X100 Or X-E1

<p>If one plans to not change lens is there any advantage to having the X-E1 with 35 1.4 over X 100</p>

<p>I might add that I realize the two have different perspective on lens. I have to wonder since the X100 has came out if the X-E1 might be a better choice because it just is newer. I like the looks of both. price differnce is 400.00 to step over to X-E1 with 35. I light the normal lens as a prime so that is not a problem. I normally take some landscape and old structures.</p>

<p>I bought a black X100 kit and I love it for size, weight and image quality. That said, my primary cameras are now D800E's, and the X100 was at the very top of my price range for a knock-around camera.</p>

<p>The APS-C-sensored X100 has a 35mm f/2.0-FF-equivalent lens. The X-E1 is also an APS-C camera and the comparable lens would be an 18mm f/2.0 lens- the 35mm f/1.4 lens would be the FF equivalent of 52.5mm on the X-E1.</p>

<p>The X-E1 has a newer 16MP sensor, where the X100 has an older 12MP sensor. A newer, higher-rez sensor would be nice.</p>

<p>Deleted repeat post due to p.net's slow-loading problem.</p>

<p>Thanks Eric,<br>

I have looked at just buying X100 black kit. I no longer have any Nikon gear. I just shoot for myself. I have used the LX3 and LX5 for the last couple years. I converted the LX3 to infrared. I am ready for a bigger sensor again. I also like the syle of both cameras. I donot know if the 16 MP makes a lot of differnce in image quality, but newer camera might be more advanced. I have always wanted a M9 but will never be able to buy one So i will settle for a good sensor and lens that operates like an manual camera.</p>

<p>Thanks Eric,<br>

I have looked at just buying X100 black kit. I no longer have any Nikon gear. I just shoot for myself. I have used the LX3 and LX5 for the last couple years. I converted the LX3 to infrared. I am ready for a bigger sensor again. I also like the syle of both cameras. I donot know if the 16 MP makes a lot of differnce in image quality, but newer camera might be more advanced. I have always wanted a M9 but will never be able to buy one So i will settle for a good sensor and lens that operates like an manual camera.</p>

<p>Thanks Eric,<br>

I have looked at just buying X100 black kit. I no longer have any Nikon gear. I just shoot for myself. I have used the LX3 and LX5 for the last couple years. I converted the LX3 to infrared. I am ready for a bigger sensor again. I also like the syle of both cameras. I donot know if the 16 MP makes a lot of differnce in image quality, but newer camera might be more advanced. I have always wanted a M9 but will never be able to buy one So i will settle for a good sensor and lens that operates like an manual camera.</p>

<p>Monte, another camera that looks interesting is the new Sony RX1. It has an "X" in the name, which is now apparently a requirement for a sub-SLR camera to be taken seriously.</p>

<p>The RX1 is FF and has a Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 lens. By the time you add an electronic finder on the camera, you're looking at about $3,200- which is the current price of a 35mm f/2.0 Summicron ASPH lens. So, you'd still be way ahead of the game price-wise compared to shooting digital Leica M stuff:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/28/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX1-preview-extended-operations-controls-menus-studio-samples-real-world-gallery">http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/28/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX1-preview-extended-operations-controls-menus-studio-samples-real-world-gallery</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Eric,<br>

I would love to have the RX1. I have read much about it. If I am willing to wait awhile I could get it but a lot of money. I always like Zeiss glass. Used on my Contax camera and Rollie GX. Back when I shot slide film it produced beautiful images. I belive you get what you pay for. I think if I don't wait and save for RX1 I will probably get Fuji x100 for now. I just know what ever I get I have to live with because of buget restaints. I have struggled with this since the RX1 was anounced.</p>

<p>If you want something small with a wide angle lens, get the X100. If you want something a bit larger with a normal prime and keeping the options open for the future, get the X-E1.</p>

<p>Andy,<br>

I would have to agree with you when comparing the two cameras. I don't mind the attached lens and I have to believe image quality is close between the two. I am still not ruling the X2 out yet. I believe these two are at the top of my list outside the RX1 which price is a determing factor there.</p>

