src="http://www.mirrorlessons.com/wp-content/themes/mirrorlessons Thoughts about the Fujifilm X70 digital teleconverter - MirrorLessons
MirrorLessons
Fuji Camera Reviews

Date: 07/03/2016 | By: Heather

The Fujifilm X70 – All about the digital teleconverter

GR II, 1/90, f/ 28/10, ISO 200

The Fujifilm X70 – All about the digital teleconverter

A great number of you have been asking about the Fujifilm X70‘s new digital teleconverter and more specifically, whether it is simply a crop of the 28mm field of view or something more. To answer this question, I thought I would write a brief article ahead of my full review of the camera.

On Fujifilm’s official website, you will find the following statement on the X70 product page:

The image quality may degrade when using the Digital Tele-converter function.

A second explanation is given in the official FujiGuys video (minute 4:55), where it is suggested that the 35mm and 50mm modes give you “full resolution” because of “Fuji’s unique super intelligent digital zoom technology,” or what X-Photographer Jonas Rask refers to as “some clever interpolation and wizardry” in his full review of the camera.

So, judging from these explanations, we can assume two things:

  • the digi-teleconverter files will have the same 16MP resolution as the ordinary X70 files, and
  • there may be some degradation in image quality

Let’s look at some real world samples to see if this is the case.

The first set of images is of our bookshelf taken at the native 28mm in both JPG and RAW format, as well as the digital 35mm and 50mm in JPG format. (You cannot take RAW files with the digital teleconverter.) All images were taken at f/5.6 at ISO 200. The first thing you’ll notice is that four resulting images do indeed have the same 16 megapixel count (4896 x 3254 pixels).

fuji x70 tele-converter
Original 28mm OOC JPG
fuji x70 teleconverter
28mm RAW file (exported as JPG from Lightroom)
fujifilm x70 teleconverter 35mm
35mm Digital Teleconverter
fujifilm x70 digital teleconverter 50mm
50mm Digital Teleconverter

Next, let’s take a look at four crops (made in post-production) – two taken from the 28mm JPG file at 35mm and 50mm, and two from the 28mm RAW file at 35mm and 50mm – and compare them with the equivalent images produced by the teleconverter. Our goal here is to understand if cropping in post later on gives you the same image quality as the digital teleconverter.

Important note: Since it only makes sense to compare images of the same size, I upscaled the crops to match the resolution of the images produced with the digital teleconverter. 

fuji x70 teleconverter
35mm crop from 28mm JPG (upscaled)
fuji x70 teleconverter
50mm crop from 28mm JPG (upscaled)
fujifilm x70 teleconverter
35mm crop from 28mm RAW file (upscaled)
fujifilm x70 teleconverter
50mm crop from 28mm RAW file (upscaled)

Looking at the images at 100%, I would say that regardless of the field of view (35mm or 50mm), the images produced by the teleconverter are extremely similar to the crops from the 28mm JPGs and RAW files. The 28mm JPG crop does appear marginally sharper and the 28mm RAW crop seems to retain more fine detail but the difference is so small it is barely worth mentioning.

fuji x70 digital teleconverter

fuji x70 digital teleconverter

fuji x70 digital teleconverter 50mm

fuji x70 digital teleconverter 50mm

Since bookshelves are a bit dull, I also took a couple more samples for you to download and analyse. The first set is a portrait of Mathieu and the second is a (rather blustery and cloudy) landscape.

Portrait Example

For this set, I’ve once again posted the untouched RAW and JPG taken at 28mm, as well as the two JPGs taken with the digital teleconverter at 35mm and 50mm. Below them you can find two 100% crops that compare the 50mm digital teleconverter image with the 28mm JPG cropped to 50mm in the first set and the 28mm RAW file cropped to 50mm in the second. Both 28mm crops have been upscaled to match the size of the 50mm teleconverter image.

