New Fuji X100 camera

<p>I think it's nice that so few threads about gear are started here or that it does crop up in otherwise normal threads. I for one would prefer to keep it that way. Besides:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I could be wrong but the no equipment discussion forum rule wasn't around from way back, Ton. I could still remember the infighting, jabs among the forumers. It was all before RFF, GETDPI, SERIOUScompacts etc... came into existence. I guess many users left for RRF among others. Aahhh, was it from the leica section of PN? Anyways...my point, it wasn't always quiet like this here... </p>

<p>not to change the subject, but...</p>

<p>now that you mention it, this has got to be the most pleasant photography oriented forum in which i have participated.<br>

very few if any jabs. even the few jabs seem to be generally good natured.<br>

who are you people??</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Start a Mac vs PC thread and see how pleasant we are...</p>

<p>you mean... some of you are users of...<br>

never mind. i don't want to know.</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Thanks for all of your input! I think this camera is going to be very popular with street photogrpahers because of its small size, keen manual focus and good image quality. I could be wrong and am sorry if any of you didn't think this post belonged here. </p>

<p>tim, i dont think its going to be more popular with SPers than what they are using now. it certainly won't convert anyone into a street photographer. collectors, retro aficionados and rangefinder geeks, yes. but it doesnt really do anything that can't be done with other cameras. the price point is a serious turnoff as well. that doesnt mean you can't use it for SP, but you could just get an actual rangefinder or a used DSLR for a lot less. for a lot of people, the appeal of SP is that its unpretentious and doesnt necessarily require exclusive, elite gear--just a good eye.</p>

What Eric said...

<p>I think it will be hugely popular. I want one yesterday.</p>

<p>Mark my words, I bet Brad and Eric will have one by years end.</p>

<p>I bet it will sell mainly for its savy marketing trad RF look than anything else. </p>

<p>After spending $1200, will the buzz wear off when the devotee recalls that he cannot place a wide angle or long focus lens on it for expanded photo possibilities. Even the humble digi point and shoots have 3X zoom lenses and maximum f2.8 speed. I will wait a while, as the APS and 4/3rds stable is starting to see some interesting new horses, and the more there are the better the Q/P ratio should get. </p>

<p>Many, many superb photographers don't use zooms. Many actually use just one lens for most things.<br>

Look it up.</p>

<p><em>I bet Brad and Eric will have one by years end.</em></p>

<p>lol, tim. just wondering, besides the aesthetic look, what makes you so gung-ho about a $1200 fixed-focal camera, anyway?</p>

 

<p>I just think you guys will get in the groove Eric, I could be wrong.</p>

>>> I bet Brad and Eric will have one by years end.

 

I'll take that bet, and have a feeling Eric might as well!

 

I honestly don't see anything compelling about it over what I'm using now.

<p>I would bet you Brad but you guys would not buy one just to win the bet. Everyone has to use the camera that does the job and that they are comfortable with. </p>

<p><em>I just think you guys will get in the groove Eric, I could be wrong.</em></p>

<p>Tim, i'm in the groove now. honestly, not that excited. once you get past the retro look, it's just a camera you can't switch lenses on which costs more than a d7000. also, the ergonomics look like a step backwards from Nikon DSLRs. a GF1 is less expensive by several hundred dollars, smaller and thus more pocketable, faster (with the 20/1.7) and can be equipped with everything from an UWA to a 400mm equivalent tele. so for street, travel, and casual use, that's much more appealing. plus, i already have a d90 i can pop a 35 or 50mm lens on if i want the aesthetic experience of using a fixed-focal with a small footprint.</p>

<p>as for marking your words, if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, your words don't have much value. welshing out on a bet before you've even made it? what up wit dat, dawg? you should buy me one just so you can be proved right.</p>

<p>seriously, i'll probably get a GF1 by the end of the year, but i may wait to see how the rumored mirrorless nikon is. if it can take nikon flashes, that would be a plus.</p>

<p>The beauty of the x100 is the viewfinder. It's not a tunnel like you find on most dslrs, and you're not limited to using the rear lcd. The "retro" placement of the aperture ring on the lens is also a plus for me. It's faster using your opposite hand as opposed to using a thumb dial...at least it is for me.</p>

