fuji x100

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by luis_colon, May 10, 2011.

  1. well hi to all
    am a new member to this forum . well i just got my first rangefinder ,, is digital not analog.
    so far I like ,, is amazing the quality of photos you get with this camera, any way I just want to share .
  2. Not a rangefinder. With a rangefinder you focus by aligning two superimposed views of the scene as you rotate the focus ring of the lens. The Fuji X100 is a viewfinder camera with both automatic and manual focus methods. If you have used the latter, please tell us how it goes.
  3. Sorry Charlie, the X100 is indeed considered a rangefinder, and has been discussed numerous times on this forum before.
    Luis, how about posting some photos you've taken with your new X100. We'd all love to see them. I've yet to see anyone post photos from this camera on this forum. So far, seems like the X100 is more or less a vaporware camera, impossible to find anywhere in the States.
  4. Excuse me very much, but I do not think anyone should consider a camera that is not a rangefinder, a rangefinder. I think it has been agreed and well accepted that viewfinder cameras can be discussed in this forum along true rangefinders, but that does not make them rangefinders. If correct definitions are not followed, the whole industry will lose its history and nothing matters anymore. There is no reason to call a rangefinder something else, or to start calling all autofocusing cameras rangefinders.
  5. I'm happy you're excited about hour new camera. As you can see, there's some disagreement about whether it's a
    rangefinder (IMHO, it's not) but don't let that bug you YET (you can get a M camera later to see what you're missing).
  6. Oh, dear! this is all getting a bit theological! The reason why academic discussions are so heated is because there is often so little at stake. The Bessa L is not a rangefinder but has had a long history on this forum. So a viewfinder which looks like a rangefinder is probably OK. I have an M6 and an M8 and, now, the Fuji X100. Looking through the viewfinder of the X100 and adjusting the focus is a little like twirling the lens on an M8. So, let's decide that we will or will not accept the X100 on this forum. Meanwhile this picture was one of the first I took with the X100. JPG straight out ot the camera. The M8 can't do this in my hands.
  7. Hi Luis,
    I would love to see Your photos. It's good idea to resize the pictures to <700 "pickles" width.
    And how it's Fuji X100 a rangefinder? Does it have rangefinder? Is miniature Leica copy by Minox also a rangefinder? No, it just look like one, the same with Fuji X100.
    IMHO term Viewfinder Camera would be the best to use here.
  8. If we have to put the X100 anwhere, it's probably here because it handles (from what I've read) like a rangefinder, although doesn't use a range finding mechanism to achieve focus. But I would argue that it's not a "rangefinder". Are we saying that anything small that's not an SLR, is in fact a RF?
    Lets see some pictures! I hope to buy one myself when they become available again, or wait for the X300 with interchangeable lens - you know it's coming!
  9. I see that B&H Photo in New York has raised the price of the X100 now to $1399 from the original MSRP of $1199. And it is still out of stock. I wonder where people are finding this mysterious X100? It certainly isn't available here in the States.
    To me, any camera is a "rangefinder" if it does not have a reflex housing to allow the composing of the image through the taking lens. There is no such category as a "viewfinder" camera, unless you are talking about a large format "view camera."
  10. Poor Luis: his first posting and he is exposed to "the theologians." All non-SLR cameras and all Leicas are grist to the mill in this forum I think. The X100 can be considered to have an electronic rangefinder (ie AF). If not, then all discussion about the Hexar AF etc. should be verboten too.
  11. An X100 is a rangefinder in the same way that my Olympus E-P1 is a DSLR. That is, those cameras are sorta, kinda, maybe a substitute, and therefore they are exactly the same thing. ;-)

    I'm with Ilkka. If we can't use precise definitions on photo.net, then why have them at all?

    The X100 is a "rangefinder style" camera. That much I can live with.
  12. All prices are going up it seems. Try finding M glass, even used, for a good price. I still don't fully understand what's happening. X100s going for $2000 on the big auction sites, and some of them are selling.
    Shame on B&H,
  13. Either way,
    Congrats on an excellent acquisition! I'm jealous, rangefinder or not. I really want one, and would love to hear your thoughts. I'm currently shooting film only (after selling all my Nikon digital gear - D90 and DX lenses) but have been thinking of complimenting my film work with a digital. Until the X100, I had no interest in digital.
    To me, it's the perfect camera. My only wish is that it had the ability to manual focus, as I really enjoy doing so. Also, interchangeable lens, but in a way having ONE lens is a blessing.
