Fuji announces Finepix X100: ultimate retro awesomeness

<p>If it comes it at under a grand USD I'd seriously consider it. (I would not just convert from yen- dollar is at an all-time low and Fuji knows that.) I've been waiting for a replacement for my Canon Canonet for years and this might do the trick. If not then I'll look at whatever succeeds the Olympus Pen and GF1 that has stabilization and HD video.</p>

<p>I personally like the 35mm-40mm focal range (35mm equivalent) and would very much like a compact fast fixed lens camera with such a lens on it.</p>

<p>I see little point in being stuck with a fixed lens digital camera at $1000 (and probably $1500) plus. The small output of Fuji makes the price high, just as it has with their recent film format (120 size) rangefinder, the 667. That apparently has issues with build quality. If the internals match the externals of the X100 I might be worried - the metal body is very un-Leica (M) or even un-Zeiss-Ikon like in appearance and seemingly (from the images provided) lacks their high quality fit and finish. If the internals work well, that may be soon forgotten. But a fixed lens? Even Konica made the good step from the Hexar AF to the Hexar RF with interchangeable lenses of high quality and reasonable price.</p>

<p>Yeah, I keep frothing at the mouth for a compact APS-C camera, and was just about to fall all over myself seeing this. However, the limits of the lens (no zoom), the large size (I can't really call it compact), and the probable high price make we wonder what excites folks about it.</p>

<p>That's actually a question. Do tell.</p>

<p>It sounds like what a lot of you guys really want is a Sony NEX camera.</p>

<p>Nah. What we want is a digital Leica CL with a full-frame sensor for US$2000 or so.</p>

<p>No zoom is a limitation? I find that to be a depressing idea. </p>

<p>Don't be depressed. All's I'm sayin' is that I'd prefer my GF1 to the Fuji because I can change lenses, even if I'm changing between primes. At least there is flexibility. I'd hate to have been on my recent trip to Prague and only have a 35mm (equiv) lens. I'd have missed a lot of great shots.</p>

<p>Well, I think the idea for many is that the X100 is a secondary/backup camera. Certainly a majority of people who buy one will already have a DSLR camera system in their possession. <br>

As someone who shoots only primes, I see a fixed lens as an asset, particularly given the speed of this particular lens. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I keep frothing at the mouth for a compact APS-C camera, and was just about to fall all over myself seeing this. However, the limits of the lens (no zoom), the large size (I can't really call it compact), and the probable high price make we wonder what excites folks about it.<br>

That's actually a question. Do tell.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When employing an aps-C sensor, it is difficult to make the box much smaller. X1 is smaller but not with EVF. Don´t need zoom, have used compact film camera with fixed lens for years. Will pay 1000€ right away, seems reasonable given the advanced VF system and fast lens.</p>

 

<p>@Brad.<br /> I would also like to see someone sketch a revolutionary new camera from scratch.<br /> In this case of refined simplicity and retro design, we could have something else - if Fuji delivers:<br /> Having tried the original Konica Hexar-experience, I've learned to appreciate the capability of being the goofy-guy-who-seems-to-be-fooling-around-with-granddads-camera. No one notices you - or at least your taking pictures - until you return with razorsharp images of candid moments.<br /> It's that kind of stealth capability, that I suspect is more difficult to achieve using a Nikon D3 and Nikkor 24-70...</p>

<p>Oooooo! I like this.<br /> I don't see having a fixed lens as a weakness - it's like my old Dynamatic that doesn't work anymore.<br /> The price is a little steep compared to the PEN, GF and the DP1.</p>

<p>I wonder if because it looks like an old film camera, would the thieves leave it alone?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The price is a little steep compared to the PEN, GF and the DP1.<br />I wonder if because it looks like an old film camera, would the thieves leave it alone?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well...the fuji does have the OVF/EVF option (new tech) which could be really cool. The fact that it looks like a M from the 60's is okay but I wouldn't pay a premium for it. AT 1K, I would probably buy it if everything is cool. It would $200-300 over a 4/3rd bod...about the price of a lens. Let's see when it does come out in March...</p>

<p> </p>

Engadget reports the X100 will ship March 2011 for $1000 USD.

 

Rumors say the lens is designed very deep into the body, making it hard to reconfigure for interchangeable lenses.

