Fuji Early Fuji X20 thoughts

Of my cameras I had the most fun with the F660 & miss the extra zoom capability of it on the X10
I've since re-bought the 660 after it was stolen but use the X10 more, mainly because I've got it & it does give better cropping, but all in all the 660 is more versatile despite the smaller sensor.
 
Lawrence A. said:
The X10/X20 were fun to use in a way the few cameras are, but I am really enjoying the direct controls on the LX100, and the bigger sensor certainly gives it a leg up, certainly in low light and at bigger viewing sizes. The X10/20 2/3inch sensors were about as small as I ever really liked, though I had a XZ1 and XZ2 and got lots of good shots with them. The LX100, like the little Fujis, can become addictive, though it is bigger. They all go on my belt, so the size issue doesn't much matter.

If I had extra money and saw one of the Fujis at a really good price, I'd probably pick one up again, but I wouldn't let the LX100 go. I suspect it will be with me for some time.
Click to expand...

Thanks - that's interesting. The LX100 certainly seems to have made its mark with you.(y)
 
As a matter of interest (prompted by Julian's DP1 seascape with flat horizon) how much barrel distortion improvement is there between the X10 X20 X30?
 
ReD said:
As a matter of interest (prompted by Julian's DP1 seascape with flat horizon) how much barrel distortion improvement is there between the X10 X20 X30?
Click to expand...
According to Fuji all three cameras have the same lens so it depends if you shoot RAW or jpg.
Compared to other zoom lenses I've owned I find the distortion of this lens quite manageable in PP [RAW], even though it's moderate to heavy at the wide end but at least nothing exotic/wavy. In LR 4.4 and 5.7 it is automatically corrected, even if the lens profile isn't activated (not available).
OTOH I had the X20 for a short while and due to the higher resolution of that sensor/CFA combo some other flaws of the optical design become more visible, e.g. the softness wide open as well as some loss of resolution towards the image borders and corners. Nothing to lose sleep over in my book but YMMV.
I'm looking forward to pick up another X20 these days as the RAW converter situation has significantly improved in the last two years. I just love these snappers, can't help it.
 
Last edited:
ReD said:
I shoot both Jpeg & RAW but usually just process Jpegs
Correction for me is limited to Silkypix
Click to expand...
But that's with your X10, right? The jpg engine of the X10 corrects for distortion by compressing the image horizontally, a bad habit if you ask me. Lightroom and Silkypix do a much better job here if I remember correctly - can't get SP to work on my laptop.
 
Not sure what you mean here both show barrel distort but the RAW is slightly more pronounced. (both set to 4:3)

I'll have to do some test examples & compare with the F660

Also on a recent batch on the X10 I notice highlights from RAW are more blown out than Jpegs
 
ReD said:
Not sure what you mean here both show barrel distort but the RAW is slightly more pronounced. (both set to 4:3)

I'll have to do some test examples & compare with the F660
Click to expand...
Just take a shot of something with distinct vertical separation lines and compare the output from the distortion corrected RAW in Silkypix to the SOOC jpg. Some explanations can be found here (nothing to worry about): X10 RAW to JPG is kind of streched???: Fujifilm FinePix Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Also on a recent batch on the X10 I notice highlights from RAW are more blown out than Jpegs
Click to expand...
IMO that sensor is pretty 'hot'; this might have something to do with the 'white orb' situation back then, but this is just a wild guess. Thus I'm a bit picky with the histogram on the X10 and tend to shoot it slightly underexposed with the custom settings primarily set to different DR ranges (100 vs. auto) so I can switch them on the fly without the need for any menu diving. With that camera it's a bit of a constant struggle to find the ideal balance between resolution, DR and shadow noise, more than with any other camera that I've owned.
As to highlight recovery Lightroom still is my primary choice but of course it can't recover anything that's been clipped into nirvana beforehand.
 
I always found the highlights on my X10 pretty decently recoverable, but it is also true that if shooting in A auto (which is usually how I use a point and shoot) I tend to use a -3 exposure compensation as the default setting, despite the commonly held digital wisdom of "expose to the right". Part of that is a holdover from shooting slides, but a lot of it is that I find blown highlights uglier than lost shadow detail (usually), especially in digital, where it can be quite stark. As a printer I always want separation between whites and the paper base. Only the specular highlights should go to pure white. Once again, I speak for me.
 
Lawrence A. said:
I always found the highlights on my X10 pretty decently recoverable, but it is also true that if shooting in A auto (which is usually how I use a point and shoot) I tend to use a -3 exposure compensation as the default setting, despite the commonly held digital wisdom of "expose to the right". Part of that is a holdover from shooting slides, but a lot of it is that I find blown highlights uglier than lost shadow detail (usually), especially in digital, where it can be quite stark. As a printer I always want separation between whites and the paper base. Only the specular highlights should go to pure white. Once again, I speak for me.
Click to expand...
You're not alone, Larry. I print a lot myself (no print - no photography :D) and the separation between paper white and the brightest white areas is one of my major foci. Looking at some of my recent prints I find that this difference is more pronounced than it was some years ago and I also am not that allergic to blocked shadows anymore. What gets me mad at times is the extra work involved in producing different versions of an image for web display, my old Epson and the different print services I use for the larger prints, back home and elsewhere. Some of the soft proofing profiles differ almost like night and day and I'm slowly starting to forget or oversee such things. Add a less than stellar LCD while I'm on the road and the chaos is almost perfect. (High time for a new laptop.)
 