  14. I was lucky enough to get one too here's a pano made in camera I shot it yesterday; truly a great little camera
  15. Excuse me, but other than the viewfinder which doesn't quite qualify it for the rangefinder moniker, isn't this roughly the same as paying an upper mid-range DSLR price for what has similar characteristics as an entry-level DSLR, minus the ability to change lenses and a few other advantages? Nothing against entry-level DSLRs since that's all I have myself, but then, I didn't pay $1400 for it.
  16. I've had one of these on order for months, pre-paid through B&H and was told yesterday that they are starting to trickle in and will go out on a first-come, first-serve basis regardless of what one paid for it. Speaking of rangefinders ... I think dumping the autofocus and putting a true, honest-to-goodness rangefinder in this camera instead of autofocus would have been heaven on earth from the reviews I have read the images I have seen online. I'm anxiously awaiting mine.
  17. Pierre
    the IQ of this camera is as good if not better than my D300 at low iso at high iso it is fantastic, I think the camera is well priced an equivilant Leica digital is $2000 and to equal it in a DSLR would be the same
  18. Pierre,
    It's not about specs here. The camera holds its own. You're paying for a well made, small and unobtrusive body with a great lens. It's not a "do it all" camera, and I think that's where it resembles a rangefinder the most; it's perfect for travel, walking around and light gear photography while providing excellent image quality and overall build/feel. As much as my D90 was capable of good images, it was larger, all plastic, and by the time you had a decent lens, about the same price.
    Although many see the non interchangeable lens as a disadvantage, some would argue that it's a great advantage.
  19. Congrats on your X100 Luis!
    I've had mine for about a month now and it is wonderful, bringing back a joy of photography that I haven't had for quite a while. You'll find you have a compact, well made camera that can hold its own down to ISO 1600 with ease.
    Don't be too turned off by all the naysayers here that love to castigate anyone who treads on their precious Leica territory.
    Go to www.dxomark.com and compare the X100 to the M8 and M9 sensors (color depth, dynamic range and low light capability) and you'll find you have an excellent camera.
    I long for the days when this forum actutally used to be SUPPORTIVE!
  20. I've had one of these on order for months, pre-paid through B&H and was told yesterday that they are starting to trickle in and will go out on a first-come, first-serve basis​
    I ordered mine from Amazon a week ago today. It shipped yesterday, and I should get it tomorrow. They didn't charge my credit card until yesterday, when it got ready to ship. I'm unsure as to why B&H would charge customers months before they actually ship. That seems wrong, and that's why they didn't get my business for this transaction. Don't get me wrong--I'm a fan of B&H. I've given them the majority of my photo purchases. They're great for items they have in stock. They seem to have some catching up to do to industry best practices when it comes to pre-ordering items, though. If it's a common item and in stock, they'll still get my business first. :)
  21. People complain that the X100 isn't a REAL rangefinder and the lens can't be changed but ignore the fact that this is how Leica got started. Check out the Leica A , no built in rangefinder, and some were fixed lens. Link ---> http://www.cameraquest.com/leicaa.htm
    Here's what the X100 looks like beside a 3f with 3.5cm lens. Nice and compact and can go in a pocket just like the 3f. Can't do that with a DSLR, it's even difficult with an M Leica.
  22. Just to clarify. I don't see that anyone has said one word about not allowing the X100 to be discussed here. In my opinion, this is indeed the most suitable forum for discussing it. I only objected, and still do, as did several others, to the thinking (or new definition) that any camera that is not an SLR, or a view camera, is a rangefinder. (As a curiosity, there are indeed even some rangefinder view cameras). I have seen Leica M9 listed as DSLR. I have seen the same for Olympus Pen digitals. Interchangeable lenses do not make a camera an SLR. Similarly, the lack of mirror does not make one a rangefinder. What is at stake? Only 100 years of photographic history.
    The X100 is a wonderful and groundbreaking camera. It is well built with a high quality lens and good sensor. It is not a replacement for an entry level DSLR. I don't think any potential buyer even considers an entry level DSLR as an alternative to buying the X100, or one of somewhat similar fixed lens large sensor cameras (X1, DP1/2, GXR). It is an actual camera that is in production, it is not vapourware, something that is not yet produced at all. Not all good things come to USA first. Clearly there is a global shortage. That may be a reason why they are raising prices.
  23. To me it looks like a nice little point and shoot camera that is overpriced a $1000.00. I read the info at BHPhoto and it does not appear to have a rangefinder focusing mechanism. However I think that first unaltered jpeg looks real nice.
