tholte Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p><a href="http://www.finepix-x100.com/">http://www.finepix-x100.com/</a><br> Does this new camera trip any of your street-shooting shutter fingers? Should appeal to old film guys like me that are too cheap and to proletarion to be seen with a Leica. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonmestrom Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p>It doesn't Tim, no. It's a nice concept and yes it looks great but I've always bought my camera's for what they can do rather than how they look with value for money in mind. At an expected price of $ 1.350,00 retail I think there are far better camera's to be had.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f_ph1 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p>I no longer own a digital camera.<br> I intend on owning at least one digital camera.<br> This is the only digital camera that piques my interest.<br> What the hell took them so long?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p>for that amount of money you can get an entire GF1 kit--20/1.7, 7-14, 45-200, plus body. exterior aesthetics on camera bodies dont matter so much for SP, but size and versatility do. also, i dont know if being "seen" with a camera is an asset in SP no matter what brand. some SP fanatics tape up their bodies and/or cover all markings to make the cam less desirable to thieves. the X100 does seem stealthy and potentially inobtrusive, but at a high premium.</p> <p>i have no doubt the X100 takes good pictures, but as an SP rig, i'm not sure what the advantage would be over the d90+35/1.8 set-up i already own, not to mention the fact the GF1 is even smaller and can take interchangeable lenses, which is a plus for me. in my case, it would probably make more sense to either get a GF1+pancake, or to keep investing in nikon, perhaps adding something like the 8-16 DX, which goes 3mm [equivalent] wider than my widest UWA on FX. not to say i'm not intrigued by the x100, it just doesnt seem too practical to me. at the least, i will wait until the camera is out and reviews are in before devoting any thoughts of purchasing.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p>If I had the disposable income I would get one in an instant, or maybe wait for the all black version...or the Nikon version.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p>It sure looks nice, but I want a real rangefinder. They should have saved the money on the lens, and made a real (or electronic) rangefinder that takes Leica M lenses. So the body would sell for $1200 US, and lenses would be extra. Then I would buy it in a heartbeat.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_wyatt Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p>If this was weather-sealed it would be close to perfect.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p>I doubt there will be "far better" APS rangefinders (think how much a Leica M10 or whatever would cost) and m4/3 doesn't equal APS in prints (unless you're comparing primes to APS zooms). Interchangable primes lead to dust problems so my ideal would be something like X100 but with two permanently attached focal lengths, maybe both of them dual-range (24 equiv/normal and 90 eqiv/normal. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintelmo21 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p>Sometimes, I feel like a Neanderthal on PN. What language is that you are writing Eric and John? I have the same feeling when I'm sitting with my sons and their friends and they are discussing the latest Xbox games. It is a beautiful looking camera. I wonder who the product photographer was. What kind of camera and light set up he did he use to sexi-fy (yes, my own word, just made it up) this little gizmo. <br> I occasionally pull off a decent photo with the old crap (er...classic collectibles) that I use. If I could afford the "X100", I'd be very surprised if it would increase my 'attempt to success' ratio in photography. Not willing to part with 1000 plus USD on the odd chance that it might.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 >>> Does this new camera trip any of your street-shooting shutter fingers? No. I wouldn't be taking any better photos with it than the dSLR I use now. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p><em>What language is that you are writing Eric and John?</em></p> <p>uh, English, E.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_wyatt Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p>I guess it depends on your shooting style - I already use a DSLR set-up which is compact and quiet <em>for a DSLR set-up</em>, but the size of this is very tempting for street work.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgoakill Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Does this new camera trip any of your street-shooting shutter fingers?</p> </blockquote> <p>Not for me. While it wants to be a Leica, it isn't. not that that matters, just kind of bugs me for some reason.....I don't even use a Leica. The issue I have with it (other than price) is the focus system. I haven't read much on it, but as far as I can tell from the Link provided; it only mentions contrast auto-focus. Nothing about manual focus, zone focusing, or range....<br /><br />Being able to pre-focus for me is essential. It's what drew me to the Ricoh GR Digital III. As far as the APS-C goes, I've never had to print larger than 16x20 and I've done it with my little Ricoh and it looked fine. No one would ever know that it was shot with a (gasp) compact.<br /><br /> If sensor size matters (IMHO it doesn't) then I would look at the Ricoh GXR body. If you are not familiar with it, basically the body houses everything except the lens and the sensor, so you buy lenses that have sensors built into them..........this has been controversial and discussed for ages over at Dpreview in the Ricoh forums. They just came out with a 28mm F2.5 APS-C lens for it. I've seen some shots with it and not too bad, but like everything out there when it comes to reviews they aren't done with a street shooter in mind (even the cams that are aimed at street shooters, weird). but I would look more closely at it if I was also looking at the x100.<br> <a href="http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/gxr/">Ricoh GXR</a><br> <a href="http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/gxr/unit4.html">A12 Lens for GXR</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgoakill Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p>Just realized I sound like a sales person for Ricoh. I'm not. (technically a canon guy) Until the Gr III, I didn't even know they made cameras. but since getting it and hanging out in Ricoh forums, I've become familiar with their other cameras.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_galleries Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 <p>Interesting that it's getting slammed here at pnet.... the X100 is so popular at rff that a new forum was added just for it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Interesting that it's getting slammed here at pnet.... the X100 is so popular at rff that a new forum was added just for it</p> </blockquote> <p><br />Probably because RFF is a bit geared toward camera nuts as oppose to photography. I have mixed feeling...It looks good if it performs well but part of me think it isn't really worth it (at $1200) and ultimtely, it's not going to improve my photography. Is it the same very reason the Sony Nex have either been slammed or largely ignored by RFF? Me think so...