fuji x100

<p>Bob,</p>

<p>I never said he didn't understand photography. Just that for a lot of shooters, the x100 meets their demands at that price.</p>

<p>I just find it difficult to understand why anyone would compare a APS-C sensor camera with a big viewfinder to a P&S based on size and a fixed lens. </p>

<p>Anyways, the Fuji x100 is a game changer, in my opinion. More so than any DSLR that's come out this year. Nikon and Canon are watching it closely I'm sure, and I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with similar options in a few years. The future of cameras is in small well built devices that offer big bright viewfinders and good image quality. </p>

<p>There will always be a market for small unobtrusive and mechanical (in operation) cameras, whether it's film or digital.</p>

<p>So Kudos to Fuji for tapping that market segment.</p>

<p>J</p>

<p>Bob, </p>

<p>Sorry misread your post. Agreed. Ok moving on. </p>

<p>x300 rumours???</p>

<p>Seems a very useful well designed little cam with a very sharp lens.</p>

<p> Solid build, nice size, seems a perfect little beast for street photography.</p>

<p>Now without a fixed lens........</p>

<p>Hi Allen ... long time ... : -)</p>

<p>X100 looks like fun. Small, seemingly well made, decent lens, ability to focus close. The 30 to 40 shots I've seen to date are nothing to write home about ... exactly what you'd expect from a smaller sensor camera with a bit better lens. Good "pocket rocket" for those who like that sort of thing. </p>

<p>Personally not my cup of tea ... I've wasted so much money on these sort of novelties in past that I'm leery about it when they come up short on IQ. </p>

<p>For others it may well fit their needs to a T ... which is why they made the thing in the first place, and why there is so much interest in it I'm sure.</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Marc, </p>

<p>It's strange that you mention image quality, as most reviews have it performing equal to, or better, than similar sized sensor DSLRs in the $1000 range. It's not a full frame sensor, that's for sure. But it's as good as most APS-C sensors. </p>

<p>J</p>

<p>Marc/Julien...this is the thing I don't get. Maybe I've been away from the photo forums too long (hang out mostly on shooting forums now that use .308 instead of digital sensors), but it seems everyone has bought into the 'horsepower' (megapixel race).<br>

Your right Marc, it is a smaller sensor...but so what. A D3x gets beat hands down by a Leaf Aptus 75 (33mp), which gets trampled by the Phase IQ160 (60mp)...which will be beat next year by...????<br>

Again, maybe I'm living in the past but I remember the arguments that went "why would anyone pay $4K for an M6 when my $1.5K Pentax 645 will beat it hands down?"...the howl that went up that it was a totally ridiculous comparison because the cameras weren't designed for the same thing, and their strongpoints were aimed at different styles of photography.<br>

Yet I constantly hear on the forum that the X100 is all wrong because for $1K it doesn't have the capabiltiy of this or that DSLR (or whatever), totally neglecting that it isn't trying to be the next wunderkind DSLR...just as the M2/3/4/6 wasn't trying to be the next great system SLR.<br>

Oh well...a 25 year old M14 still kills as well as a brand new Macmillan...and no one argues the point.</p>

<p>Bob, </p>

<p>The only reason I was mentioning the sensor size was to address the suggestion that this was merely a point & shoot, and should be priced as such. The fact is that part of the price is for the APS-C sensor and the image quality rivals most DSLRs in that price range. The larger the sensor, the better (in most cases) IQ at higher ISO. Granted, this is not a full frame sensor, but you pay much more for those. </p>

<p>I shoot film now, so I don't care much about sensors. Was just trying to describe why it was being sold at that price point. Add a good lens, and it makes perfect sense to me. </p>

<p>I'm still waiting for a full frame digital rangefinder with a big viewfinder that can take M glass and that's NOT $8000 - then I'll buy. We're probably 5 years too soon. </p>

<p>Until then, my FM2n and M6 are more than good enough, and quite frankly, I just prefer film and simple film cameras. </p>

<p>J</p>

<p>Bob, </p>

<p>Also, I agree that people are always judging a camera against "everything a DSLR can do". I suspect that the people who are buying m4/3s, X1s and X100s are not looking for cameras that can do everything and then some. </p>

<p>The DSLR has created a market that expects a camera to cover all bases. I don't understand why, as I'd rather have a camera that does one thing exceptionally well. </p>

<p>J</p>

Seems OK to talk of it here. That it is a rangefinder-styled machine makes it fit in.

 

I'm excited about it and am contemplating trying one, but along with triggering a few raisings of my eyebrows, dpreview's take also makes me cringe. I agree with Marc in that the pictures I've seen don't knock my socks off (yet).

