X100 or X10 for my particular use case?

dubcat

dubcat

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,310
Name
Amir
Edit My Images
Yes
I want shallow depth of field and solid image quality available to me. I would love to be able to shoot in low light without resorting to flash sometimes. However, I am not a pro. This is all for my own pleasure.

With the above in mind, I am thinking of getting the x100. I am really tempted by the x10 due to the zoom lens. However, I am thinking that with a larger sensor size it should be possible to get shallower depth of field on the x100. Is that right? I have also read that the x100 performs amazingly in low light with high iso. Again I have no first hand experience.

My primary shooting with this camera will be in London between meetings and at the park and on days out with my wife and twins. Maybe also for holidays as carrying the dslr as well as all the stuff the little ones need is basically not viable.

Keen to hear your thoughts.

Dub

Ps x100 is £833 at dixons duty free where you also get a long no quibble money back guarantee (I think 3 months)
 
It's an interesting choice.

For image quality and shallow DoF control, X100 wins easily. But if you want a zoom lens, in a pocketable package, it's the X10. You can't have both - it's either a big sensor or a big zoom range.

You'll be liable for import taxes on return ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
It's an interesting choice.

For image quality and shallow DoF control, X100 wins easily. But if you want a zoom lens, in a pocketable package, it's the X10. You can't have both - it's either a big sensor or a big zoom range.

You'll be liable for import taxes on return ;)
Click to expand...

Hoppy you don't pay import duty on stuff you buy in UK airports afaik. You already paid it in the store.
 
I would have thought that the x10 would be more capable of producing shallower depth of field than the x100.

I found that because of the x100's 23mm focal length even at f2.0 you struggle to get really shallow depth of field unless you sit on the subjects lap.

The x10 at 112mm f2.8 should make this easier?
 
Hmm I thought that the shallow depth of field and bokeh produced on the larger sensor would result in more pleasing images. Having said that what you say makes perfect sense to me too.
 
I should really stay out of this as saying that sensor size does not affect DoF seems to be regarded as heresy even if technically correct.

The heresy... when you change format size all you are doing is cutting pieces out of a larger image and this can not affect DoF. If you were to use the same lens at the same aperture on MFT, APS-C and full frame and take three shots changing only the format size and nothing else the DoF would be exactly the same, the images would however look different due to the various crop factors and the aparent changing of the field of view.

However, as you are apparently changing the field of view you might either choose to use a different zoom length to get the framing you want which could affect how the image is presented and the appearance of DoF or change position and in doing so alter the camera to subject distance which probably will affect DoF.

If you compare a longer f2.8 zoom with a shorter f2 zoom on different formats you could actually end up with less DoF when using the shorter lens as you might have to be... sat on the subjects lap... and this will reduce the camera to subject distance and reduce the DoF, background elements could then be more likely to be rendered out of focus.

It's therefore a balancing act and using a 23mm lens with a larger sensor at f2 might just be a combination that'll get you a pleasing shallow DoF look if you are aware of how to do it and the subject and framing allow it. Certainly I have no problem getting shallow DoF with my 20 and 25mm lenses on MFT, subject and framing allowing.
 
DoF would be much shallower with the X100, for the same framing and distance, at the same f/number - ie at the wide end of the X10. However, you then have the zoom option so at the long end with the X10 everything changes.

Because you're not comparing like with like though, exact comparisions aren't possible but you'll get some idea by putting some numbers into the DoF Master calculator here www.dofmaster.com

Edit: LOL Crossed post with Alan :)

woof woof said:
<snip>...when you change format size all you are doing is cutting pieces out of a larger image and this can not affect DoF.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Alan, for the hundredth time, you cannot say this in reference to depth of field. The whole concept of DoF assumes that you make a normal size print from each output. So if you just crop an image, sure nothing has changed in just doing that, because you actually haven't done anything! But you (obviously) have not completed the process as far as the DoF theory and formula is concerned, because you haven't made a final print. And when you do that, the smaller image has to be enlarged more and that's where everything changes.

