Updated my Fuji X100 Review with more samples & video!

More Fuji X100 Video & Image samples!

Hello everyone! Hope you are all having a great day and with the weekend right around the corner I bet you all are. I went out today with the X100 to try and get ANYTHING on video so I could put together more sample video footage. I have to say that the X100, even with its limitations of no image stabilization and no manual focus during video (fix this Fuji!) the lens is just wonderful when shooting video wide open.

It’s no Canon 5D or 7D in the video department but I have to say that I have been getting nicer looking video (color and DOF wise) than the Panasonic GH2 I have here. I’ll say it now, not a fan of the GH2. Not sure what all the hubbub is about, or why there is a wait for this camera but I have been unable to get anything nice video or photo wise with it. Seems noisy in the shadows and the color…not my thing. I preferred the little G2 in every way I think.

I just wanted to let everyone know that I updated my Fuji X100 review with a few new images and the video, that I am also posting here. I also wrote a short addition to the review about shooting with a 35mm focal length and why I find it liberating. That is at the bottom after the X200 mock-up. You can read and see the new stuff in the review HERE.

Here are a couple of snaps I shot today with the X100 as well as the short video clip samples…

as always, click on the images to see them larger and higher resolution.


[ad#Adsense Blog Sq Embed Image]


  1. Very interesting topic and love to share my cents of Leica, X1, M9 and X100. It maybe not related to what you guys talking about 3D or DOF tech stuffs but I guess it is just same discussion which one is better or which one should I buy.

    For image quality and character, my preference is always Leica ( M9 full frame ) 35mm photos. bought the X100 is simply because I cannot afford a M9.

    People who vote for X1 will not be wrong because you can’t go wrong with the image produced by Leica lens. Don’t waste your time pixel peer and side by side. Is it worth for the price while X100 is much cheaper ? < It depends on how much you can see the difference between the photos produced by these 2 cameras. It is also depends on how you see the extra bonus given by X100. Leica lens is unique and it is no question here, not because the red dot or the name Leica. You can stop here if you don't agree, go and buy X100 before it is out of stock again.

    My preference is the jpeg colors produced by X100 is too punchy especially if you choose Vevia or Astia film modes. Astia is supposed to be the least contrast and softest but Fuji mixed up with Provia. What I found is Provia produces the most natural and true colors as the scene but contrast is too low I don't like it. In the camera menu, there are options to fine tune the colors, sharpness, shadows & etc. so you will have to tweak to get a result that you prefer.

    If you ask me why I choose X100 but not X1, I will tell you that I really can't see a big difference in terms of the image quality. I'm not expert enough to judge which one is better. I can only tell you 3 things ; 1st is the colors of jpeg are obviously different, 2nd is you won't go wrong with Leica when talking about image quality and 3rd is Fuji Super EBC lens is considered as good and sharp as Carl Zeiss T* lens.

    People has been doing compares between Fuji Super EBC & Carl Zeiss T* but you will hardly see people compares Carl Zeiss & Leica, it is no meaning because they are obviously different things. So I think if you would love Carl Zeiss, you may find yourself like Fuji Super EBC as well but if you only like what Leica lens produces, I believe there will be no other alternative. What I say here doesn't mean don't buy anything other than Leica, you can always pick up a Lomo or iPhone and having other kind of fun. If you know how to appreciate different things and styles, you will know what I talk about here.

    I will also tell you X1 is too expensive for me. No problem I can afford to pay more but X1 is just too plain for the money I have to devote into a DC. In my mind, I think DC should be able to do something more than my film cams.

    I can also tell you I'm died for M9 but I just cannot afford to invest 7K+ lenses in reality and I know there are always something better coming out next. Now it is the de-bagded M9p and maybe M10 next year. So it is expensive to own a full frame Leica DC to see the real unique quality it is capable, and it is even more expensive if you would like to keep your model to be the most updated one. If now you can just afford for a X1 and you don't find yourself would like X100, I think you have better wait if X2 is coming soon or not.

    Also, if I am looking for the pure joy of of image quality and dimension, most of my full frame and medium format film cameras will satisfy my needs and neither X1 or X100 can compare. I may even think of a used MP if I'm died for Leica. Of course I don't mind since I have all the film scanner, light box, loupes and projector for slides. If you have ever seen slide films under the loupe or a nice projector, you will know what quality, 3D or dimension means. The first peer in the loupe you will say " wooow " and second words you say " so real ". It feels like you were there in the scene.

