, not even yourself if there's a little noise in the surroundings.

Combine the extremely high optical quality and light sensitivity with a sensor with equally good low ISO capabilities, and you have a veritable prince of darkness in your hands (if you get it to autofocus in the dark, that is).

However very few people have commented on the complication introduced by the leaf shutter. One is that the shutter is unable to shoot at anything shorter than 1/1000 wide open; and not shorter than 1/2000 at f/2.8. I've never seen any explanation as to why, but I guess the shutter/aperture blades must travel too large a distance at f/2.0 and f/2.8 to actually be able to complete the exposure in anything less than 1/1000 (1/2000 at f/2.8). As the large aperture of the lens is something people buy this camera to use, this is a letdown. To compensate for this Fuji has equipped the lens with a built in 3 stop neutral density filter, so that you'll still be able to shoot at large apertures in daytime. But again the usability of the camera is less than optimal: You have to wade trough the complicated menu systems to turn this on and off. (You should know that the ND filter, as well as ISO and a few other things, is possible to set to a user programmable function button).

If the autofocus speed is caused by the lens itself or the contrast based focus system -- or a combination -- I don't know. Under optimal conditions (strangely enough it's difficult to say what those exactly are, as focus reliability is, literally, a hit and miss affair) autofocus speed is just fine. But sometimes, even when you point the lens at areas with good contrast, the camera seems unable to focus or focus very slowly. I have a feeling that it gets problems when the area has too much contrast, i.e. the area has bright spots. And if you try to focus closer than 0,8 meter, i.e. within the macro range of the lens, it'll be dead slow no matter what. For some reason the slowness in macro range is even worse if you try to focus manually: It takes dozens of turns of the focus ring to move focus from 0.5 meters to the closest range, 0.1 meters.

Focus simply isn't the X100's strong suit. This is a big, big, BIG shame, as it makes a camera seemingly designed for street photography not very suited for that very type of photography.

A minor thing you should know is that the lens is very flare prone. I think flare is a consequence of the pancake design of the lens. Flare can be used for artistic purposes, of course, but mostly flare reduces contrast and thus image quality. You should also know that the already unreliable auto focus gets even less reliable when flare appears. So don’t skimp: buy the lens hood (I didn’t but should have)!

Conclusion?

It’s not easy to conclude here. I am, as I said in the beginning, a X100 «quitter». And I also have to repeat that the image quality is top notch. But an unusually inconsistent and confusing user interface and a, by modern standards, very unreliable autofocus, makes the X100 an «acquired taste» at best.

My suggestion to you after all this is that if you’re considering the camera, see if any of your friends own one. If you’re that lucky, call your friend and ask to borrow the X100 for a few days. If you feel you’re able to live with the camera despite its quirks, buy one. If not, keep looking for your dream camera.

At the top of this post I've embedded a gallery of 40-something photos taken with the X100. Please browse trough it to get an impression of what the camera can produce. I think that shows that despite the shortcomings I've laid out here, one can't complain about the technical quality of the photos the camera produces. Please note that all of these photos were shot as JPEG, but that some are post processed in one way or another (black and white, saturation, contrast, etc.)

"Disclosure"

I’ve used Canon (D)SLRs since 1991. I’ve always had a «small» camera in addition to the SLR; a Konica Hexar in the film days and a Sony NEX-5 in the digital age. I loved both of them; the NEX in particular was a really great camera, but I got an X100 instead because I wanted a small camera with a standard flash shoe, and because it reminded me of the Hexar. Yes, I guess I’m a nostalgic :-)

A sneak peek at the Canon Powershot G1X

2012-01-18T21:25:03+01:00

I got to play around with the soon-to-be-released Canon Powershot G1X on Saturday. This is a new camera in the now almost legendary G range of "pro" point and shoot cameras from Canon.

The series has so far had 11 iterations. One version usually differs only marginally from the previous, although if you look at all of them at once you will see that the evolution has been significant from the first G camera to the last G12. This model, however, is if not cosmetically then technically very different from any previous G camera -- including the G12.

At the base of the G1X you'll find an 1,5 inch sensor, vastly bigger than the 1/2.33" and 1/1.5" sensors powering the previous versions. Although Canon doesn't say it explicitly, the G1X sensor is more or less the same size as the 4/3 sensors powering the micro four thirds mirrorless cameras from Olympus and Panasonic, and also the DSLR cameras from Olympus. (Yes, I know that the sensors are not 100 % identical in size, but close enough that I think the difference is academic at best)

What this means is, in short, that the G1X promises SLR level image quality from a camera not much larger than yesterday's point and shoot cameras.