What you are talking about is not actually depth of field at all, it's just cropping. Which is completely meaningless. If you check the fomula for DoF, you will see that the CoC changes with sensor format. That's the bit you refuse to acknowledge, but it's also the bit that makes all the difference when comparing formats.
 
Last edited:
Going a bit off topic, I don't see why you feel you can't take a dslr out with kids. I have an 11 month old and a 3 1/2 yr old and take my d300 and 24-70 2.8 out most places, sometimes with the 70-200 too. Not really an issue, goes into rucksack with nappies and wipes etc.
 
Alan, that's certainly a unique perspective :) and not one I share having owned several m4/3 bodies, an x100, several Nikon and Canon crop bodies and full frame.

Comparing the x100 to the Panasonic LX5 (the closest sensor size I can find) at 111mm (the closest focal distance I can select) here is what I get:

x100 / 23mm / f2.0 / 10 feet from subject = 4.83ft
x10 / 111mm / f2.8 / 10 feet from subject = 0.08ft

So the focal length would certainly make more of a difference than the sensor size.

However I've just read some more information about the x10 and the wording of their press release has led to some confusion. The zoom has a maximum aperture of f2.8, at 112mm this would be more like f11.2 so the x100 would indeed deliver shallower depth of field.
 
HoppyUK said:
Alan, for the hundredth time, you cannot say this in reference to depth of field. The whole concept of DoF assumes that you make a normal size print from each output. So if you just crop an image, sure nothing has changed in just doing that, because you actually haven't done anything! But you (obviously) have not completed the process as far as the DoF theory and formula is concerned, because you haven't made a final print. And when you do that, the smaller image has to be enlarged more and that's where everything changes.

What you are talking about is not actually depth of field at all, it's just cropping. Which is completely meaningless. If you check the fomula for DoF, you will see that the CoC changes with sensor format. That's the bit you refuse to acknowledge, but it's also the bit that makes all the difference when comparing formats.
Click to expand...

Now how did I know you'd be along to say this :D You're still wrong, of course, for the 101st time, as I've proved before... with example shots... and it doesn't matter if the examples I posted are on screen or printed. If you like I'll send you them and you can print them at 100% size and you'll see that they are the same. I know that the DoF tables change with format but you don't seem to fully understand or accept why, I tried to get you to think about it a little more last time.

As I've said before... Anyone (including you :D) who has two cameras with different sized sensors which can be fitted with the same or similar lenses can prove to themselves in under 10 minutes that format size does not and can not in itself and by itself affect DoF. If you don't / wont believe me then believe Bob Atkins or do the test yourself (you declined my challenge to carry out the test last time. It'll only take 10 minutes, go on.... try it :D)

I know I can be an anal obsessive but the reason for me posting in this thread and previous ones is that I think it helps to understand your equipment and what is going on as if you can understand what's going on and the effect that aperture, camera to subject distance and everything else has you can in some situations work with the equipment and achieve what you want but if you don't understand or believe something that isn't so you surely have less chance.
 
gingerweasel said:
Alan, that's certainly a unique perspective :) and not one I share having owned several m4/3 bodies, an x100, several Nikon and Canon crop bodies and full frame.
Click to expand...

:bang:

You're changing more than just the format size though aren't you? I've tried this with MFT, APS-C and FF with the same / similar lenses.

If you take the same lens (or similar lenses) fitted to MFT and FF and shoot at the same aperture and from the same camera to subject distance (so that all that's changed is the format size) the DoF is the same. To change the DoF you'd have to change something else like the aperture or change the camera to subject distance.

I know that the different formats give a different apparent FOV and that in changing the view you'd change the DoF because you've changed to camera to subject distance but (deep breath and say it again...:D) my point is that if you know these things you have a better understanding and a better chance of achieving what you want. Otherwise we get blanket and wrong statements like "you can't get shallow DoF from x format" repeated over and over.
 
cambsno said:
Going a bit off topic, I don't see why you feel you can't take a dslr out with kids. I have an 11 month old and a 3 1/2 yr old and take my d300 and 24-70 2.8 out most places, sometimes with the 70-200 too. Not really an issue, goes into rucksack with nappies and wipes etc.
Click to expand...