    The only choice for me in digital will be M9, no compromise, only full frame can get the best from Leica lenses. I don't own any Leica now or in the past, it is just from what I have seen the photos taken by Leica but it is just too expensive, 7K for the body and 10K for Noctilux 0.95, it is just not every one can afford.

    I will also tell people there is nothing more than your eyes and perception for photography but when you have all the genes, foundations and skills, it is all about your equipments and what Leica gives you is unique and pushing your best to other level of 35mm photos.

    If Fuji never made this X100, I would probably save my $1200 and won't bother to buy a DC like this. So I feel like Leica X1 is not what I have to concern before I paid for Fuji. It gives you better in almost every specs than X1 besides one thing, you would really have to find out whether Leica Elmarit 35mm produces better image, image is more pleasing to you than Fujion Super EBC 35mm on a same size sensor.

    Assuming Leica Elmarit is really better and more pleasing but still, X100 is a real bargain. These 2 cams makes their own sense and it is all about your preference. If you can't appreciate X1, please save your money do something else. If what X100 offers is not convincing, get yourself X1. If you can afford, M9p plus 28, 35, 50 & 90mm will good enough, right or wrong ?

  2. Lightroom 3.4.1 update
    May 24, 2011
    The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.4 update includes these enhancements:

    Additional camera support for several new camera models including the Canon Rebel T3i, Nikon D5100 and Fuji FinePix X100
    Corrections for issues introduced in previous versions of Lightroom 3
    The Lightroom 3.4.1 update includes an important correction for a bug introduced in the Lightroom 3.4 release

    English: Windows | Macintosh

  3. @Andrew

    For all you need to know concerning Leica lens design and all things Leica,as well as Canon
    the site TAO of Leica ,Erwin Puts world renound Leica and optical expert is your ultimate guide.

  4. The photo above was a commentary on sharpness at f2.8, not about 3D pop, sorry I should have clarified.

    I’ve seen some of my X100 images look very 3 Dimensional as do some of my X1 photos. I think it very much depends on multiple factors in the scene. Also, applying lens corrections seems to lessen the effect in my eyes.

    • Noted with thanks.

      3D object in the pics? Maybe… The boy in the pic looks 3D enough to me.

      But my actual problem was this: I don’t IMMEDIATELY see the distance relationship between the subjects. I think it’s often referred to more properly as the “illusion of depth” which you create when you convert a 3D space to a 2D plane or when you draw objects one in front of another.

      It looks like the boy, the pool, the shed, the tree, the sky all are positioned side-by-side, not one in front of another (which they actually were in the real scene). That’s what my eyes see. Here’s where my problem comes. My eyes are trying to convince my brain that they are like that, while my brain fully knows well that they are not positioned that way. That’s possibly my source of headache looking at such pics. I don’t know, I am just trying to figure out its source. I do get a headache. Sorry…

      I have been following X100 quite closely since its announcement in Photokina, looking at its first few images in as soon as people got hold of it in various sources like Flickr, waiting for Steve’s reviews and his pics. Why all this trouble? I love photography and any tool that can produce good photos, and maybe one day if I ever decide to get a P&S again, maybe I can get X100 and save some money.


      • Andrew, please re-read my comment above about the photo NOT being an example of 3D pop but rather sharpness at f2.8. Admittedly, a bad example since it is a downscaled web image but I assure you the original is wicked sharp.

        It sounds like the X100 is not for you.

      • Andrew, I guess that the 3D effect could have been more pronounced, but I think the composition should then have been changed. Do you think a Leica would have made a more clear 3D feeling if taken with the same aperture and a lens with the same FOV like the x1?

  5. Very much looking forward to your comparison Steve. I know what I saw in mine and IMHO the X100 out 3D popped the X1 but perhaps you will have a different result. We’ll see.

    Also, I think it would be worthwhile to take 3 shots when at 2.8 (something I didn’t do) – 1 each at 2.8 and another of the Fuji at 2.0. This would simply demonstrate how much more of a shallow DOF (or perhaps 3D) effect you may get out of the X100 at its widest aperture as compared to the X1.

    I’m finding the X100 exceedingly sharp at f/2.8. I had to double check the following image’s EXIF because I thought it was at f/4.