  24. It is funny how it always comes back to price. Clearly the camera is not overpriced since the company sells all it can make and people are waiting to get more. Just in comparison, somewhat similar DSLR setup would be Canon Rebel T3 (at $600) with a 2.8/24 or 1.4/24 lens (at $380 or $1700, respectively) or Nikon D5000 ($750) with 2,8/24 ($480) or 1.4/24 lens ($2100). These comibations would cost from a minimum of $980 with a one stop slower lens, to $2850 with a lens one stop faster. So where is the X100 overpriced? To me it looks like a genuine bargain!
  25. Looked thru the viewfinder last nite at the Magnum Lecture,Toronto,Contact2011.
    It is superb.The finder Leica should have made for that "X"thing!
    OK no RFDR but clear,beautiful clear straight lines.
    If it wasn't that price i'd be on order list.
  26. I guess the thing about being overpriced is just very subjective. I see it as a nice little point and shoot camera with limited usefulness. The fixed lens to me makes it of little value. I would not pay over $395.00 for the camera. Others can rush out and buy the camera if they want to, as it matters not to me. One thing about people flocking to purchase something reminds me of the subprime mortgage nightmare. Hundreds of thousands of people were buying homes they could never pay for. They had all sorts of ideas about it except the one truth of it. They were going to lose their shirts which they did.
  27. ross,
    for people who adhere to the "rangefinder philosophy", it's almost perfect, and well worth its price (although the recent gouging is a bit much). If you're looking for a system, it's obviously the wrong camera. Keep in mind that its image quality is comparable to prosumer DSLRs (D90?) and the build is better with metal parts.
    The quality of the lens is above a P&S. The camera appeals to the crowd looking for a small, simple and unobtrusive street or travel/everyday quality camera with quality lens.
  28. I got mine yesterday, and I'm really happy so far. This is the digital camera I've been waiting for. The main thing I've missed since moving from film to digital was having a small camera with great image quality. With film, the size of the camera didn't matter. Everything was "full frame." :) With film, I had a Nikon 35Ti and then an M6 when I wanted to travel light. Short of spending $7k on an M9, I haven't been happy with the digital options in this niche. I'm now happy.
    Fixed lens? Great. That means it's smaller and optimized than if it had interchangeable lenses. If I don't want a 35mm view, I'll use my dSLR, and I'm covered. I had a fixed lens on my previous film solutions. The 35Ti was a 35mm lens, and my M6 practically had a 35/2 glued on it.
    I'd be ecstatic if the X100 were a rangefinder. If implemented correctly, that would let me focus faster in lower light than the camera can. Oh, well. Maybe somebody.
    In terms of price, the Nikon 35Ti was around a thousand dollars, and that was about 15 years ago. I see the X100 as the digital equivalent of the 35Ti. That's not bad, since my current dSLR costs significantly more than my film SLRs did.
  29. "I see it as a nice little point and shoot camera with limited usefulness" (Ross B).
    Yup...so do I. much the the IIIg w/50mm that Bresson used for much of his work.
    So, exactly what is your point Ross? I for one would not give you $1000+ for a big heavy DSLR to carry around whilst street shooting when a nice small camea like the X100 or X1 can do the job just as well.
    My point is that the price is not as subjective as you make it out to be. The X100 is not aimed at the DSLR shooter (nor the M9 shooter for that matter). For the market it's aimed at it's an affordable price point for a camera that does its intended job better than probably any of its competition.
  30. It seems that a lot of the criticism is coming from the DSLR users. Maybe they're trying to compare this camera to the big DSLR with unlimited options, but by doing so, they're missing the point.
    Image quality, build quality, unobtrusive, quality optics, simplicity = perfect for some shooters.
  31. I guess my point is that the camera is nothing more then a nice little fixed lens camera. Maybe $400.00 should be a good price point for it. Basically some of you will buy it and I will not. Those of you that do buy it will take a huge depreciation on your purchase.
  32. "Those of you that do buy it will take a huge depreciation on your purchase."​
    ....as opposed to all the other digital cameras out there!
  33. No, they all have high depreciation problems. I figure the Fuji will be more severe then most but only time will tell. I do think it will be a nice little snapper and I hope those that buy one enjoy it.
  34. I'd pay $699 for it, but not more than that. The Olympus E-PL1 with a 14-42.5mm lens is $399 brand new right now, and it has fairly good image quality for a small camera (Four Thirds sensor). I paid $379 for my Nikon P7000 and had I been able to get the Olympus for $20 more I might have considered it as it beats the Nikon P7000 in terms of image quality quite handily though is not nearly as compact.