<p>I was just looking at some RX1 photos. I must say, I really like the photos from both the Fujifilm cameras better. I find them better on both noise and dynamic range. You can check the flickr groups for the respective cameras for photos and exif data. You can choose larger viewing sizes by right clicking on the images.</p>

<p>There are quite a few technical differences between the Fujifilm cameras. You have to compare the tech specs and find out what you would prefer. The specs are in favour of the X-E1, no doubt about that. The cameras have different sensors. RAW converter problems have been reported for the X-E1 sensor. I don't know to which extent and if this applies to all the RAW converters. Hopefully the issues will be solved. There has been rumours that X100 will come with the same sensor as X-E1 in the next version.</p>

<p>X-E1 has full HD video, and comes with microphone/shutter release input (I find the microphone <em>in</em> to be very important). However, there is this 'something' I like about the photos from the X100 that I can't find to the same extent in the X-E1 photos. I can't really explain what it is. But I will be checking them both out further. I want a X-E1 with the X100 sensor! Fat chance :-) It could also be the lens of the X100 that gives that creamy/soft effect that I like.</p>

<p>And last, but not least: An interchangable lens camera might be something you would want in the future, even if you don't think so now. Most of us evolve as photographers, and at a certain point a fixed lens camera such as the X100 might become too limiting. Even if money is a limiting factor today, it might not be in a few years from now (regarding buying lenses for the camera).</p>

<p>Thanks Ann,<br>

I have thought about future lens chioces. That is one for X-E1, but I have to agree. I like the looks of images from X100 better. When I used 35mm film always used a 50 mm lens. Twin lens camera had a fixed lens. One the things this did for me was made me think more about my shots and I learned what that lens was capable of and what I could do to get the best from it. I would like a couple different lens if I had the X-E1, but i know from experience for what I do mostly I can live with that. The difference in price is not an issue. The RX1 is another consideration I will consider. I know a lot of people cannot live with a fixed lens so many won't consider it. I don't think there are many cameras out there that don't take good pictures so that is not a real issue.</p>

Down the road, resale value might be a consideration.

<p>You have two different focal lengths with the two cameras. I forgot to mention that. But you are probably aware of that already. X-E1 with the 35mm lens equals 53.6mm on a 35mm camera, and X100 with the 23mm lens equals 35mm (crop factor 1.53 and 1.52).</p>

<p>I just learned that the pixel size of the X100 is 34% bigger than of the X-E1. That is quite a substansial difference.</p>

<p>Here is some more information for the <a href="http://asia.cnet.com/product/fujifilm-x-e1-46728242.htm">X-E1</a></p>

<p>And for the <a href="http://asia.cnet.com/product/fujifilm-finepix-x100-45307633.htm">X100</a></p>

<p>One thing for sure high ISO images are very good with the X-E1. Even straight jpeg out of camera is pretty good. When you really look at it both camera produce nice images. I believe the X-E1 has an edge over X100 with the 16MP. It will be enough to push me towards the E1. I am aware of the different focal lengths. Like I said only 400.00 difference if I figure 35 1.4 lens.</p>

<p>The technology is also newer in the X-E1. I think the 400.00 might be worth it.</p>

<p>Did you notice that you can bounce the X-E1's pop-up flash (it can be tilted to a 90-degree angle)? What a cool feature. I don't know how usable it is when bounced, but the idea is great! Never heard of that before.</p>

<p>If you would like to see a shootout comparison between the X-E1 and the Sony NEX-6, there is a video from The CameraStoreTV if you go to youtube.com and search with these words:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>quesabesde Fuji XE-1 Sony NEX-6</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I won't tell the result. They have a few other videos that might be of interest, too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I used 35mm film always used a 50 mm lens. Twin lens camera had a fixed lens. One the things this did for me was made me think more about my shots and I learned what that lens was capable of and what I could do to get the best from it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Monte, if 50 mm is "your" lens of choice this an important one in favor of the X-E1, otherwise the comparison should be made putting the X100 against the 23 mm F:1,4 on the X-E1.<br>