    • Sorry Chad, nice picture (eg color, sharpness are great) but still “flat” in my eyes…

      Look at the body outline (the towel, head) and the background, my brain actually has to think very hard that the boy is not “flattened”/”merged” together with his surroundings. I have to keep MANUALLY separating in my mind the foreground object (the boy) from the surrounding (eg the pool, the tree, the shed, etc). Very tiring for my brain. Not so straightforward. I am confused :(((

      Sorry, maybe it IS my eyes…

      P.s. I am speaking as someone who has used Minolta, Canon, Fuji, Panasonic and Sony cameras. And top lenses like Schneider-Kruznach, Carl Zeiss etc.


      • What I mean by “flat” is exemplified in this example: There is no sense of distance between the subjects in the photo whatsoever…

        In Chad’s picture above, it looks to me like the boy, the pool, the shed, the tree are on the same plane. Yet, I am pretty sure on the actual scene the boy was standing near the camera, some distance behind was the pool, so,e distance from the pool was the shed, and the tree was placed way back then the sky. But the distance-ness is not clear from the pic immediately – at least to me (sigh). It looks like they are all, I dunno, compressed into one single plane. Very tiring to look at actually for my pea brain.

        Please refer to Steve’s pics from X1, this sense of arrangement of distance is well maintained. Thus, it’s relatively more pleasing and easier to my eyes…

        Just my feelings really. Dont get me wrong, I honestly don’t care what camera people end up buying, it’s their money not mine. As long as they are happy, I am happy. I am just trying to find the answer to my confusion. That’s all…

        I can’t wait for side-by-side comparison. I not only look for X1 comparison. I find Ricoh and Sigma’s pics portraying this distance relationships in them too.

        Keep shooting,

  6. This little camera has soul; but it’s the shooter that coaxes greatness from technology. The second shot of the daisies has a truly tactile dimension to it when enlarged – like you could almost reach out and touch it. Very well done, Steve!

    This is the little camera that could.

  7. @AH
    Interesting your quote on Leica,perhaps thats why so many dream for years of owning a Holga so they
    can take just as good a photograph as a Leica and save thousands of dollars.Having shot over thirty years with nearly all brands I know full well its not the camera.I also know full well there is a difference
    in a Leica and a Holga,perhaps whomever you quoted dosent.I stick by my comments on the design
    of Leica lenses,History and the facts speak for themselves.

    • Sorry. It was just a funny quote. Of course Leica cameras and Leica lenses are very good and also much better than a Holga camera for most purposes.

      But as for the 3D stuff I don’t see anything that supports that claim. I could of course be wrong, but then on the other hand I’m sure that Leica would use that claimed 3D-effect in their marketing, pointing out the Leica cameras and lenses were something special compared to other cameras in that regard.

      All in all it is about transferring a 3D space onto a 2D surface which most lenses are made to do that the best they can, but of course with the inevitable compromises that is part of lens design.

      Btw. I have seen Sigma users claiming the same 3D effect, but then again I simply don’t see it. But I can of course see that Sigma colors are a bit different than colors from other cameras and also that the output can be very nice and sharp.

      • Just make myself clear. I do of course see a 3D effect in some pictures, but I don’t see any speciel or better 3D effect when a picture is taken with a Leica.

        • IMHO, I think I just see that effect more consistent in Leica than in other system. Better? maybe not, just more consistent.. In other systems, sometimes they do appear, sometimes they don’t.

  8. Strictly from a technical stand point the video showed more wobble and jello effect than any videos Ive seen with the gh2 or in fact most vdslrs recently released by other brands and that is an important consideration. other than that I found that the color looked great (and yes better than what can be achieved out of the box with a gh2) and The clip quite nice.

    • You are correct. The “jello” and “wobble” are in the X100 video full force. Cant really avoid it. If I could have these colors and DOF with the GH2 Id probably like it. The X100 is not a pro video shooter by any means but would do fine for family or personal projects.

  9. Why the difference in the X100 and X1 shots? Leica optical experts have sence the very inception of
    their brand recognized the three dimenionallity of the world.The vast majority of objects in the world are
    not flat and consequently they have always taken this into consideration in their designs.The seperation
    and curvature is intentional and gives Leica optics a unique,life likness even in lenses decades old.

    • I read an interesting comment on that somewhere else 🙂

      “It’s a totally undefinable aspect of a Leica image that only a shooter can see, and only if he’s told in advance that the particular image is a Leica image.
      A Leica shooter can often see the 3D effect if simply told that an image was shot by a Leica, even if that image was shot with a Nikon, Canon, or Holga.
      There are some that claim that the Foveon sensor also produces images with this attribute.”