<p>Tony and Marc, what do you mean by the comment that the pictures you have so far seen are somewhat lacking?<br>

There are two aspects to a good photograph, technical quality and content. Technical quality is an objective thing that can be evaluated in comparative tests. Based on the evidence so far, I do not believe anyone can honestly criticize the technical quality of Fuji X100 images. The fact that the camera has some serious usability quirks reduces its ability to capture some sort of images, but used within its limits it is able to produce outstanding pictures, on par with any APS sensor DSLR with a good fixed focal length short lens. This is just about as good as is possible from a small camera today.<br>

Technically flawless images are not necessarily good photographs. In fact, often they are not. You don't need to have a good, expensive camera to make very good photographs. It takes time and skill, and even good photographers don't always and all the time produce good, or at least not exceptional photographs. Give it a year or two. By that time enough good photographers have got their hands around one and have had time to work with it so that you start to see really good photographs made with this camera. This is something that cannot be rushed. I hope Fuji fixes most of the operational issues by then. </p>

<p>Ilkka, it is subjectivity pure and simple. I do not like the look or feel of the images I've seen posted so far (about 80 or so on different sites). Not bad mind you, just not anything special in look or character to warrant spending this kind of coin ... <strong>yet!</strong> ... (as Tony said). </p>

<p>I'm not measuring it against FF 35mm Pro DSLRs or MFD as someone suggested ... that is not only unfair, it would be ridiculous. However, the question is: what is each person's IQ threshold for any photographic tool they use? That is where the personal subjectivity comes in. Depends on what you are shooting and how much importance each person subscribes to what they shoot.</p>

<p>I personally do not like capturing an image at any given time or place, and then wishing I had done it with a better tool. The work is the priority, equipment is subservient to the work ... </p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Strange since most of the reviews suggest it has excellent image quality. You can't really judge image quality based on internet images...but people try anywyays. </p>

<p>In fairness, I suppose you could say "I don't like the character of the lens", but that remains extremely subjective.</p>

<p>I just want a good sensor and metal dials on a small, well made/designed camera. Everything else annoys me. I'm happy to see Fuji moving in the right direction, even if their first attempt isn't perfect (but then again, there's only one perfect camera - guess which one!)</p>

<p>J</p>

<p>I've spent a couple days with it now, and am undecided. It still might go back to B&H. My quick take--unlike many here, I think the Image Quality and high ISO quality are the camera's strong points. The files are lovely. And I like certain things, like the real aperture dial and real shutter speed dial, which can either or both be set to A. But operationally, at least for those of us used to "normal" cameras (I use the Canon SLR system, and my current PS is the Lumix GF1 with the 40mm and a Voightlander finder--an excellent, snappy street camera), it is a nightmare.</p>

<p>As many have noted, the menu system, etc., just doesn't make sense. Trying to get the LCD on require synching two different buttons, and I still haven't got it down. The fact that it locks up while writing files is IRRITATING, especially since the cameras I just mentioned have this down. The viewfinder is nice, but the LCDs are DARK. You can't really see the back LCD in sunlight, and turning up the brightness all the way does little, and this also blows out the highlights on the viewed image!</p>

<p>God I had high hopes for this camera. It is a beautful device, no doubt. I love the retro looks and feel. But again you wonder if they had Photographers actually use it. Twenty minutes with this thing and I could have provided a list that would make it 10x more photo friendly. For instance, the +/- dial is extremely easy to knock. It doesn't click in hard, and is in a bad spot. ISO needed a button, and not the FCN button. And we need only ONE button to make the back LCD work. And clean up those menus!</p>

<p>Some of this might be addressable in firmware. But much isn't. Today I will decide whether or not to send it back. The image quality, though , definitely the attaction, over my Lumix. Oh, and I forgot to mention it is somewhat slow to use, especially if you don't prefocus. Quite a bit of noticeable lag. More than the Lumix.</p>

<p>So it is kind of an also ran. I don't know what the current wait list is, so if I do decide to send it back, but one of you would like it instead, I'd sell it for my cost. This isn't an ad, just offering a service, IF I decide to pass.</p>

<p>Frustrating, though. I wish Canon or Nikon would do this and get it right. And hey, just give me real Rangefinder focus, that would be fine!</p>

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

<p>Detail from above</p><div></div>

<p> I read the lengthy review from DPreview and after reading it I certainly would not want the camera. The thing just has absolutely nothing about it that appeals to me. I still think it should be priced about $400.00 but I would not buy the camera for a single dollar. It would just be wasting space in my bag. Just my opinion. However I still think that those that find the features of the camera appealing should consider purchasing the camera. Fuji would definately appreciate the business.</p>

<p>My copy of the camera has arrived and I have had a chance to use it for just one day and I already feel like my $1,200 was well spent. I only had to read the owner's manual once to figure out something I needed to know (how to turn off the in-viewfinder LCD review) and was able to figure out everything else on my own by scrolling through the menus. I'm not a geek and generally find computers and software frustrating and a pain in the butt, so please don't think I am some kind of wizard at this stuff. I bought the camera intending to use it like I would my old M3 of newer M6ttl, to take pictures and not fuss over technical crap. I find the camera a delight to use. The autofocus works better than anything short of my professional DSLR's I have owned and those who think it is overpriced or short of their expectations are entitled to think that and move on. It is not the second-coming. To make it incredible it would have to have a sensor similar to the one in a Nikon D700 and have to be a true rangefinder for focusing. The images are 'true to life' to my eyes and much better than my Nikon D300. I was tickled pink when they announced it would be a fixed lens 35mm equivalent camera. Every photographer, I would think, has an angle of view that is his or her favorite — 35mm is mine. And as many have said here, posting photographs on the Internet doesn't do any camera justice so I won't even try. I have sent 'out of the box' samples to professional photographer friends of mine and they seem equally impressed. Maybe all the bad press will loosen up the tight supply of this camera and those who really want one will be able to get one now. I know I waited long enough, but am very happy I did.</p>