Here as well, you’ll notice that while there is a slight difference in the rendering, the level of detail retention is about the same. However there is some slight aliasing in the 50mm digital teleconverter version (look at Mat’s glasses).

fujifilm x70 teleconverter
Taken at 28mm (RAW file converted to JPG in Lightroom)
fujifilm x70 teleconverter
28mm OOC JPG
fujifilm x70 teleconverter
35mm OOC JPG
fujifilm x70 teleconverter
50mm OOC JPG

Landscape Example

I performed the same experiment with this landscape shot as well. The main focus point of the image was the white building off in the distance, and as you can see once again, there isn’t a massive difference between the files.

fuji x70 digital teleconverter
Taken at 28mm (RAW file converted to JPG in Lightroom)
fuji x70 digital teleconverter
28mm OOC JPG
fuji x70 digital teleconverter
35mm OOC JPG
fuji x70 digital teleconverter
50mm OOC JPG

jpgvstele

rawvstele

What all this means is that the X70 upscales the image in-camera using image interpolation (and does it quite well I might add).

Of course, the original native RAW file at 28mm will always give you the most flexibility, detail and quality. That said, the digital teleconverter is certainly a handy tool for those who would rather skip the step of reworking their images in post-production.

As always, if you have any questions, feel free to leave us a comment below. (And be sure to check out our full review!)



Like our blog? Be sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter! If you’re planning on buying camera gear, you can check out Amazon, B&H Photo and PhotoMADD. Prices remain the same for you, but a small percentage of your purchase value is valued back to us. Thank you!

About the author: Heather Broster

Heather Broster was born in Canada, has lived in Japan and Italy but currently calls Wales home. She is a full-time gear tester at MirrorLessons. You can follow her on Google+, Twitter or Facebook!

  • Richard Reed

    One advantage longer lens gives you is added compression of the background that you wouldn’t necessarily achieve by simply cropping a 28mm FOV image. It looks like there is some compression happening with the crop modes, but I’d be curious to see how that might compare to a “proper” 35mm and 50mm lens. I currently have an X100T with teleconverter. I love the combo, but would strongly consider the X70’s pocketable size and its JPEG crop modes if the image quality was similar.

  • Dorin Neamtu

    Thank you, Heather!

  • http://www.mirrorlessons.com/ Heather Broster

    I don’t have the camera anymore but from what I recall, it was fine except in very bright sunlight. This is actually where the tilting screen comes in handy because you can adjust the angle away from the sun.

  • Dorin Neamtu

    Can tell me please if the x70’s display visibility in bright light is good enough ? Thanks !

  • http://www.mirrorlessons.com/ Heather Broster

    Thanks, Stefano!

  • Stefano Ferro

    Thanks Heather, great examples and informative comments

  • http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/ Heather Broster

    Glad you found it useful, Francois!

  • http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/ Heather Broster

    I don’t really miss it to be honest. The tilting touch screen is enough for most situations.

  • http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/ Heather Broster

    Sadly, no. We purchased the camera ourselves so we went with the basic package. I’ll see if we can get Fujifilm to send us the VF to test!

  • http://seancull.com/ Sean Cull

    I wonder how it would compare to using the X100T with the 50mm teleconverter? Very similar, I guess. To be honest, I’m still waffling between the X100T and the X70 as my next camera. How are you finding not having an optical viewfinder on the X70?

  • Wesley Coleman

    They don’t look half bad! I think the only one I would really use would be the 35mm, but it’s cool nonetheless. The X70 is looking like it might be my next purchase! Any experience with the optional viewfinder?

  • https://500px.com/francoiskaplan francois kaplan

    Heather, great post, very instructive, thanks a lot!

BACK TO TOP
Disclaimer & Copyright Notice

The owners of this website, Heather Broster and Mathieu Gasquet, are participants in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, B&H Photo Affiliate Program, eBay Partner Network, Macphun Affiliate Program, Peak Design Affiliate Program, The Inspired Eye Affiliate Program, SmugMug Affiliate Program and Mediterranean Photo Tours Affiliate Program, all of which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking MirrorLessons (mirrorlessons.com) to Amazon, B&H Photo, eBay, Macphun, Peak Design, The Inspired Eye, SmugMug and Mediterranean Photo Tours properties properties. They are also members of Google AdSense. AdSense publishers must have and abide by a privacy policy that discloses that third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your users’ browsers, or using web beacons to collect information as a result of ad serving on your website.

To see more information, visit our full Disclaimer page. Thank you!

© Heather Broster/Mathieu Gasquet and MirrorLessons, 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Heather Broster/Mathieu Gasquet and MirrorLessons with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
MENU
×