      • Danny and AH,
        Fantastic information! Thank you. I kinda guessed it’s this way and you just confirmed it. This puts my struggling mind at ease a bit. Now, I know it’s not just my eyes playing tricks on me.

        Any reference by any chance? I am interested to look it up for further reading.


        • @Andrew

          I think you missed what AH was trying to say. The comment that he quoted is saying this 3-D realism people seem to see in Leica images is only in the mind, and only when they know it is a Leica image.

          • Hahaha… I know James. I was pulling his legs for writing such a disrespectful comment to my serious question. :))))) thx anyway…

  10. Steve, just curious, what is the aperture you used in the image with the sun(or it looks like the high light area is the sun) in the background?

    1/1000 shutter speed max at F2 is the biggest turn down for me when I first heard of it, I was like “WHAT????” but from the shot you took, with camera aiming directly(more or less) at the sun, this limitation isn’t really bad probably due to the build-in ND filter?

  11. Love the first two images Steve. But there is a fair amount of vignetting in both. Was this added in post or was this natural? While I love the vignette look, I’m surprised there is this much.

    • I added zero vignetting. All I did was adjust contrast, color and a slight levels adjustment. Sometimes when doing this it brings out the vignetting that is there. Most of the time, you don’t see it with the X100 though.

  12. I guess after looking at M9 files and X100 files the GH2 just looks like junk. 🙂
    I guess relative to point-and-shoots its a nice step up..but it just can’t compare to those larger files.
    I still think that Micro 4/3’s sensors could be so much better than they are…perhaps it will improve.

  13. Steve, that’s a beautiful video. Music is very appropriate! Touching, gentle, and nostalgic, all at once!

    • I agree! Steve, your videos are always very nice. Maybe you should do more of them. Maybe even professionally? You certainly have a talent there. Many photographers these days are starting shooting video. I guess, it’s due to still cameras providing excellent video capabilities: you have both tools in one package, so why not broaden your professional offering?


  14. Love the color, this little lens is amazing.
    That’s it, I’m keeping the x100, I’m done with the E-P2. Who wants an E-P2 w. 20mm panny lens out there?

  15. I am sorry but is it just me finding the images out of the X100 kinda on the flat side? While the sharpness and color are great, I find the images that people posted since day 1 are flat. It lacks some sort of “dimension” to it. For example, the right side of the electric pole looks might as well lying on the same image plane as the sky. My brain has to “think” very hard that that’s actually a pole in the middle of a vast sky.

    Au contraire, your images from Leica X1, with all it’s limitations (no vf, slower af et al), are dimensional. My eyes can easily differentiate foreground objects from their background. Very kind to my brain.

    Maybe my eyes have been “damaged” by Leica… 🙁

    • Actually, I know what you mean Andrew. BUT I will know for sure next week and have samples from both so we can see exactly what those differences are. No doubt the X100’s output is different than the X1. Kind of a different flavor.

      • Thanks, Steve. Can’t wait to see the comparison.

        I did take a quick comparison just now, trying to figure out why or, rather, how these two cams draw differently. Why the background in x1 images remains as it is, background and not “merged” or “purged” into one plane with the foreground.

        A quick good example is perhaps found in your first few images in the first x1 review: a picture of your son, Brandon, at the car. I compared here it to the sunflower shot above.

        Here’s a possible explanation:
        1. When X1 renders a background, all lines leading up to the foreground objects slowly vanishes as they coincide (as they “strike” the outline of the foreground objects). It sorts of know how to draw to give an image dimensionality or depth.

        In the Brandon image, you can clearly see the lines on your garage door on the back sort of “vanish” as they strike his body. The background kinda knows just at the right moment and space that the drawing process is now coming to a foreground object. Therefore, it’s like it gives up and “shows respect” to the foreground object and recedes to dominate the scene.

        2. The X100, on the other hand, just doesn’t do that.

        You can see the horizon line leading to the stem of the sunflower remains solid dark black line as it strikes and passes through the stem. It doesn’t differentiate at all. It doesn’t “care “where it’s going. It doesn’t know when to stop dominating the scene, just continues doing its own thing.

        Just my 2 cents.. 🙂

        • Hi Andrew, thx for the explanation, i’m also missing the “special” jick with the X100 photos, but did not know how to describe and why. The same feeling i had in the past when i compare Voigtländer lenses with Zeiss or Leica lenses.


