# Fujifilm X100 - stunning, rangerfinder-style compact looks fantastic



## editor (Sep 20, 2010)

Man, oh man. I want this puppy.

Large sensor, 35mm fixed f2 lens HD video and a hybrid viewfinder.














http://www.wirefresh.com/fujifilm-x100-pro-compact-packs-hybrid-viewfinder/


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 20, 2010)

retrotastic


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2010)

All that metal! And *dials*! It looks chuffin' lovely.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 20, 2010)

I am so fucking having me a couple of those  

Perfect for what I want and just so sexy, lovely 

(Having 2 because it good things always look cooler in pairs).

Always.


e2a; Looks expensive. Perhaps just 1 to start with.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 20, 2010)

OK, this is _exactly_ what I've been waiting for. 

Based on the Fuji GF670 folding camera, I have a terrible feeling I'm not going to like the price, though


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2010)

I fear the price is going be be BIG. But look at it! It's a proper rangefinder camera! With exposure information overlaid on the optical viewfinder!


*dribbles


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 20, 2010)

They're making some very bold claims/promises. Suppose we have to wait until January for any independent reviews. I do have a lot of faith in Fuji's top end products though. HD capture in such a beautiful little kit appeals to a travelling person like myself greatly. To the unsuspecting eye it won't look worth nicking either


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2010)

I've got to stop looking at it now.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 20, 2010)

I want one NOW! Damn it NOW! I can't wait that long. Such toys heal broken hearts and hangovers instantly. Want NOW!

Ooooooh! The cold to the finger touch of real metal dials. Hybrid optical viewfinder. HD video capture... cool as fuck looks...

FFS. It better come in at under a Grand, or I'm turning to crime.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 20, 2010)

editor said:


> It's a proper rangefinder camera!


 
AFAICT, it's not actually a rangefinder, but it does have AF and the option to shoot manual focus so I assume you'll get some kind of focus-assist (and maybe the EVF will be good enough to use for visual focusing too).

Shame they didn't engrave a distance scale on the lens, but I guess it's fly-by-wire and doesn't directly correlate.


----------



## dweller (Sep 20, 2010)

yeah, I knew there'd be a thread here about this. I love the retro look of this with all the modern features.
Is that an old fashioned timer lever on the front?


----------



## cybertect (Sep 20, 2010)

dweller said:


> Is that an old fashioned timer lever on the front?


 
I'm pretty sure it switches the viewfinder between optical (with an electronic overlay) and full EVF mode.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 20, 2010)

Coo, it does look lovely. Sounds like they've put a lot into making a gorgeous lens, and lots of little extras where it counts (hybrid view - great idea).


----------



## Greebo (Sep 20, 2010)

How the fuck am I supposed to save up when you keep tempting me with things like that camera?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 20, 2010)

Apparently there's a Leica press conference tomorrow. More droolworthy goodies no doubt.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2010)

I love the fact you can see all the aperture, shutter speed and exposure compensation information settings _before_ you even turn the thing on! 
It's a beaut alright.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 20, 2010)

This is going to be a rich man's plaything. It will probably cost as much as a mid-range dSLR. It is gorgeous though and will certainly be seen in the hands of style conscious celebrities. Yes I am just jealous that I can't afford such a thing.

On a practical note I would not be satisfied with the fixed lens with its equivalence to 35mm focal length even if it does optimize the quality of the sensor by being matched to it.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 20, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> This is going to be a rich man's plaything. It will probably cost as much as a mid-range dSLR. It is gorgeous though and will certainly be seen in the hands of style conscious celebrities. Yes I am just jealous that I can't afford such a thing.
> 
> On a practical note I would not be satisfied with the fixed lens with its equivalence to 35mm focal length even if it does optimize the quality of the sensor by being matched to it.




Personally, I would be very happy with a fixed 'standard' lens being someone who only ever shoots that way.

I'm still using Fuji RF's from the 60's  If the build quality (chips and sensors aside) is anywhere as good as those I would be happy to pay. Plenty of snob value and retro cool there for sure, but the practicalities are actually the biggest appeal to me. Hybrid viewfinder. Knowing what you're going to be shooting at before switching on. An extremely high quality, uncrompromised lens. HD video capture with flexible aperture control (I hope). Compact and descrete.

I was in the market for a DSLR with HD video capture and a fixed length prime lens. The added practicalities and sheer coolness of this camera make it more than a viable option. Lens quality is a premium consideration for myself.

I'm hanging tight until a pre-order price is released, but I would be happy at around €2,000 as opposed to the €1,500 I would pay for a compromised option. As a work tool rather than a rich man's play thing I would expect it to pay for itself within 6 months.

It's beautiful and highly practical (in theory at least - it's just pic's on the web ATM).


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> This is going to be a rich man's plaything.