I do take it out and I find it a hassle. It is not just carrying it that is often a turn off for me. The thing is intrusive in other ways too including the fact that it can be distracting for the subjects and it makes me stick out like a sore thumb. I am happy to live with this for the sake of getting good shots but if there was another way to get some of the benefits with less of the cons than I am keen to explore.
 
Know what you mean, but I just found I never really used my S95 as it would never live up to the dslr in terms of IQ and especially shutter lag.
 
Exactly. I am hoping and wondering if the x100 can fill the gap.
 
Nobody knows what images from the X10 are going to look like. It looks like a nice bit of kit (my guess is that it will considerably hurt sales of the G12 and P7000 successors), but the relatively small sensor size will limit its use to relatively decent light. I will tell you that the X100 delivers the most stunning images in any kind of light with soft, buttery bokeh and extremely sharp and contrasty in-focus detail. Despite its modest wide angle lens, it's proven to be a very capable portrait shooter. I use it for precisely the reasons you list, and find it to be the perfect partner when the D700 is just too big to drag along (which is often). It's not great for shooting kids running around, but then I doubt the X10 will be much good for that either - what camera is?

Anyway - back to sensor size and effect on DoF. To compare the two cameras - here is the effective DoF behind the subject at various distances from the lens:

At 35mm (at max. aperture f/2.0):

X10
1m - 0.24m
2m - 1.3m
3m - 4.3m
5m - 349m

X100
1m - 0.08m
2m - 0.35m
3m - 0.87m
5m - 3.0m


At 112mm (at max. aperture f/2.8):

1m - 0.07m
2m - 0.32m
3m - 0.79m
5m - 2.66m
10m -22.9m

So I think you can see here that when it comes to producing shallow DoF portraits, unless you're going to be taking *very* close up images of your subject at 112mm with the X10 from about 2m away (a nose shot), the larger sensor is going to give you a significant advantage in terms of shallow DoF.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
DoF would be much shallower with the X100, for the same framing and distance, at the same f/number - ie at the wide end of the X10. However, you then have the zoom option so at the long end with the X10 everything changes.

Because you're not comparing like with like though, exact comparisions aren't possible but you'll get some idea by putting some numbers into the DoF Master calculator here www.dofmaster.com

Edit: LOL Crossed post with Alan :)



Alan, for the hundredth time, you cannot say this in reference to depth of field. The whole concept of DoF assumes that you make a normal size print from each output. So if you just crop an image, sure nothing has changed in just doing that, because you actually haven't done anything! But you (obviously) have not completed the process as far as the DoF theory and formula is concerned, because you haven't made a final print. And when you do that, the smaller image has to be enlarged more and that's where everything changes.

What you are talking about is not actually depth of field at all, it's just cropping. Which is completely meaningless. If you check the fomula for DoF, you will see that the CoC changes with sensor format. That's the bit you refuse to acknowledge, but it's also the bit that makes all the difference when comparing formats.
Click to expand...

This makes it sound like you are suggesting that DOF will change between screen and print. Suddenly something will become in/out of focus? Don't think so.

woof woof said:
Now how did I know you'd be along to say this :D You're still wrong, of course, for the 101st time, as I've proved before... with example shots... and it doesn't matter if the examples I posted are on screen or printed. If you like I'll send you them and you can print them at 100% size and you'll see that they are the same. I know that the DoF tables change with format but you don't seem to fully understand or accept why, I tried to get you to think about it a little more last time.

As I've said before... Anyone (including you :D) who has two cameras with different sized sensors which can be fitted with the same or similar lenses can prove to themselves in under 10 minutes that format size does not and can not in itself and by itself affect DoF. If you don't / wont believe me then believe Bob Atkins or do the test yourself (you declined my challenge to carry out the test last time. It'll only take 10 minutes, go on.... try it :D)

I know I can be an anal obsessive but the reason for me posting in this thread and previous ones is that I think it helps to understand your equipment and what is going on as if you can understand what's going on and the effect that aperture, camera to subject distance and everything else has you can in some situations work with the equipment and achieve what you want but if you don't understand or believe something that isn't so you surely have less chance.
Click to expand...