<p>I own a GF-1...and an EPL-1. They're great little cameras but the D-range just isn't there yet. I've also just received a GH2...it's slightly better in the d-range department. The viewfinder on the GH2 is excellent, but I'm told the Fuji has that beat by a mile.</p>

<p>I guess the appeal is that the camera doesn't try to be too much. We'll have to wait to see how the files are.</p>

<p>I saw the X-100 and immediately wanted it. Still do, but some common sense has prevailed. If I had a lot of money I'd get one just to use where appropriate, but the price is too boutique for me, maybe if it drops or on the used market in the future I'll still look for one but not now. <br>

I use a Panasonic G1 with some OM primes plus the kit 14-45 and 40-200 and for around $300 now I can add the 20mm f1.7 I've been wanting and have everything photographically the X-100 offers in a lighter package. Not as stylish, and without the cool viewfinder (but with a cool viewfinder of its own), I've found the G1 to be a really great user camera which additionally offers the ultimate in lens flexibility if you like legacy lenses. I actually had my whole kit up for sale to fund an X-100 so smitten was I, and had a buyer, but after taking a hard look at what I have and reminding me that its the pictures that count most, I woke up. <br>

Also, I'm, not sure if it's official, but the x-100 supposedly weighs over 500 grams vs the 365 of my G1. I've found light weight important to me in a compact camera on occasions I want it in a coat pocket.</p>

<p>good points jim about the aperture ring and the x100's dynamic range advantage, which is the most notable drawback of my TL500 compared to DSLRs. however, thom hogan has been eking out some decent GF1 pics; also, with the M- or F-mount adapter, Leica and Nikon lenses are mountable on a GF1. for $1200 you could get the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.1 and an M-adapter for m4/3. now <em>that</em> would be an interesting rig for street shooting, i'd imagine.</p>

<p>so, never say never, but probably not at $1200...</p>

<p>and dean, i think i'd come to the same conclusion that you did, that a X100 is a nice toy but the GF1 offers more overall. i guess i'm saying i'd prefer expandability over a fixed-focal shooter at that price, no matter how good the camera was. ricoh also has a fixed-focal P&S with a 1.9 lens at around $600. in any event, i will not be an early adopter, especially not with nikon's mirrorless entry looming...</p>

<p>I just spent $380 on a new Nikon P7000 and I have yet to begin recovering from that purchase. I love the look of the Fuji X100, it is a beautiful camera to look at. But I think I might not be as pleased with the image quality as I am currently with the Nikon P7000.</p>

<p>I think the X100 is a niche camera at best. It sure does beat the heck out of the Leica X1 though. I think Fuji named it the X100 for a reason...</p>

<p>I'm not sure what people are complaining about the camera, isn't it easier to just 'move on'? I think the camera either immediately speaks to you or it doesn't. I love the direct input, the easy/manual controls. 35mm is a great everything focal length, so that certainly doesn't bother me, and eitherway, if it was interchangeable lenses, it would need to be eletronic viewfinder 'only' & larger, at the moment it has a great mix that appeals to both parties I think. So it's definately a winner for me. If i ever get the cash, I'd love to get this camera. But I feel it'll most likely just be admired in a store, and then waved goodbye. Perhaps in a few years, when I've got work sorted out better, I could afford some sort of 'mk2' version or just an lightly used 'original'.</p>

<p>- and would those who talk about a Leica clone please look at all the japanese rangefinders from the 70´s. Thanks, I feel better now.</p>

<p>I am at the moment very ambivalent as to whether I should buy an X100 or a Panasonic LX5.<br>

I have a Nikon DSLR + lenses, but need a pocketable (OK, large pockets) model that still delivers. The LX5 gives me a decent zoom range. The X100 gives me quick manual control and low light performance, but I am stuck with 35mm focal length (FF equivalent). The price difference does not matter; I just need to find out what will work best for me in the long run. This second camera would be used for casual shooting, city holidays, to carry around at all times.<br>

What would you do?</p>

Sven, I do not like how color balance changes as the LX5 moves up the ISO ladder, but if you shoot primarily B&W, you probably don't care. On the bright side, video is the best among high-end P&S models.

 

New review of the Fuji X100 (en Español) with full-size samples, albeit from pre-release firmware:

 

http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/fuji-x100-muestras-analisis,1_7322