Not necessarily. If it's as good as I think it might be, then I'd consider selling off other stuff to buy it - and so long as I manage to flog enough pictures taken with it to cover the cost, then I'd be quids in!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 21, 2010)

Very good news on the expected price 

Predictions are for around a Grand. Very reasonable IMO. Now I just have to get my Pounds into €uros before the rate drops again.


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2010)

I like owning really good cameras that look rubbish to most people. The Ricoh GRD was perhaps the most rubbishy looking camera I've owned recently and it's been an ace performer.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 21, 2010)

They've announced it'll be $1000 http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...ws/1733866/fujifilm-announces-quality-compact


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 21, 2010)

Let's keep this thread going and get a post as soon as pre-order details are announced. I am definately taking a chance before any reviews, and I suspect I am not the only one. I think Fujifilm have seriously underestimated the market for this. It's the digital camera so many of us have been waiting for. In built ND filter also - interesting. I really couldn't have designed a better pocket camera in my dreams.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 21, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> They've announced it'll be $1000 http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...ws/1733866/fujifilm-announces-quality-compact


 
So we're looking at around £760 inc VAT if we're lucky with the exchange rate and probably closer to £900 SRP.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 21, 2010)

cybertect said:


> So we're looking at around £760 inc VAT if we're lucky with the exchange rate and probably closer to £900 SRP.


 
It usually goes that way, doesn't it?  No fucking chance.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 21, 2010)

cybertect said:


> So we're looking at around £760 inc VAT


 
correction: £780 by the time it ships in 2011 as VAT will be 20% by then. <shrug>


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 21, 2010)

cybertect said:


> correction: £780 by the time it ships in 2011 as VAT will be 20% by then. <shrug>


 
That's good value for what you're getting. No?


----------



## cybertect (Sep 21, 2010)

I was thinking more about the VAT increase on the way in January.

As I said, it's what I've been looking for in a camera for yonks - a digital version of my Canonet QL19. Probably a little out of my price range for the time being, though, unless I can make some sales to pay for it.


----------



## Paul Russell (Sep 24, 2010)

Looks great. The only thing that I can see missing is a distance scale on the lens.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 24, 2010)

Focus-by-wire makes it impossible, apparently.

Looks like there's one in the OVF/EVF, though, at the bottom, above the aperture, ISO and shutter speed

http://enticingthelight.com/2010/09/19/fujifilm-finepix-x100-where-the-hell-did-this-come-from/

It does mean you can't eyeball a scale focus without looking through the viewfinder, but it has some advantages - it also appears to show the calculated DoF indicator on the same scale.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2010)

Yes please.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2010)

First impressions review:



> It looks good, it’s well designed, it does everything you could want from a stylish compact and it simply has one of the best viewfinders we’ve ever seen anywhere full stop. If it all comes off as it should, then we’re looking at a Leica for those that could only dream before. Fingers crossed and time to start saving the pennies.



http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/5022/fujifilm-finepix-x100-first-look


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 24, 2010)

Is there going to be raw output option or is it limited to jpg only as with all other exr based cameras?


----------



## cybertect (Sep 24, 2010)

Well, the £300 Fuji HS10 does RAW, so I'd expect this to.

edit: As does the S200EXR. The main issue is third-party RAW converter compatibility - specifically Adobe as there are a few others that now support it.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 24, 2010)

If Fujifilm are aiming to compete with the Panasonic LX5 with this more expensive camera then it must have a RAW output option. It would be a waste of the quality of the combined lens and sensor not to. Also all other top-of-the range compacts have it.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 24, 2010)

IIRC, it took Adobe ages to build support for LX-3 RAW files into ACR/Lightroom.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 25, 2010)

cybertect said:


> Well, the £300 Fuji HS10 does RAW, so I'd expect this to.
> 
> edit: As does the S200EXR. The main issue is third-party RAW converter compatibility - specifically Adobe as there are a few others that now support it.



http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf200exr/page2.asp

"However, these additional sensor modes do mean that some unusual image processing is required, prompting Fujifilm not to provide the RAW sensor data output capability some potential users have asked for."

Reading this I have a feeling that the raw output on these later exr based cameras is going to be some form of post processing after thought trickery. 

Forgetting the raw option if they can get the price down to something more realistic I might buy one. It looks similar to a Leica M1. 






The HS10 has a sensor which is different to the exr.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 25, 2010)

God is in the details...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091910fujifilmx100.asp




			
				DPReview said:
			
		

> X100 ... Based around a 12Mp APS-C CMOS sensor, Fuji EXR processor



CMOS sensor (not a Super CCD EXR) and an EXR _processor_ - actually the same as the HS10.


----------



## starfish2000 (Sep 28, 2010)

Its a bit pointless though is it not. I mean what I want is a digital rangefinder with good interchangable lenses. Basically a digital version of this.