  35. Ross,
    $400 based on what? If the lens is great optically, it's worth $400 on its own. Look at any good wide angle lens new. Furthermore, the camera's body is metal - the build is a lot better than your entry level and prosumer DSLRs (although the D7000 is a big improvement). The image quality is as good as your $1000 SLR cameras, so it's a good APS-C sensor, which means it costs money. Also, the hybrid viewfinder is a lot more advanced than your P&S and from what I've read, beats most crop sensor DLSRs.
    No $400 camera compares in terms of build, viewfinder, lens quality and image quality.
    I think you're making the mistake in assuming that because it's simple, it should be cheap. But for those who shoot with small simple cameras, it's a big step in the right direction, with lots of image quality to boot - they priced it right. They're only problem is that they didn't estimate the demand properly, and the demand has exceeded the supply; this has cause greedy fat cats to raise the price. In fact, I've seen used ones go for more than new ones on the big auction sites!
    The best thing about this camera? It will force other makers to rethink their strategy. I "quit" digital because I didn't like the plastic toy feel, large bodies and lenses, and overall electronic operation. Rubber/plastic buttons? Please. Give me dials.
    This camera is now making me consider digital once more.
  36. Julian, the camera is a fixed lens camera. Even if the lens is of good quality it would be worth nothing on it's own. Basically the lens goes into the e-waste bin with the camera body when it's time is done. Anyway I hope you enjoy the camera. It sounds like you like the styling of the camera and that is a major factor to you. Enjoy it.
  37. ross,
    I think it's more about the image quality and build quality for most people. That alone, for some, is worth the price. Just look at the Leica compact, which is almost double the price. It is logically positioned within the market.
    Also, if the image quality is equal to a $1000 DSLR (body only), and the build is arguably better, then isn't it worth the $1000? The lens and superior (compared to most DSLR) viewfinder are just a bonus at this point in the price range.
    People have been waiting for small compact and well built digital cameras for a long time. It's finally here. The only aspects I'm concerned about in a camera is image quality, the viewfinder, and simplicity of operation (dials vs buttons, etc). It hits the mark. I can't stress enough the viewfinder. When I had the D90, I was always frustrated with how small it was. One look through a FM2n and I was sold (actually the D90 was sold the next day).
    I hope the DSLR makers learn from this;
    Metal dials, solid feel, small size, fast operation, excellent viewfinder. I can't stress the viewfinder enough.
    Fuji knew it's target market, and they seemingly delivered. Is the camera perfect? By all means no. It's the first of its generation, and you can expect, as many people are speculating, a X300 with interchangeable lens and other improvements such as focus speed and accuracy, better menu buttons, etc.
    I'm going to wait for this, but if they release such a camera, I'll be in line.
  38. Well I figure the camera's durability and quality are yet to be seen. That would be about 3 to 5 yrs from now. The camera lacks a native ISO 100 which is absolutely required in a modern camera. However if it were an interchangeable lens camera I could see a high price for it. Given it's limted function, lack of a native ISO 100 and the lack of a FX sensor and ability to change lenses I just cannot see it demanding high end prices. It should be priced along with other point and shoot or mirrorless camera's. Comparing it to a Leica is a tuff one. Leica is a quality product made by people that work with labor laws, enviornmental laws. Leica is also overpirced however
  39. How can you compare it to point and shoot? I has an APS-C sensor, a metal body and a significantly better viewfinder. Not to mention a better lens.
    A lot of street shooters only use one lens anyways. They knew their market. It's not the DSLR crowd.
  40. It's a direct competitor to the Leica X1. OVF, digital one, AF, fixed 35mm equivalent lens, APS-C sensor. On the Photokina 2010 the prototype looked very good. But like always some firmware problems with a new camera. Time will learn what this camera can do.
    Anyhow time for Leica to think for the X2.
  41. Robert,
    And also, time for fuji to think about the X200 and X300, which is rumoured to have interchangeable lens.
    What I'm really interested in seeing is how Canon and Nikon will react to this - if at all. Remember the rumours about a digital range finder from Nikon? They were floating around in 2008, but nothing came of them. Was the project put on hold? Clearly, there are a lot of M mount glass enthusiasts. Any digital rangefinder that takes M glass will cause some ripples in the industry.
  42. Well, for the time being I am using my M glass on the Oly E-P1 already for some years. Not too bad but a conversion of 2x is a bit too much.
    Further I like my M7 and working on film too much. At this moment the digital developments are going still very fast.
    But I agree that the specs of this Fuji X100 a very good. They will certainly take this gap in the market. And indeed maybe some more brands.....
  43. Well whatever happens with the camera, it is nice to see it on the market. Since there are no camera's stores around any more I doubt I will ever actually see one.
  44. "Well I figure the camera's durability and quality are yet to be seen. That would be about 3 to 5 yrs from now."