I'd never thought about the DOF thing between sensor sizes but it took me a while to get my head round focal lengths on crop sensors and to realise that my 17-40mm does not become a 22-52mm when i put it on my 1D nor would it become a 25-60mm if I put it on an APS-C camera, it's still a 17-40mm with exactly the same perspective (most noticable at 17mm) as it has on my 5D, if it became a 22-52mm the perspective would be quite different.

If you have ever used a Nikon D3 and put the DX mask on then it's a great indication of what happens to your lens (and the perspectives and DOF it produces) on a crop sensor - absolutley nothing. Similarly you could take a shot on a ff camera and in photoshop you could overlay masks that represent APS-C, MFT and even the tiny sensors in the likes of compacts and phones and you'd see that nothing about the image other than the amount of it changes.
 
fixedimage said:
This makes it sound like you are suggesting that DOF will change between screen and print. Suddenly something will become in/out of focus? Don't think so.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you should think that. As far as DoF is concerned, there is no difference between screen and print. The concept of DoF is independent of the viewing medium.

There is a difference in practise though, at least in theory, because a normal PC monitor doesn't have sufficiently high resolution and does not reveal the same level of detail as a 300dpi print (at same size, same viewing distance).

I'd never thought about the DOF thing between sensor sizes but it took me a while to get my head round focal lengths on crop sensors and to realise that my 17-40mm does not become a 22-52mm when i put it on my 1D nor would it become a 25-60mm if I put it on an APS-C camera, it's still a 17-40mm with exactly the same perspective (most noticable at 17mm) as it has on my 5D, if it became a 22-52mm the perspective would be quite different.

If you have ever used a Nikon D3 and put the DX mask on then it's a great indication of what happens to your lens (and the perspectives and DOF it produces) on a crop sensor - absolutley nothing. Similarly you could take a shot on a ff camera and in photoshop you could overlay masks that represent APS-C, MFT and even the tiny sensors in the likes of compacts and phones and you'd see that nothing about the image other than the amount of it changes.
Click to expand...

Perspective is a function of camera to subject distance, nothing to do with the lens or focal length. Simply proved by enlarging the centre of an image taken with a wide angle, and comparing it with a shot taken from the same position with a longer lens - perspective identical.

And when you say that DoF doesn't change with format, you are making the same mistake as another poster and mixing it up with simple cropping. There are four components to the DoF formula - focal length, f/number, subject distance and format size. You need all four to make a calculation, and changing any one of them changes the answer.

In addition, DoF calcs always assume that the output is a normal print (or screen image if you prefer) viewed at a normal distance, measured as the length of the diagonal - ie, an A4 print viewed at about 15in, though it works just the same with other sizes when adjusted for viewing distance.

That is the flaw in the pure 'cropping' argument. For the DoF concept to hold good, when you crop the image smaller, you have to look at it more closely and that's when things change. Input data here for examples http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
 
Leaving aside the techno-evangelical debate....if you want to shoot in low ambient light. Get the X100. No brainer, it's fantastic. Contrast and colours are great, beats my G1 + 20mm hands down, although the AF isn't as good.
 
mid_gen said:
Leaving aside the techno-evangelical debate....if you want to shoot in low ambient light. Get the X100. No brainer, it's fantastic. Contrast and colours are great, beats my G1 + 20mm hands down, although the AF isn't as good.
Click to expand...

What a good idea! :D
 
HoppyUK said:
I don't know why you should think that. As far as DoF is concerned, there is no difference between screen and print. The concept of DoF is independent of the viewing medium.

There is a difference in practise though, at least in theory, because a normal PC monitor doesn't have sufficiently high resolution and does not reveal the same level of detail as a 300dpi print (at same size, same viewing distance).



Perspective is a function of camera to subject distance, nothing to do with the lens or focal length. Simply proved by enlarging the centre of an image taken with a wide angle, and comparing it with a shot taken from the same position with a longer lens - perspective identical.
Click to expand...

I'd need to try that out to be sure but for now I'll take your word for it.