KillRamsey said:
I want an X30 to hand my wife when she travels somewhere. It's got to have wifi... she's always posting straight to Instagram for her website, so she wants to take the XT1 with her (vs my other camera, the original X100), but doesn't want to deal with all the knobs and whatnot. I sent her last time to San Diego with the XT1 and the 27 pancake, and she got along pretty well, but I loaned the 27 to a friend. This trip, it's Washington DC, and when I showed her the XT1 and kit zoom, she flinched at the size of it. So she took the X100, and will do without wifi.

The X30 would be the sweet spot. I just don't want to spend the money, nor does she.
Click to expand...
The one thing I wish I had from the X30 is the EVF. I used to use an OVF but now that I'm used to an EVF, it's really hard to go back to an OVF. If the OVF had a histogram, I might be able to live without seeing the exposure. But w/o a histogram or seeing the actual image, I find myself pulling back to look at the LCD screen.

A ring around the lens for aperture control like the X30 has sounds pretty nice too.
 
Lightmancer said:
The OVF is the main reason why I have an X20 in preference to an X30 ;) to each their own.
Click to expand...
While I love the LX100, which has a very nice EVF indeed, I would feel it was even better with an OVF. I use my Leica X1 with the optical VF accessory almost exclusively, as I did my Sigma DP2. Looking at the lcd for exposure information, if that becomes necessary, doesn't bother me after years of using hand held meters. I don't dislike EVF's; I just like optical finders better. I live in the high desert, and with an EVF I have to remove my polarized sunglasses to see through a polarized EVF. It's not a deal breaker, but it is inconvenient, and I don't like removing protection from my eyes in this macular degeneration inducing climate. With Fuji's hybrid technology at their disposal, it's a shame they did not incorporate it in the X30.

In time I could see myself using cameras with optical viewfinders exclusively, which would probably mean moving to Fuji for my system camera when I'm ready to retire the E-M5.
 
Lawrence A. said:
In time I could see myself using cameras with optical viewfinders exclusively, which would probably mean moving to Fuji for my system camera when I'm ready to retire the E-M5.
Click to expand...

This is fine. OVFs are one reason I keep my Pentax DSLR kit. But somehow I suspect the availability of OVFs is going to shrink dramatically in the years ahead. We may not have much choice after a while. Unless you stock up on cameras with OVFs now. And batteries for them.
 
KillRamsey said:
The wifi only becomes a thing you care about when you want to have a phone in your pocket and a camera around your neck, and no laptop in sight, and yet get all them purdy pictures offa there and onto the innerwebs. We used it traveling by train a great deal this past summer. If it's something that fits your shoot-store-share workflow, that little feature can make a laptop vanish from your bag. If, of course, you don't do that, it's of no use to you.
Click to expand...

I never thought that I'd want/use WiFi on a camera as I tend to prefer to shoot RAW (especially with Fuji), however, since I tried it first on a Panasonic G6 and now with the GX7, I have to say that I really enjoy having the option to get an image from the camera to my phone and emailed out to family/friends or posted to social media quickly. That said, I don't have a laptop so loading images on my computer involves a trip down a flight of stairs, which means leaving a two year old with full run of the main floor...
 
Another cool feature on the X 20 that I've never seen on any other camera, even on an interchangeable lens camera like the A6000, is how you can use the same rear dial to adjust either aperture or shutter speed just by clicking down on it to switch between the two. In terms of external controls, this camera is pretty decent.
 
teddoman said:
Another cool feature on the X 20 that I've never seen on any other camera, even on an interchangeable lens camera like the A6000, is how you can use the same rear dial to adjust either aperture or shutter speed just by clicking down on it to switch between the two. In terms of external controls, this camera is pretty decent.
Click to expand...
Yup. Custom modes on the dial, quick menu, manual zoom, almost no reasons to complain handling wise except for the abysmal manual focusing [X10]. The Tri-Navi on the NEX-7 isn't bad either. I'm at ease with the Sony as long as nothing forces me to dive into that kitschy Disneyesque interpretation of a menu, but luckily there are enough buttons and wheels to stay clear of that cr.p most of the time.

BTW, I missed a great deal on an Olympus XZ-2 this morning. Almost new (whatever that means) with the original leather case for 150€. I never seriously thought about about getting an XZ-2 but I'd really like to shoot one next to my X10 for a while - flip screen 'n all.
 
The XZ-s is a nice little camera. Shoot raw, and it easily will take you to 1600, maybe not at huge prints, you won't have to stay at 5x7 either. The files are grittier than the X20, but that can sometimes be an advantage, and I always prefer gritty to mushy, which is the way some camera handle noise. I sold my recent acquisition to get the LX100, which cost enough that something had to go. I probably preferred the X10, which is one of the funnest cameras to shoot with that I know, but the XZ-2 is no slouch.
 

Similar threads

M
Fuji Fujifilm X20 manual focus
Replies
3
Views
8K
franxblank
F
M
Fuji Fujifilm x20 external microphone?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Motorstopp
M
D
Fuji New Book on Fujifilm X20
Replies
10
Views
6K
Armanius
Armanius
Back
Top