    One can feel the quality, when holding the camera in his hands, touching the wheels and buttons. Not perfect, but very good. Of course it takes time with anything to see how it actually works in the real world. Canon 5D had some serious issues with weatherproofing and sensitivity to rain. But it is silly to criticize a camera just because it is new.
    "The camera lacks a native ISO 100 which is absolutely required in a modern camera."
    Why is native ISO100 required? Especially for a streetshooter? My Sony 900 has native ISO of 200. To me it makes no difference if native ISO is 100 or 200, but 200 is actually better when the camera is likely to be used in low light more often. As this camera is clearly intended. Big sensor can cope with 400 or 800 without any trouble at all. Small sensor digicam must have 64, or 100 at most, because they are noisy even at base level. But this is no small sensor digicam.
    "However if it were an interchangeable lens camera I could see a high price for it."
    If it had fixed lens, it would not be what it is. Image quality would be lower since the lens and sensor could not be optimised together, or size would be much bigger, and the optical viewfinder would either not work or be much more complex. If it had interchangeable lenses and reflex finder instead of EVF, it would be a DSLR. It has the same image quality, but in much smaller package.
    "Given it's limted function, lack of a native ISO 100 and the lack of a FX sensor and ability to change lenses I just cannot see it demanding high end prices. "
    Now you want it to have full frame sensor as well. It would cost $3000 with that, and be much bigger. I think few people would buy it then. Over the years Fuji has made a wide range of medium format rangefinders and fixed lens AF cameras. I actually think that one day Fuji will put a medium format sensor on a compact camera. But that would be five years from now, if not later.
    "It should be priced along with other point and shoot or mirrorless camera's. "
    Why? It is not another point and shoot. Enough people are buying it at its current price to cause it to be in short supply everywhere in the world.
    "Comparing it to a Leica is a tuff one. Leica is a quality product made by people that work with labor laws, enviornmental laws. Leica is also overpirced however."
    So Japan is not following international laws? X100 is better quality than Leica X1. This is obvious with the first look at both cameras in hand. M9 can well be "better" quality, but it is very much more expensive as well. Not to mention bigger and heavier.
    Since 1950s there have been a reducing number of interchangeable lens rangefinders and growing number of SLRs on the market. Film SLRs clearly took over from Leicas and Contaxes and to some extent from twin lens Rolleis and their cheaper Yashica clones. Yet, at the same time, there was a large number of fixed lens compact cameras available, from alll major manufacturers. There clearly was a big market for small cameras with a fixed 2.8/35mm or similar lens. People wanted a smaller, simpler camera for travel use, for daily recording etc. Yet, they wanted good quality images and bought a 35mm film camera instead of one of the many smaller pocket cameras (110, 126) that were also available. I can see two big markets for the Fuji X100 and similar cameras. One is for older photographers who used these fixed lens film cameras in the old times. Basically anyone over 40 or 50 who has been photographing for a long time. This is partly nostalgy, and the Japanese are good at it. They have a large population of old time photographers. The Fuji even looks and feels much like the old ones did. The other big market comes from the same base market that used those fixed lens cameras before. People who want a small and simple camera, but that still makes good images. Since I got my Sigma DP1, Olympus E-P1 and Ricoh GXR, I have entirely given up on small sensor digicams. I will not use them anymore. I will never buy another. Why should I? There are much better cameras available. Cameras like the X100.
  45. I suppose a camera might be worth a lot to some folks and not to much to others. A little point and shoot like that may be nice to have to carry about when riding a bicycle if it is durable enough to handle a little bouncing around and some weather. I do not know about street shooting myself. I have never had any use for pictures of strangers but if I were going to take photos of friends while out on a street I could use any camera that I own. I have a 24mm prime lens that I could put on my DSLR and it would be pretty much the same thing anyway and I would not need to purchase an entirely different camera. On top of all that I guess I could warm up to it a little better if it were not for the fake Leica look. I think they should have designed it in a way to make it their own.
  46. "I suppose a camera might be worth a lot to some folks and not to much to others. A little point and shoot like that may be nice to have to carry about when riding a bicycle if it is durable enough to handle a little bouncing around and some weather."
    Ross; I really don't think you understand. It's not just "a little point and shoot". I don't know where you're getting this from. The camera has an APS-C sized sensor with performance that equals mid level ($1000) DSLRs. Furthermore, it has a metal body, like a "real" camera with dials for controls. Its viewfinder is better than most crop sensor DSLRs, and has an exellent lens that rivals many DSLR lenses. Point & Shoot cameras have none of the above.