          • Thanks Steve, Yogi, and Greg..
            Yes, I tried to like the X100 but I don’t know why it’s so hard for me to bring myself to like the X100. I can’t explain it well. It almost reminds me of why I decided to move over to Leica-land.

            When I look at a camera there are usually two major things I consider:
            1. The form factor: the physical appearance, ease of use, size etc
            2. Once #1 is okay, the images it produces

            From the camera look, form factor and technology, the X100 is an exciting camera. But the excitement somehow screeched to a halt when I saw the pics.

            With X1, the enamorement began with the physical and the feeling just skyrocketed when I looked the images it pumps out. I did buy the X1 but had to let it go when I upgraded to M9. Now, I heavily regret it.

            However, I have to give credits to Fuji for taking on Leica X1 head-on. I hope with this competition Leica will produce an even better X2, then Fuji X200 and so on…

        • Hi Steve and Andrew, I was also talking about that in my comment to Steve’s announcement of the upcoming test. I think it has to do with the edge sharpness of the lines and details. I haven’t tested the X100 thoroughly in that department but I remember my experience with the X1 and how it rendered those edges perfectly. I think it’s crucial for landscape photography. I have a feeling that the X1 is a better landscape camera in image IQ than the X100. In fact, I think it’s an excellent landscape camera! You don’t need a viewfinder or fast AF speed for shooting landscapes. You can take your time and compose your shot on the screen unless the sun is too bright. But who in their right mind would be shooting landscapes when the sun is too bright, anyway? So, that’s why I think it’s a perfect landscape camera: it’s small, can always stay in your bag and can double as a pocket camera for many other applications. Fuji X100 may not be that great of a landscape tool (which still remains to be proven) but it beats the X1 in convenience and everyday use. Besides, the X1 is too damn costly…


          • I think you are correct on the edge sharpness of the X1. It is superior to the X100 in this regard, and is probably what gives the X1 its look.

          • Yes, Greg and Steve, it seems that in the X100 images, the background and foreground are strong all the way, thus competing with each other for my brain’s attention (instead of cooperating and complimenting to produce a dimensional drawing). That probably explains my confusion when I look at them. I don’t know how the X1 (or Leica lenses in general, for that matter) does that. I mean, both lenses are glasses, same basic rules of optical engineering, etc..

            Maybe Steve’s side-by-side comparison next week proves/disproves my eyes…

        • Hi Andrew, Greg et al,

          I cannot pretend to understand what you are trying to say but I do not see any issues with the contrast, shadow and texture (venture to guess that these are variables that contribute to dimensionality). The image with the pole is quite impressive with regards to its sharpness given that it is a tricky situation with lot of contrasting colors (sky, field), textures (wood etc..) and elements (grass on the horizontal plane and pole on the vertical plane). To my eyes, the elements that would perhaps enhance the three dimensionality would be to lighten the shadow on the pole, and reduce the saturation, which can be easily done in post prod. For all you know, the details were probably rendered differently during post-processing thus making such observations a bit futile.

          Personally, the area where I feel the X100 falls short of the X1 is in the rendering of skin tones, which is evident in the images that Steve posted in his X100 review, although, once again, I am not sure whether these images were OOC or post-processed. It seems that this camera has a tendency to oversaturate in some situations, especially if one is using the Velvia setting, since that is the Velvia look. The “flatness” may be caused due to over-saturation. But honestly, do we really need to be this anal??

          • No arjun, you didn’t get my point. But it’s okay. Lemme try explain it again, if you don’t mind…

            What I meant by “flatness” is perhaps the distance relationship between subjects in photos.

            Please, please don’t get me wrong. Fuji x100 is a camera with fantastic technology at such an incredibly “low” price. By all means, go get yourself one if you are in the market for such cameras. I am just trying to find am explanation of what my eyes see/don’t see from it’s pics. Maybe I am wrong… I don’t know…

          • Hey Andrew- no issues. I just wanted to understand what you were trying to say. It will be easier to have this conversation once Steve posts his side by side comparisons. The X100 is a great first effort, but since I don’t have much moolah to spare at the moment I am going to wait for a more refined version sans the operational glitches. Thank you for your patience.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Fujifilm Overcomes Earthquake With a Winner | David Henderson - author, journalist, communications strategist

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.