When the X Pro1 came out I was tempted to get one and now the story goes with the X-E1, but even if I get it I think I will keep the X100.<br>

The main reasons: I like the image quality, the flash sync at any speed, the leaf shutter silence and still having the OVF choice at the 35 mm equivalent focal distance, as this is a lens I could take for a holiday abroad with no problem at all (just as a caution, I took also a Canon G10 to get a backup and I ended up firing it twice to "justify" myself for carrying it), leaving the heavy DSLR and lenses at home.<br>

Otherwise, the X-E1 has a lot of advantages and is a more flexible camera (making it probably a more "rational" choice) and I'm postponing my decision just to see if Fujifilm shows any indication about the possible use of the phase AF sensor design they've already patented. Besides I think the present contrast only system would not be a problem for me, having the X100 allows me to wait with peace of mind.</p>

<p>Ann,<br>

X-E1 is probably the way I will go. Gives me some better options. It will be after Christmas before I buy one so I have time. Leica X2 is still a desire, but for several reasons I will bypass that one. I can buy lens adapters for the E1 if I want which opens other doors. Always seems like the time I have it figured out other cameras come along and mess me up.</p>

<p>Monte, I was just going to check the tech specs of the Leica X2. I don't know what is happening, but that web page is cracy here on my computer. There is a slide show there that starts by itself, and the photos of the camera is showing for half a second before they disappear. There are no working links there to choose any other information about the camera. The web page nearly froze my browser.</p>

<p>I, for one, does not want this fancy stuff on the camera companies' web pages. I don't want videos and slideshows to start by itself if I go to the Fujifilm web pages. When you go there for information for the 30th time, that is pointless. The videos sometimes doesn't work like they should, either. They can't be stopped and the sound can't be turned off (I have had to mute my computer). Yesterday I was on a 2g connection. Due to heavy snow fall the 3G net was down. If you are on a slow connection, the pages take forever to load. Nuff said about that.</p>

<p>There is a comparison between the X-E1 and the X2 <a href="http://www.digicamdb.com/compare/leica_x2-vs-fujifilm_x-e1/">here</a>, but it seems to me that they only use some of the tech specs, and no specs for the video. But looking at the specs they <em>are</em> using, the two cameras seem to be quite similar.</p>

<p>Ann,<br>

there is no video on X2. It is a simple straight forward camera. That is the one thing I like about it. great lens no viewfinder but can add on one. high ISo is better on X-E1 but it is good to 1600.I have been atractted to Leica compact since X1 came around. I used older rangefinder cameras not Leica years ago so would buy M9 if I could afford it. Anyway the X2 is a camera I desire but not sure if I would buy one, but keep that option open. Again a fixed lens on X2. Auto focus seems to be good on X2 accurate from what I have read. It does seem to be a german camera.</p>

<p>In comparing cameras, the digital camera database gives you only so much in regard to anticipated image quality. An important variable or parameter is the nature of the software the camera uses to take the analogue response of the sensor and convert it to digital data and other computer functions in the treatment of the original sensor information. This certainly differs between manufacturers but probably also within the same company. It's hard top beat personal evaluations of the performance of cameras being compared. If you have the patience to do a controlled test (same subject, lighting, etc.) it is I think the way to go.</p>

<p>It seems like quite a few people are experiencing sticky aperture blades on their X100...</p>

<p>X100 is compact, for this point only, you may have more potential chance to capture moment that worth of.</p>

 

<p>I have to agree with you Arthur, being in the midwest many of the cameras I like Are not available through dealers here. So i have no physical feeling because I cannot see them. Also I know to take in account what I read is based on each persons experience. That is good but we all have differnt perspective there. The only good way to know is conduct oour own test. I remember buying the D200 and after I got it I never really liked it. Trying not to make that mistake. Ann, I have heard some problems with sticky aperture blades on X100.</p>