<p>Is a fixed lens such a crippling handicap? The great photographers amongst us are good at any focal length.</p>

<p>This sounds great. I don't see a fixed lens as a problem. I've been carrying around a Nikon 35ti film camera for years as a second small film backup (with incredible images from it) and this seems like the digital equivalent of that.</p>

Ok, let me ask another way. Why would you buy the Fuji over a m43 kit like the GF1 and the 14-45 or the 20?

<p>The GF1 doesn't have a viewfinder and the sensor is smaller. Two big strikes. Toss in the Fuji lens vs. the Panasonic lens, and it's slam dunk city.</p>

<p>Been there (Photokina), seen it, touched it, looked through the viewfinder, and yes, that will be the next camera I will throw money at (if the sensor deliveres, but with Fuji, I don't fear they won't get this part right, too).</p>

<p>The viewfinder is great: large, large enough in any case. Full of information (the optical one even shows the histogram, if I remember well), automatic paralax correction when using the optical finder), bright and clear with a phantastic resolution. In the optical finde, the framelines a clearly visible, with enough additional space around them so you see also details outside the main area, while switching to EVF gets you the real sensor picture. EVF and framelines coincide perfectly, from what I have seen.</p>

<p>No rangefinder, that is clear, but if the autofocus is fast enough, I don't care. The retro design is fine with me. One may not like it, but having handled most of the best bodies available today, I still think there is a good reason why most companies sooner or later fall back to the same simple and basic user interface, good old mechanical knobs and rings, with buttons and wheels for the second level functions only. It has taken camera evolution many years to end up with the M concept, and nothing I have seen so far has proved this concept to be wrong.</p>

<p>Fuji people told me it would be available around february / march, time to save the amount and / or sell what has not been used in the past years...</p>

 

<p>When I used my little Konica rangefinder in the 70´s, no-one called it an M clone, although the layout was very similar. The M camera layout is in biology described as "convergent evolution", that is, different lines of evolution converges at the same final form (sharks, dolphins, tuna). So in this context, the X100 is not retro. It is just the most logical camera layout.</p>

<p>Sven, sure there were no "M-clones" around at that time (no biological clones either, btw). But looking at camera history, Leica in my opinion had a very strong influence on camera design. Maybe even before the M, with the first Leica as well as with the screwmount ones, improving only details in the M series. </p>

<p>At those times, that was what cameras looked like, more or less. I don't think it's converging evolution: other than a bird in Australia, that could by no means know of his counterpart in Africa and actively develop similar properties, camera designers had a blueprint of camera basics in their head, willingly or unwillingly, and even if no one talked about clones in those days, I believe Leica was one of the companies responsible for the common understanding of good handling.</p>

<p>With less fights going on regarding intellectual property in those days, I have the impression that people back then took good solutions as a basis for further design and development out of common sense, not to "steal" or clone them, as todays lawyers tend to interpret every similarity between products.</p>

<p>Well, lets enjoy the result of Fujis work, be it cloned or just good by itself, I am happily looking forward to give them my hard earned money in return for something that somehow still looks like a good old M3...</p>

I'm deeply entrenched in the m4/3 format.

More so than proper to post here. All I ever wanted in a digital camera was for it to See what I See naturally.

The 35mm FOV without intrusion from info from the camera.

The GF1 with the 17mm is close, real close.

Now the X100 comes around and it seems that Fuji has been paying attention to users of the Panny and Oly m4/3

cameras.

This is the dawn of a new era in cameras, makers and users.

I'm sure the X100 will deliver and do it well.

It's just a shame that the brand name isn't Oky or Panny as should be.

I applaud Fuji for it's efforts and will support those efforts in every way.

Shooter...out

I'll reserve judgement pending some sample images to compare to m43 and first hand experience with the AF system

and shutter lag (or lack thereof).

 

I'm skeptical but hope to surprised and be wrong.

<p>for $1k it might be worth it; $1700 is a bit steep for a fixed-focal.</p>

<p>"$1700 is a bit steep for a fixed-focal."</p>

<p>Agreed. Sigh. Fuji's has created some amazingly wonderful fixed-lens cameras (e.g. GSW690, the 645 cameras, and the new 6x7 folder) with killer lenses, but they always are priced well over what most people are interested in paying.</p>

 

<p>That has not stopped Leica, though.</p>