    You seem to be equating it to a point and shoot because of its small size. Yes, it's small. But nothing else compares to a small $400 P&S camera. For street/travel/documentary photographers, one small camera and lens is often all they use. The viewfinder, camera handling (dials) and image quality are the three priorities for them, not the "endless possibilities" of SLRs.
    "I have never had any use for pictures of strangers"
    Somehow I feel you are missing the point of street photography, and this might be leading to your conclusions of this camera. To each his/her own, but the Fuji x100 knew its market perfectly well and delivered a solid camera that looks and operates like vintage cameras; tactile, unobtrusive, fast, small, quiet.
    I can't stress enough the importance of a large and bright viewfinder. THIS is "camera" for most. Its "view of the world" is more important than any gadget and interchangeable lens. Photography is what you see, and what you shoot. Any camera that gives you a simple path to that end is well designed.
  47. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Somehow I feel you are missing the point of street photography​
    The point of street photography is to take good photographs on the street. This has nothing to do with the camera (within certain limits, it's much harder with a pinhole.) Some of the best street photographers I know are working with dSLRs.
    Regarding price, the Hexar, which is very similar in concept, took off when it dropped below $600. Before that, it was used by a few people with a lot of money to burn on a fixed lens camera.
  48. Jeff,
    I think you missed my point; I was saying that street photography is much more than "pictures of strangers". The fact remains, however, that many street shooters even today want small, unobtrusive cameras. I'm not saying it's "better", just that it's what it is. Not that you can't shoot street with DSLRs or any camera. I have friends who use medium format. But that's not the point. There's a market for small mechanical feel cameras with good sensors. The Fuji x100 fits the bill. Forums have been rampant with users wanting smaller cameras for years. Just look at the success of m4/3.
    For me personally, my D90 and lens was too big to carry around every day. My FM2n with pancake 50 fits in my pocket, and it remains there. It's always with me. As far as I'm concerned, that's a BIG difference in a camera's worth. TriX is a pretty good sensor too : )
    Evidently, the x100 is a work in progress for Fuji. Although the camera is complete, it is rumoured that other models will be released with either improvements or different features, such as interchangeable lens (this doesn't matter much to me as I shoot with one lens, a 50 Summicron, at the moment). I'm almost certain that other makers are taking notes here.
  49. guys, give it up.
    Ross obviously knows what photography is all about, what is important to different shooters...so let him have his way.
    It apparent that anyone who doesn't think like he does, doesn't understand photography.
    The old saying 'different strokes for different folks' is lost on him.
  50. Bob,
    I never said he didn't understand photography. Just that for a lot of shooters, the x100 meets their demands at that price.
    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.
    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.
    There will always be a market for small unobtrusive and mechanical (in operation) cameras, whether it's film or digital.
    So Kudos to Fuji for tapping that market segment.
  51. Bob,
    Sorry misread your post. Agreed. Ok moving on.
    x300 rumours???
  52. Seems a very useful well designed little cam with a very sharp lens.
    Solid build, nice size, seems a perfect little beast for street photography.
    Now without a fixed lens........
  53. Hi Allen ... long time ... : -)
    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.
    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.
    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.
  54. Marc,
    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.
  55. 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).
    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...????
    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.
    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.
    Oh well...a 25 year old M14 still kills as well as a brand new Macmillan...and no one argues the point.
  56. Bob,
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Until then, my FM2n and M6 are more than good enough, and quite frankly, I just prefer film and simple film cameras.
  57. Bob,
    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.
    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.
  58. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    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).
  59. Tony and Marc, what do you mean by the comment that the pictures you have so far seen are somewhat lacking?
    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.
    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.
  60. 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 ... yet! ... (as Tony said).
    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.
    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 ...
  61. 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.
    In fairness, I suppose you could say "I don't like the character of the lens", but that remains extremely subjective.
    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!)
  62. 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.
    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!
    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!
    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.
    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.
    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!
  63. Detail from above
  64. 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.
  65. 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.
  66. Dayton:
    Glad you got a copy!
    I just recently started browsing over here: http://www.x100forum.com/ 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.
  67. Eric:
    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.
  68. note: the two photos above are at 1600...
  69. Well, I was gone for 4 or 5 years from this forum, and it looks like I'll be on my way again.
    I find this bitching about the X100 Laughable (yes, with a capital L).
    A couple of years ago I remember the M8 introduction. Then a couple of weeks later all the 'feedback':
    It's sensor wasn't up to snuff. (in comparison to then current DSLR's)
    It's processor was slow. (in comparison to then current DSLR's)
    It's menu was terrible . (in comparison to then current DSLR's)
    You couldn't shoot color without an expensive IR filter (which no other camers suffers from)
    Good Grief!!!!
