dpr's X10 review is finally up

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by bartjeej, Jul 11, 2012.

  1. bartjeej

    bartjeej Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Nov 12, 2010
    • Like Like x 5
  2. drd1135

    drd1135 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jul 13, 2011
    Lexington, Virginia
    Pretty good. The lack of decent RAW support obviously hurts.
  3. Daniel Barnett

    Daniel Barnett Rookie

    May 6, 2012
    The review also confirmed that I wasn't off on my judgement concerning some softness of the images. Did anyone notice the Olympus XZ-1 had much better detail at ISO100? Please keep in mind that I am pleased overall, but I do notice that most of my photos do not have the desired punch that I am looking for. Not a deal breaker but I see some room for improvement.
  4. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    That part of the review really surprised me. I thought the X10 files looked terrific in Lightroom, and I shot exclusively RAW. I wasn't looking for max detail though, just overall image quality.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Lili

    Lili Hall of Famer

    Oct 17, 2010
    Dallas, TX
    the better high ISO is welcome, however I too am concerned over the lack of 'bite' versus the XZ-1.
    IMHO the UI and built-in OVF are the big reasons for an Oly owner to upgrade, if those are not as important then it is a Pass
  6. drd1135

    drd1135 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jul 13, 2011
    Lexington, Virginia
    Too much of the sharpness issues simply rely on the default settings. For JPEGS, just turn up the sharpness and it looks as sharp as the others. The RAW problems are worse because they are a bit harder to overcome. They actually recommended using the in-camera converter as opposed to the desktop software.
  7. JJJPhoto

    JJJPhoto Regular

    Jun 12, 2012
    I'm not going to write a massive post about all the things I disagree with in that review ... but I will challenge a few of the pros and cons as a current X10 user:

    One of the "Pros" mentioned in the review that I challenge:
    -- Very good JPEG image quality in 6MP capture modes
    My take: The JPEGs are good just as good or better in 12MP mode, but aren't as clean at high ISO compared to 6MP JPEGs

    "Cons" mentioned in the review:
    -- Image quality of 12MP JPEG files is lacking compared to peers with more conventional sensors
    My take: Compared to other compact, fixed lens cameras the 12MP JPEGs deliver "as good" or "greater" image quality. You can start to make some negative comparisons to the 12MP image files from m43 cameras, but the m43 cameras use larger sensors and interchangeable lenses so they might not be considered "peers."
    -- Poor image quality of Raw files processed via the bundled (and other third party) software
    My take: I simply don't agree with that comment in any way, shape or form.
    -- Large footprint compared to competition
    My take: Again, what is DPReview considering the "competition" in this comment? If it's small sensor compacts then, yes, the X10 is bigger, but earlier they just criticized the X10 for not having image quality as good as its "peers" which as far as I can tell is the result of DPReview comparing the X10 to cameras with larger sensors (which are just as big or bigger than the X10).
    -- Poor battery life
    My take: The battery life has only been a problem for me if I use the built-in flash or review my images over and over in between shots.

    Granted, the X10 is FAR from perfect and there are several things I really don't like about the X10 but I don't agree with the comments listed above from DPReview.
  8. stanleyk

    stanleyk Top Veteran

    May 23, 2011
    Taylor, Texas
    I agree.
  9. Lili

    Lili Hall of Famer

    Oct 17, 2010
    Dallas, TX