</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 <p>FWIW, when I said "camera nuts," I didn't mean it in a derogatory way. It's easier to typed than camera ethusiast. The point is...It's just a cam no matter how good or retro it looks. I do wish it had IBIS and a swivel LCD...that would have been much more useful than it being "sexy" or beautiful... </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintelmo21 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 <p>Keith L, as far as I can tell, it has not been released yet. My local camera shop is taking pre-orders.<br> <br /> According to Marine Corps legend, when Chesty Puller was introduced to a new weapon called the Flame Thrower, he grumbled, "Where do you put the bayonet?" There is a lot of bravado in that question but it is backed up by Chesty's pragmatic experience with the realities of early 20th-century combat.<br> <br /> Likewise, we have some guys here with a very practical attitude towards photography. I don't think anyone is really 'slamming' the X100, because no one has used it yet. How can you really give an opinion about a piece of equipment that you have never used. All we have to go off of is the glamorous webpage. But, I think we all realize what it takes to consistently get good street photos....a camera that works, a good pair of shoes, the right light, a positive attitude....the list continues, but I seriously doubt anyone here would add a specific make and model of camera to it. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_guthrie Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 <p>I will take a look at the camera when it is released here in Japan. I like the concept, and I hope that the camera's performance will be upcome to it's appearance. I am a Leica shooter, and I have countless (literally) cameras in my home, but the only digicam I have is a Lumix LX-5. I like the Lumix, but I want a camera with a traditional viewfinder. If the X100 impresses me enough, I'll probably pick one up. <br> The price is not so bad, considering how badly the dollar has been devalued over the last couple of years. It is still less expensive than a used Epson RD-1, and likely much more capable. I don't see the lack of interchangeable lenses as a liability, the only lens I ever carry is the one attached to my camera, if I feel I need a different lens, take a second camera which has that lens mounted to it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f_ph1 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 <p>interesting...</p> <p>Leslie:<br /> i find more camera enthusiasts on this forum than any other place i know... even the camera store.<br /> what is rff?<br /> E. Short: unfortunately, i think a whoooooooooooole lotta people think that street photography should only be done with a leica...<br /> or a rollie tlr... or a nikon f. <br /> mind you, i am not one of those people... i have actually done street photography with a 5x7 slr. <br /> as for what it takes to do street photography... i could not agree with you more.</p> <p>All:<br /> my interest in the camera is simple: <br /> 1) i prefer cameras with a single fixed lens. it's sort of the "something that does only one thing does<br /> it better than something that does that thing and a dozen other things"<br /> 2) fuji has got to be, in my opinion, the most underrated manufacturer of cameras and lenses on the planet. they<br /> have made, and now make, some very unusual cameras (e.g. the entire line of rangefinders in formats from 645 through 617, and the fuji s3/s5) that make me think "why the hell hasn't anyone else done this before?"<br /> 3) ebc fujinon lenses are at least as good as the zeiss and schneider lenses i have used in small, medium and large format.<br /> 4)<em> this camera does not use nikon lenses</em>, which i have a luke warm enthusiasm for at best.</p> <p>sidebar:<br> an example of what happens when one uses an ugly, much maligned, inappropriate camera to do street photography can be viewed here. how dare gralfex market a camera with a bausch and lomb lens:<br> i use what works for me. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f_ph1 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 <p>...how dare i misspell graflex...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyanatic Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Does this new camera trip any of your street-shooting shutter fingers?</p> </blockquote> <p>Aesthetically, it looks beautifully crafted. As others have said, however, I would not spend that kind of money (or any money, necessarily) on aesthetics alone. </p> <p>The look and compact size make it appealing. I agree with John Kelly's point regarding dust and would think dual range would be an attractive feature.</p> <p>We each have our own comfort zones and how we like to work. One of the things I miss is an articulating LCD. It does not look like the X100 has one. I started street photography some years back with a Fuji S9100. For whatever psychological reason, I had no problem holding it at waist level and using the LCD to photograph people...regardless of how close they were. With my current DSLR, I have to really work myself into "the zone" to fearlessly raise the viewfinder to my eye in some situations. Shots I would have taken at waist level I missed with the DSLR. Not sure why that is, or what is says about me. Maybe I need to wait for a digital TLR! ;-) </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 <blockquote> <p>The issue I have with it (other than price) is the focus system. I haven't read much on it, but as far as I can tell from the Link provided; it only mentions contrast auto-focus. Nothing about manual focus, zone focusing, or range....<br /><br />Being able to pre-focus for me is essential.</p> </blockquote> <p>The Fuji X100 allows you to do these things - it has MF and shows you in the vf the distance to the point of focus. You can prefocus it too.</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 <p>Fuji has got to love all the press they are getting here, good or bad. Fuji has collaborated with Nikon in the past and Nikon is suppose to be bringing out a mirror-less system, so who knows.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Leslie:<br /> i find more camera enthusiasts on this forum than any other place i know... even the camera store.<br /> what is rff?</p> </blockquote> <p>RFF is rangefinderforum.com, and you are right in that there are more camera enthusiats in any photo forum than photography itself, even here. I guess I just meant S&D forum here instead of PN as a whole. There is nothing wrong with being a camera nut except most lose sight of what's important ultimately, and they are the photos themselves. Cameras, lenses, etc... can help us only so much... </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now