<p>Dayton:</p>

<p>Glad you got a copy!</p>

<p>I just recently started browsing over here: <a href="http://www.x100forum.com/">http://www.x100forum.com/</a> I have no affiliation with this place. Not sure whether it is moderated, or just that the people who like to bash cameras they don't own generally don't post there. In either case, lots of people who actually own and use the X100 make up the bulk of the posts.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Eric:<br>

Thanks for the tip on the X100 forum. Hopefully, I won't incur many of the problems people claim to have. I'm just hoping to take a lot of great shots with minimal fuss.<br>

Dayton</p>

<p>note: the two photos above are at 1600...</p>

<p>Well, I was gone for 4 or 5 years from this forum, and it looks like I'll be on my way again.<br>

I find this bitching about the X100 Laughable (yes, with a capital L).<br>

A couple of years ago I remember the M8 introduction. Then a couple of weeks later all the 'feedback':<br>

It's sensor wasn't up to snuff. (in comparison to then current DSLR's)<br>

It's processor was slow. (in comparison to then current DSLR's)<br>

It's menu was terrible . (in comparison to then current DSLR's)<br>

You couldn't shoot color without an expensive IR filter (which no other camers suffers from)<br>

YET THE CONCLUSION HERE: IT'S A LEICA FOR GOD SAKE AND WORTH EVERY PENNY OF ITS $8K<br>

Good Grief!!!!</p>

Hi Allen ... long time ... : -)

<br />Hi Marc....long time indeed.Good to hear from you I hope your world is rocking and rolling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I've wasted so much money on these sort of novelties in past"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ha, you can afford those little novelties my friend. Anyway, i think the Fuji is a lot lot better than a novelty from what i'm seeing and reading. Here's a sacrilegious thought for you.....

<a href="file://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=bdfc0ff5f16d8c2f0bf8805bbe6b2bfa&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.x100forum.com%2Findex.php%3F%2Ftopic%2F986-x100-vs-leica-m9-according-to-snapsort%2F&v=1&libid=1305918842306&out=http%3A%2F%2Fsnapsort.com%2Fcompare%2FFujifilm_FinePix_X100-vs-Leica_M9&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.x100forum.com%2Findex.php%3F%2Fforum%2F6-x100-discussion%2F&title=X100%20vs.%20Leica%20M9%20-%20According%20to%20snapsort%20-%20X100%20Forum&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fsnapsort.com%2F...100-vs-Leica_M9">http://snapsort.com/...100-vs-Leica_M9</a> Sorry,could not resist.<br /> <br />

Bob, I don't think anyone is "bitching" per se, only discussing. I think for the money it is reasonable to have some doubts especially after reading such mixed reviews everywhere.

<p>Bob,</p>

<p>Nobody is "bitching" here. Sorry. Are we all suppose to hold hands and agree? So far, seems like a discussion about the x100's merits, faults and target audience. You shouldn't get so upset when two differing opinions exist - it's quite common. </p>

<p>Anyways, I'm sure the X100 will have an impact much more significant than we can see at the moment. I can guarantee that the other companies have taken some serious notes here, and it wouldn't surprise me to see this type of camera gain market shares in the next year or so. </p>

<p>Who knows what the future holds, but I'm almost certain that the x100 and m4/3 cameras are a BIG part of it. People want small quality cameras, period. Whether the x100 is up to the task remains to be seen, but its concept will influence future decisions in the digital camera arena. </p>

<p>J</p>

<p>The image quality is superb. High iso files are simply amazing. Those who are judging it by images posted on the internet really have to try it out for themselves. I was hesitant at first, but after working with a few files I'm sold.</p>

<p>The viewfinder is better than any DSLR I've looked through...even the full frame ones, although I haven't looked through Canon's current top model.</p>

<p>Those calling it a point & shoot haven't a clue about this camera.</p>

<p>The menus do need improvement and the camera is a bit slow in operation, but gets faster after you learn your way around it. It's not an easy camera to use by today's standards, but it's worth learning.</p>

<p>I'm very comfortable with the fixed 35mm lens. However, I can see where others find this a handicap.</p>

<p>It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. It's not for fast action shooting, that's for sure. Street shooting & travel...maybe a backup for some wedding shooters (dynamic range is excellent)...that's where this thing shines.</p>

Jim, I'll be sure not to mention your name to my wife after I buy this camera! :-)