So, does it deliver on that promise?

Since I had the camera for only a few hours and hardly got to scratch the surface of what it can do, I think it'd be unfair of me to pass any bombastic judgement on the IQ now. What I can say, however, is that based on what I saw, the camera produces nice images. The JPEG files, as produced by the camera in the standard setting, are in my opinion very conservative. I.e. they're a little flat for my taste. But this also means that the JPEGs have plenty of room for post processing.

As you can see on the right here, the slight flatness is easily remedied (click on the photo to see a larger version or click here). Here you can see the photo as it looked as a straight out the camera JPEG, and also after being run trough Canon's DPP software for RAW conversion (mostly exposure related: I had slightly overexposed this file; then I converted to 16 bit TIFF and finished contrast, sharpening, etc., in Lightroom 4).

Based on what I could achieve by processing the RAW files trough Canon's own software, I'd say that there are plenty of room to produce well saturated and contrasty files (the photo at the beginning of this post is processed from RAW). If you prefer shooting JPEG only, I've been told that there's an option to upload different picture styles to camera using the USB cable and some piece of software on the CD (I didn't spend enough time with the camera to verify this).

If not a prince of darkness, then at least a baron of it...

One thing is for certain, though: It delivers *very* well when it comes to high ISO. I did a quick comparison to my Olympus E-PM1 micro four thirds camera. If you click on the figure on the right here (or here), you can see a comparison of 100 percent crops of those images.

A quick note on how I shot these: I set both cameras to JPEG, standard settings, since I didn't have a RAW software that can handle RAW files from both cameras. That's a little problematic, though, since the JPEG engines probably have different levels of sharpness, contrast, saturation, white balance interpretation, etc. I'm sure many of you will spot those differences before you spot the ISO differences. So have that in mind when looking at the comparison.

My subjective view is that the G1X has the edge from ISO 1600. After ISO 1600 the E-PM1 starts falls apart. First when it comes to color, and then when it comes to detail. In comparison the G1X keeps going impressively until ISO 6400. It's not that it's noise free at that point, but not bad either. As for ISO 12800 I wouldn't use it for serious stuff, but I'd say it would be usable in a pinch. At that point the E-PM1 files has long since lost not only detail but colors are way off. Considering that the two sensors are just about identical in size, and the Canon's sensor has a higher resolution to boot, I'd say the G1X delivers very well!

It doesn't seem to be as good as the EOS 5D mark II, and I didn't expect it to be either. But it's certainly not that much worse either. In all I'm impressed of how good the G1X actually is when it comes to high ISO.

High speed flash sync

I haven't used the G series since the mid-2000's. At that time I wasn't too interested in flash photography, so I actually don't know whether the high speed flash sync capability of the G1X is new or not. In any case I was impressed by the fact that the camera can sync flash up to a shutter speed of 1/2000.

The photo at the top of this blog post was taken using the built-in flash at 1/500. It enabled me to preserve color in the sky while getting detail in the boy at the same time.

The camera also seemed to be good at fill-flash, as the photos came out with a good balance between ambient light and flash when I tried it (click on the photo or click here for a larger version).

I also shot photos consisting mainly of highly reflective surfaces (snow and white cardboard), and the fill flash still exposed impressively well.

I'm looking forward to be able to continue testing this feature when the camera is officially released. Based on my initial tests this little camera seemed to outdo the Canon EOS 5D mark II and (the aging) Speedlite 550EX combination I had for three years (a hit and miss combination to be quite honest).

If you own flashes in Canon's Speedlite range, please note that according to DPReview flash sync maxes out at 1/250 when using external flash. Why there's a difference between the built-in and an external flash when it comes to this, I don't know. It sure'd be nice to have a camera that could sync external flashes at almost any shutter speed without having to resort to the high speed stroboscopic mode, a mode I personally have never gotten to expose well.

The strange business of the minimum focusing distance

What surprised me the most was the close focus ability of the camera. In the beginning I thought the camera had the worst contrast based autofocus I've encountered, including the abysmal Fuji X100. But after a while of playing around I understood two things:

Unless you're resorting to a dedicated macro mode, close focusing isn't too good to begin with.
What the nearest focus distance actually is, varies according to zoom level.