HoppyUK said:
And when you say that DoF doesn't change with format, you are making the same mistake as another poster and mixing it up with simple cropping. There are four components to the DoF formula - focal length, f/number, subject distance and format size. You need all four to make a calculation, and changing any one of them changes the answer.
Click to expand...

But sensor size IS simple cropping. The lens makes the same image circle no matter what it's attached to. APS-C or APS-H or MFT or tiny compact phone sensors simply capture a smaller 'crop' of that image.

To create the same image composition in different formats with the same lens requires changing the focal length on the lens which affects DOF but the sensor itself has no impact on DOF.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Perspective is a function of camera to subject distance, nothing to do with the lens or focal length. Simply proved by enlarging the centre of an image taken with a wide angle, and comparing it with a shot taken from the same position with a longer lens - perspective identical.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about this. Shoot a person against a given background, wide the background will appear far away, use a tele and the background is compressed. I would argue that the perspective is changed but this is going off on a tangent to the original point of sensor size and DoF (which I can't believe is still being argued, correctly by you and most everyone else).

fixedimage said:
But sensor size IS simple cropping. The lens makes the same image circle no matter what it's attached to. APS-C or APS-H or MFT or tiny compact phone sensors simply capture a smaller 'crop' of that image.

To create the same image composition in different formats with the same lens requires changing the focal length on the lens which affects DOF but the sensor itself has no impact on DOF.
Click to expand...

Right, and you've changed the focal length because the sensor size has changed (relative to the other camera body). If you didn't change the focal length, you'd have had to move forward or back to have an identical image to the crop sensor.

This topic has been done to death in another thread. Do we have to do it again? :bang:
 
fixedimage said:
I'd need to try that out to be sure but for now I'll take your word for it.

But sensor size IS simple cropping. The lens makes the same image circle no matter what it's attached to. APS-C or APS-H or MFT or tiny compact phone sensors simply capture a smaller 'crop' of that image.

To create the same image composition in different formats with the same lens requires changing the focal length on the lens which affects DOF but the sensor itself has no impact on DOF.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't simple cropping. Because when you change the size of the image, in order to maintain the DoF parameters you have to view it at a closer distance. And then you can see more detail, so therefore the circle of confusion has to be reduced accordingly.

You either accept the entire concpet of DoF, or you don't. That includes the four variables (f/number, shooting distance, focal length and image size) plus the fixed output parameter of a print viewed from a distance equal to the diagonal. Those are the rules.

That last factor is actually at the heart of it, and drives everything else - the starting point being, the smallest level of detail that the human eye can detect. It's the same optical 'trick' used on a TV screen, or a PC monitor, or a printed magazine page etc, which when viewed normally you can't see the dots (or not quite ;)). Once that smallest level of detail is established, everything else can be worked back and calculated in terms of camera settings.

For the purposes of this debate, it simply boils down to the fact that you get more DoF with smaller sensors, and less DoF with bigger ones. That's a bit of a shorthand answer, and of course you have to adjust the focal length of the lens to maintain the same framing with different sensor sizes. But that's the way we work - the sensor size is fixed by the camera, and we adjust the lens accordingly, not the other way round.

The differerence can be calculated very easily using the crop factor x f/number. These camera/lens combinations will deliver the same DoF in a picture taken from the same position, framed the same, with the same perspective. Try it on the DoF master link (although you can't check the Fuji X10 as I don't think it's listed yet and it has a fractionally bigger sensor than other good compacts that usually have a 5x-ish crop factor).

Full frame, 50mm lens, f/11
Canon 1.6x crop, 31mm lens, f/6.9
MFT 2x crop, 25mm lens, f/5.6
Fuji X10 4x crop, 12.5mm lens, f/2.8

All will produce identical images in terms of DoF, shooting distance, framing, and perspective. Which logically means, they are not just similar or slightly different, but the same. Sure, more things have changed than just the sensor, such as the focal length, but the only reason that has changed is because of the smaller sensor. And that's why an acceptable shorthand for most folks is that you get more DoF with smaller sensors - a lot more with compacts!