  70. Hi Allen ... long time ... : -)
    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..... http://snapsort.com/...100-vs-Leica_M9 Sorry,could not resist.
  71. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    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.
  72. Bob,
    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.
    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.
    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.
  73. 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.
    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.
    Those calling it a point & shoot haven't a clue about this camera.
    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.
    I'm very comfortable with the fixed 35mm lens. However, I can see where others find this a handicap.
    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.
  74. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    Jim, I'll be sure not to mention your name to my wife after I buy this camera! :)
  75. That there are shortcomings to be found in the x100, is a fair statement, and the price is pretty steep unless having a fine viewfinder and simplicity of operation are priorities. I decided to order one to see for myself if it was going to be worth it.
    Before the x100 arrived, though, it turned out to be good idea to have read the DPReview article, and mainly the appendix (!) which lists all the various (and justified) criticisms. It tipped me off to the pitfalls, and helped to learn how to use the camera with less difficulty.
    Good things have been reported about the camera technically; no need to repeat them. Nontechnically, the experience of using it is like seeing through a rangefinder, as well as a through-the-lens, and in addition, the playback and menu options can be seen inside the viewfinder so that the LCD screen on the back needn't be used. These features work remarkably well. In practice, the viewfinder system is more effective in the sun or in dim light, or darkness for that matter, than any camera film or digital I've looked through. There's little or no need to look at the camera to operate it, after some practice. It's a relatively simple camera (the manual is not thick and full of fine print). I liked using the camera almost instantly. I never warmed up to any of the digitals I've owned--Nikon, Canon, and Olympus--none of which was cheap, all of which were frustrating.
    Hooray for the little guy.
  76. Brian,
    The problem is that some people want the small technical troubles - and lets be honest, almost every digital camera has some - to completely out weigh the basic requirements of a camera, which are in my opinion;
    1. Big and bright viewfinder. After all, it's photographs we're making, not menu reviews.
    2. Solid feel and ergonomics. We're holding the thing all the time, might as well feel right.
    3. Unobtrusive and small enough to carry around, all the time.
    4. Quality lens.
    5. Image quality. I put this one last because a film camera will meet this if it has good optics, etc.
    If these criteria are met, then it's a good camera. The fact that it has technical issues in the menu is important, but should not trump everything else. Furthermore, the reviews about the issues seem to be divided. Some people simply acknowledge them, adjust and learn, and move along. Others seem to get completely lost in them.
    Any predictions on whether Nikon or Canon will try to follow this trend? So far they're still making them too big for me (DSLR) with tiny viewfinders and plastic bodies/parts.
  77. Prediction? Moi? I guess Nikon and Canon won't want to cut into their sales of high-profit mass produced and very popular, and capable, equipment. But with iPhones coming on strong in the P&S side, maybe they'll have to do something different.
  78. This is only anecdotal...
    Most of my photo friends have DSLRs. They produce great images, and some of them are great photographers. However, most of them still shoot their small film cameras, and we've had many discussions about the incumbent size of DSLRs today. Granted, they seem to be getting a bit smaller these days, but their overall "feel" is that they're quite large, and a lot of this has to do with the newer lens designs. For example, the new Nikkor 24mm F1.4. It's a stunning lens, but it's quite massive. Add that to a D3 body and it's a BIG camera.
    It seems that there is a whole generation of photographers that want to always have their camera with them. This includes myself. Everytime I go for coffee, I slip my FM2n in my pocket. It's second nature. No bag, no other lens - just one small camera. I could never do that with my D90, and that's a smaller DSLR compared to the pro models.
    I have a feeling that we're not the only ones wanting small "everyday" cameras that have excellent image quality. Most DSLR consumers are not studio pros. Nikon and Canon will eventually make smaller cameras with great image quality.
    I think the Fuji X100 comes close to being my "dream" digital camera. Small. Manual operation. Solid feel. Excellent IQ. Simple aesthetic. The menu problems are an issue no doubt, but it seems that quite a few people are taking photographs even with said issues.
    In the age of online reviews, technology overload and detailed spec sheets, I get the feeling we're often missing the point. Nobody ever talks about the viewfinder anymore. Why is that? It's 90% of a camera to me. If I can't see big and bright, it's a bad camera regardless of its ease of menu navigation etc.
    I'm curious to see Leica's response in the next few years. What's next after the M9? Is the X line going to become a Leica standard like the M? Will they have a VIEWFINDER on their next model?