Does this sound confusing? Well, I'm not trying to be too recursive here, but maybe that's because it's just as confusing as it sounds.

Have a look at the graph on the right (click on it to see it larger). The blue dots shows the nearest you can focus at a given focal length. As you can see this varies from 40 cm at 28mm to 150cm at 70mm. It stays at 150cm until you reach the end of the zoom range, where it drops to 130cm at 112mm.

I guess this may be a consequence of the lens' compactness when the camera is turned off (it expands significantly when turned on) or a combination of starting at an impressive f/2.8, the compactness *and* the relatively impressive zoom range. But no matter what the reason is, I find the minimum focusing distance when zoomed in a little to be a slight drawback of the G1X. I don't think I've ever used a P&S with a close focus limit at 1.5 meter zoomed in.

Canon's solution is to provide a dedicated macro setting. This improves the close focusing range somewhat, from 20cm at 28mm to 85cm at 112mm (the red line). The drawback is that this mode introduces a max focusing distance as well; from 70cm at 28mm to 180cm at 100mm or 160cm at 112mm (the blue line).

In my opinion this limits the usefulness of the macro mode, especially since it makes the somewhat pedestrian contrast auto focus even slower. To make it worse, the macro mode really is no macro mode, as maximum magnification isn't even remotely near anything resembling macro.

Not all is bad, however: If you're the kind of person that likes to put the camera on "GREEN" and shoot away, you won't find this limiting at all: It seemed to me as if the camera understood which mode to choose automatically, and that certainly takes some of the hassle out of it. My suggestion would be to introduce a focus mode with automatic detection of macro/not macro in the PASM modes as well.

Final words

Overall I'm positive, though. The image stabilizer worked well for me, the menu system seems to be logically laid out, as does the direct access buttons and dials. The LCD screen is great as well -- great colors and good visibility even outdoors. The hinged construction makes it easy to take photos from every conceivable angle. All of this LCD goodness is a good thing, because the built in optical viewfinder is crammed and not very useful at all. Personally I wouldn't have missed it if Canon omitted it in the next iteration of this class of point and shoot. In a dream scenario Canon would have replaced the optical viewfinder with an electronic viewfinder, but I guess that would have added not only cost but bulk as well.

The camera's biggest selling point, in every sense of the word, is its sensor. Being (for the moment) a m43 shooter I have to say that Canon's similarly sized sensor trounces the Panasonic manufactured equivalent. Particularly when it comes to high ISO. In any case the RAW files have lots of latitude for post processing (or abuse, depending on your point of view), and even the somewhat flat and unexciting standard JPEGs seems to have good room for improvement in your photo editor of choice.

As for size, the G1X is quite small. But it's really no marvel of miniaturization. Just for fun I snapped a cell phone photo of the G1X next to an Olympus E-PM1. The E-PM1 camera body is significantly smaller. Even with the fairly large 14-140mm attached to the E-PM1, the combo's really not that much bulkier than the G1X is when on (the G1X's lens extends when it powers on). What the additional bulk of the G1X brings you are more direct access buttons and easier handling if you prefer doing things manually or semi manually. And the sensor, as I said above, is significantly and visibly better.

The built-in ND filter is an unexpected and added bonus, as it helps you reduce shutter speeds -- or enable wide open apertures in broad daylight. January in Norway doesn't have a big problem of bright daylight, so personally I used it to slow shutter speeds even further, enough for me to do a few panning shots outdoors (my panning technique is not very good, but I've posted an example of it at the bottom of this post).

Some people have said they find the zoom lens too slow (f/2.8-f/5.5). To those guys I just have to say good luck in finding a DSLR lens of a diminutive size like this that starts at f/2.8 and has a similar zoom range. The combination of sensor size and high ISO abilities gives you the ability to get pleasing out of focus background, even though the lens is "only" f/2.8-5.8.

All in all: If you're after a compact DSLR alternative, this may be what you're looking for. Just make sure that you're not too fond of closeups. If you are, you may find the close focus abilities to be a showstopper.

PS: This is not a review. What I've written here are just my impressions after having spent a few hours using the G1X. You should wait for thorough reviews and of course try the camera for yourself before making a buying decision.

Nature vs culture

2012-01-08T23:28:07+01:00

A beautiful almost-winter day here today.