This is a rather technical (as in: more about function than about photos) report of my experiences with the Fuji X10. Originally it was meant as a simple forum post, but I quickly reached the word limit of 6000 chars. So you might miss some nice images and more story-like writing here.
I am a beginner photographer and this is the first more or less "serious" camera I ever bought. It has to serve the following usage-cases and the jury is still out of whether to keep it or not (1 week left before I would have to return it). You won't see any photos yet.
Main purpose of buying the X10: Shoot sharp, bright and detailed enough photos of my kid(s) in often rather bad lighting condition without having to deal with the bulk of a DSLR system.
Work: Occasional shots of technical equipment that I am testing/reviewing. Should offer enough control to handle the demands of the corresponding situation (including "screenshots" of what is shown on a LCD display).
Other things: Explore possible fun of portrait, night, street, macro or whatever shooting that I find myself become interested in once I get the grip on a nice cam.
At the end of this article I will contribute my own analysis of the white disc/orb/blooming problem. While I may be a beginner photographer I literally make a living from analyzing technical issues and finding possible workarounds. And while lots of words have been lost over this issue I hope to start a more "technical" than "emotional" discussion with more profound arguments on what's going on under the hood. In the process I hope to learn a few facts and and corrections to my interpretation as well.
Even though reviews of current cameras praise their "high" dynamic range and "good high ISO noise and detail" I still find cameras' performance to be /very/ underwhelming when compared to what you see with your naked eye. To (technically) master photo-shooting seems to be mostly about working with and around the limits of cameras. Even after decades of development it's still all about worrying to get the right exposure. Knowing that these limits are a reality and that a good camera should help you get away with them I had the following reasons trying to replace phone-cams with a good "real" camera.
After one week of mixed testing in various modes I can say so much:
For me this is the most important aspect that has to be weighted against all the other points I make below: Kid photos work! I got a whole number of sharp enough low-light indoor shots that are very usable for what we want, namely looking at photos on screen (30" display, laptop display, HD projector) and printing them in photo-books at up to A4 sizes (usually smaller). Results surely best any phone-cam shots easily and also beat grandma's Samsung S850 P&S clear enough to see the benefits of a pricey (in its range) cam like the X10.
Auto Focus speed may be a problem when kids move towards you, but I have to test all the possibilities first (face detection, tracking focus, manually presetting a focus range). Using Auto EXR is a considerable problem with movement (different exposure of half of the pixels), but it's a starting point for learning how to handle the beast. Next week will show how much light and detail remains when exposure times are down to "kid is running around wildly" settings.
One drawback of the 28 mm wide angle vs. a 24 mm is that when kids come close to you indoors (like "hey, papa has that photo toy holding up again, let's go and see what it can do") you quickly run out of angle. So you often end up cutting off feet or even arms/hands from the picture when the little folks come too close. Strangely EXR Auto mode chooses Macro mode automatically while AUTO Auto mode does not (still focuses down very close though). On the other hand you cannot chose 1 cm Super Macro in EXR mode while it is available at AUTO mode.
AF in good light is fast (enough) and in low light still faster than any iPhone camera is ever going to be (even when the iPhone is helped by the X10's AF assistant light)! Comparing it to a Canon S95 and Nikon P7100 in typical fluorescent store light showed the S95 to be considerably slower and the P7100 to be somewhat slower. The most important thing for me is that I can shot kid(s) while they are sitting in one place (may still be moving wildly), but hopefully it will also work with running kids (still have to try). I also successfully shot moving kids that where thrown around by their parents during a swimming session. ;)
Autofocus reliability is something that needs to be judged by time and shots, but it can be thrown off very visibly by bright reflective non-plane surfaces where the P7100 has a little less problems (but still has). I found that decreasing focus area size (in Area mode) help to get around that simply by allowing me to easier aim for an area where no bright reflection from lighting is happening. According to a forum thread the manual warns about that and I assume it is a common problem for contrast detection based systems.
It works! I'd have to do serious testing to tell how many stops you can win by using IS, but I can get sharp enough handheld shots with little available lighting, fully zoomed in at F2.8 and 1/4 s exposure time. Sure, with such a long exposure time most shots are not going to be sharp, but they are sharper than without IS. Most important: some shots are sharp and overall all shots are consistently sharper than without IS.
As I will most often do handheld shots under low lighting conditions (except for sometimes using the rather weak flash) this is a very welcome addition. Sure I'd like it to work even better, but "working" is better than not available at all.
Coming from phone-cameras and P&S every detail coming from the X10 is a big step foward, so I may lack comparison with what other quality systems can offer. That being said, I saw plenty of shots from beginner's DSLR cams in various reviews over the last few years (couldn't decide to jump on the DSLR train) and what I'm seeing from the X10 seems to cope well. Noise is visibly present with higher ISOs but upto 1600 ISO enough detail is preserved to enable good looking crops. Even ISO 3200 seems usable enough, especially since the general noise pattern seem to be more luminance than chroma heavy. I like some luminance (aka gritty) grain in dark shots, so it's a welcome tendency.
The fast lense really helps to get better shots in AUTO modes and a lot more creative/technical options once you know how to handle the beast. Being that fast wide open allows to keep ISO down (aka details up) and that a beginner like me can get away with doing crops until he knows how to compose properly. And even a seasoned photographer will always enjoy the options. That the lense remains fast at tele means that you can zoom in for better detail instead of losing detail due to having to use much higher ISOs.
A wide range of ISO settings fortunately helps to deal with all these situations by somewhat intelligently chosing in-between steps. The X10 offers ISOs 100, 200, 250, 320, 400, 500, 640, 800, 1000, 1250, 1600, 2000, 2500 and 3200 for both AUTO ISO and manual settings. And seeing that on the X10 ISO noise seems to increase quite linearly (also shown by some review site) it's comfortable to know that the camera has these in-between steps at its disposal. Higher than ISO 3200 is done by interpolation (=smaller picture size) and I still have to try if there is any usefulness with these.
Having a fast lense and usable high ISO available again can be important for doing kids shots as it allows to use faster exposure times. I rather take a somewhat grainy but otherwise sharp picture of a moving kid than getting no usable picture at all. And when I zoom in to take a portrait of my son's stunning eyes I very much appreciate the protected detail.
沒有留言:
張貼留言