    Somewhere and in the near future, one company is going to come out with a knock-out camera at the right price (read; under $2000). Who will it be? Is the Fuji X100 just a preview?
  79. Prediction? Moi? I guess Nikon and Canon won't want to cut into their sales of high-profit mass produced and very popular, and capable, equipment. But with iPhones coming on strong in the P&S side, maybe they'll have to do something different.
  80. hi to all again am sorry for so late response i will put the link of my blog for you guys to see the photos ,, thank you for all your comments , my idea in the begining was to save in off money to buy a leica m8. i could not wait so i ended up buying a fuji x100.
  81. There is a client for whom I need as silent a camera as I can get, they pay really well and are very demanding of the caliber of images I make. Previous shooters of this client in years past have been Ernst Haas and Henri Cartier Bresson, the current CEO is a former publisher of Time Magazine. I do a lot of the shooting with my D700 / D3's but they are too loud in many cases of this genre.
    Subjects are often people like past presidents of the US among many other people of this level of politics, science and the arts.
    Last year, I rented an M9 to shoot some of these events with, the client happily covered the cost of the rental and was thrilled with my low profile and the resulting imagery. The M9 did really well in it's silent mode, the image quality was great up until about ISO 1,600. On the down side, the frame lines were tilted a bit so my images were too, had to be corrected. The write times were not so great but since I rarely blasted these people with multiple frames, it was not that big of deal.
    I entertained the idea of getting the $7,000 M9 specifically for this client, but at that price and given all the reliability issues my fellow professionals have had with the camera, I decided to pass on it.
    So this year, I am approaching this client with a different camera, the X100. I have had my X100 for a few days, have it dialed in to where I want it and have already shot an assignment with it.
    In short, this brilliant little camera has fully killed any desire I had for the M9 unless the price dropped immensely. My only complaints are the silly fact that the ISO is not consistent across modes, Auto-ISO is not an option on the ISO selection scroll and the buttons are a tad fiddly. Other than that, I find using this camera to be amazing in terms of both in the field and the resulting imagery.
    I use it in silent mode full time, manual focus as it is really quick and easy to use the AF lock button, then hit the command dial for a quick verification of focus which is rarely needed. Once I got this thing dialed in, everything became quick and easy, not nearly as bad as the reviews out there would have you believe.
    So this $1,200 marvel is going to be simply awesome for that silent shooting of big wigs I need to do, well worth the money and better at high ISO than the far overpriced M9.
    And my wife loves it so much that she keeps reading the manual, teaching me things about the camera..:)
  82. I have to wonder about the intended purpose of the individual mode ISO settings as well. However turning auto-ISO on and off is not such a huge inconvenience once the exact position is the settings is memorized. I'm leaving it on as a result to give it a try for a while and see what it can contribute.
    In general, assuming the camera is as durable as the swiftly outdated digitals that clutter my storage, this one promises to be useful for many years due in large part I think to its relative simplicity and versatility. Just as with quality film cameras.
    Possibly, the reviewers were covering their posterior parts by mentioning as many things as they could in order to ward off the inevitable, merciless thrashings they would suffer at the hands of the nitpicker brigades. The snarling tone of discussion boards would have brought forth an even more violent torrent of invective. Experts would have assailed each others' opinions, and launched personal attacks, with venom, if not biting sarcasm...
  83. Brian,
    I can barely read online reviews these days - seems it's more about menus than it is about the things that really matter, such as;
    1. Image Quality
    2. Viewfinder (big, bright, real, etc)
    3. Ergonomics and feel (metal dials)
    4. Size. Sorry DSLRs - you're too big. Get it right.
    I'm pretty sure all the menus work, with some of them more complicated than others. But when we start basing a camera's "performance" on this, we're missing the point and entering the realm of gadgetry and not photography. Clearly, some people - through the use of pure genius - have figured out the menu and made it work for them. It's a miracle really, considering some of the lengthy criticisms of the menu system.
  84. Thank you, Julian, it's not every morning I wake up to being considered quite in that league based on my having not been deterred by the complexities of the x100's menu. Your encouragement is refreshing. Whether comfort with the menu system is due to any degree of ingenuity or talent, let alone intelligence or hard work, however is far from the case. Closer to the point, it's likely more the experience of some truly awful menu systems in combination with feature overload, and incomprehensible owners' manuals. I'll refrain from adding any more sarcasm, however. :)
  85. Dear Bob, I could find the comparison between M8/M9 and x100 at Dxomark.com. Would you please show me the exact link? Or if somebody is kind enough to show photos by the above two/three for comparison. I don't have anyone of them... Thanks and regards.

Share This Page