Phew! I hope that's helpful, and apologies to those that have heard it all before :)
 
chrisgeary said:
I'm not sure about this. Shoot a person against a given background, wide the background will appear far away, use a tele and the background is compressed. I would argue that the perspective is changed but this is going off on a tangent to the original point of sensor size and DoF (which I can't believe is still being argued, correctly by you and most everyone else).

<snip>
Click to expand...

No, perspective is identical from the same viewpoint, regardless of lens.

DoF will change of course, because you will have cropped the wide shot to match the framing, but if you also equalise that with f/number they will be identical. V easy to check, and if you use a distant subject, at infinity, which will be sharp on both formats, the DoF issue doesn't come into it.

Field of view and bokeh are a different subject to DoF, although they are often confused. With a longer lens with a narrower angle/field of view, the background appears larger and there is less off it. This makes for more simple, bold shapes, less confused looking, which tends to make the sharp foreground subject stand out more in a similar way to more shallow DoF. But actually it is equally unsharp.

It's a bit of an illusion in that sense, but pictorially very effective. If you want the blown background/big bokeh look, you need both a low f/number and a longer focal length. Hence the popularity of lenses like 135 2 which is better than say 85 1.8, or maybe 70-200 2.8 which gives much more of a big bokeh look at 200mm from a little distance compared to shooting closer at 70mm, at the same f/number. One of the reasons it's so favoured for candids at weddings etc.
 
This thread really didn't go the way i wanted it to... /sigh
 
HoppyUK said:
It's a bit of an illusion in that sense, but pictorially very effective. If you want the blown background/big bokeh look, you need both a low f/number and a longer focal length. Hence the popularity of lenses like 135 2 which is better than say 85 1.8, or maybe 70-200 2.8 which gives much more of a big bokeh look at 200mm from a little distance compared to shooting closer at 70mm, at the same f/number. One of the reasons it's so favoured for candids at weddings etc.
Click to expand...

Heh... I know I said that this didn't need thrashing out again, you have me curious. So we're agreed that DoF is a function of sensor size, f stop focal length and distance from the sensor. In theory, would a subject filling the frame (lets take a person's head for example), have the same DoF at 24mm (excluding the horrible distortion) and a few cm's distance away from the camera versus 200mm at several metres? If the DoF argument holds true, then changing the focal length should mean adjusting the distance to maintain an "identical" perspective/frame fill. I'm probably missing a trick, I don't understand fully the science bit :)
 
dubcat said:
This thread really didn't go the way i wanted it to... /sigh
Click to expand...

Sorry dubbers, but I hope this has been of some help to others... :(

chrisgeary said:
Heh... I know I said that this didn't need thrashing out again, you have me curious. So we're agreed that DoF is a function of sensor size, f stop focal length and distance from the sensor. In theory, would a subject filling the frame (lets take a person's head for example), have the same DoF at 24mm (excluding the horrible distortion) and a few cm's distance away from the camera versus 200mm at several metres? If the DoF argument holds true, then changing the focal length should mean adjusting the distance to maintain an "identical" perspective/frame fill. I'm probably missing a trick, I don't understand fully the science bit :)
Click to expand...

Yes, but not quite. If you change the distance, you change the perspective. That's a simple fact, so the images would not be the same in that sense for a start. And the field of view would be completely different so, DoF aside, the images would be hardly like for like at all.

However, there is a popular saying (one that i use myself) that says focal length does not affect DoF, in that if you move close to fill the frame with a portrait and a wide lens, and then move back with a longer lens to get the same framing on the face (as you suggest) then the DoF will be the same.

This holds true unless you compare extremes of very wide/close with long/distant, but you would never do in practise anyway. And even if you did, the slight shift in DoF would be the least of the other very substantial changes to perspective and field of view.

Examples (on full frame):
200mm, distance 4m, f/8, DoF = 18.2cm
100mm, distance 2m, f/8, DoF = 18.3cm
50mm, distance 1.0m, f/8, DoF = 18.4cm
25mm, distance 0.5m, f/8, DoF = 18.9cm
12.5mm, distance 0.25m, f/8, DoF = 21cm

chrisgeary said:
Sorry... I'm not helping am I :bonk:
Click to expand...

No, neither am I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top