I mean I know you all bang on about the Panasonic Lumix GF-1, but I had a go on one the other day and with that compact zoom on it, its still less discreet than a G2 or Leica M6.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2010)

starfish2000 said:


> I mean I know you all bang on about the Panasonic Lumix GF-1, but I had a go on one the other day and with that compact zoom on it, its still less discreet than a G2 or Leica M6.


Not exactly cheap though, are they?


----------



## starfish2000 (Sep 29, 2010)

A used Contax G2 body is £350-450, A 45 mm Planar is £175-200. Most minilabs do hi-res scanning now. Leicas are expensive, but they'll last a lifetime.


----------



## editor (Sep 29, 2010)

starfish2000 said:


> A used Contax G2 body is £350-450, A 45 mm Planar is £175-200. Most minilabs do hi-res scanning now. Leicas are expensive, but they'll last a lifetime.


. and then there's the hefty cost of film and developing, and the lack of convenience and speed compared to digital etc.


----------



## Cm7 (Sep 29, 2010)

The X100 looks good. I love retro digital.
That or a Leica would make me very happy


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 29, 2010)

editor said:


> . and then there's the hefty cost of film and developing, and the lack of convenience and speed compared to digital etc.


 
You forgot the painfully-high servicing costs for the Leicas and Contaxes.


----------



## starfish2000 (Oct 2, 2010)

I've never serviced my G2 it works fine. Leica maybe. Film & developing.....hmmm maybe, but its not that bad.

I just think why spank close to a grand on something thats just "in the style of". Id rather have a proper rangefinder.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 3, 2010)

starfish2000 said:


> I've never serviced my G2 it works fine. Leica maybe. Film & developing.....hmmm maybe, but its not that bad.
> 
> I just think why spank close to a grand on something thats just "in the style of". Id rather have a proper rangefinder.


 
How isn't it a 'proper rangefinder'?

I've pretty much decided to buy one. I am a big, big fan of the Contax G2 and will keep mine. I'll also keep my Aria's, and I'll keep my 1950's (still working perfectly) Fuji RF as 100% mechanical back-up. The retro look of this camera may make some people think it's a gimic. I think it's a very 'natural' RF development in the context of digital.

Depends just how good the lens turns out to be for me. Essentially, that is my biggest want - quality optics on a small body.


----------



## mincepie (Oct 3, 2010)

I want one too! Is this the perfect companion to a SLR kit - something smaller for "casual" photography but with the ability to get short DOF etc...

Bye Bye my  LX3.


(Except the price!)


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 4, 2010)

mincepie said:


> I want one too! Is this the perfect companion to a SLR kit - something smaller for "casual" photography but with the ability to get short DOF etc...
> 
> Bye Bye my  LX3.
> 
> ...




If you want to get the same "short DOF" on your LX3 as they get on the X100, just get the filter adapter and some Neutral Density filters. This can be used to enable the use of the widest f/2 aperture even in bright light. All that the X100 does that is different is to have the ND filters built in.

EDITED TO ADD

Trying to get limited depth of field on a wide angle lens is like whistling into the wind though. At least with the LX3 you can zoom to 70mm to help the cause.


----------



## starfish2000 (Oct 8, 2010)

Interchangeable optics. A small range of well placed lenses would make it much more appealing.


----------



## editor (Dec 14, 2010)

starfish2000 said:


> Interchangeable optics. A small range of well placed lenses would make it much more appealing.


Then it would be bigger, or have to make do with a smaller sensor. 

It's a stunning looking camera. rarely have I drooled over a camera so much!












More pics and tech details here: http://www.wirefresh.com/fujifilms-stunning-finepix-x100-camera-more-details-released/


----------



## Paul Russell (Dec 15, 2010)

Yes, it's still looking good.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 15, 2010)

reminds me of my first camera , back in the 70's ..olympus 35




http://www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/olympus_35rc.html

Still got it ...but I haven't bought film in yonks


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 3, 2011)

Any release date yet?

I'm ready to buy and running out of time. If it doesn't come along soon I may have to look at alternatives even though my heart is set on this.


----------



## paolo (Jan 3, 2011)

A fetish camera. If it was in a rubbish case, people would see it for what it is functionally.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 3, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> A fetish camera. If it was in a rubbish case, people would see it for what it is functionally.


 
Show me a prime lens RF that is more functional. A purists camera maybe. The fact that it looks extra cool just adds to the appeal of a very functional fixed lens RF. They're selling it on the lens quality, so expect it to be as good as all FujiFilm's other top end lenses - almost unbeatable.

The functionality of the  hy-brid viewfinder can't be argued with can it? Some people spend more than €1K on crap lenses just because they have big zooms.

Each to their own I guess. My eye is more lens critical and appreciated of a spot 'standard' focal length. That is the 'reality' of photography that appeals to me. No doubt many will buy on looks alone, but it is potentially a very functional tool.


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> A fetish camera. If it was in a rubbish case, people would see it for what it is functionally.


An optical viewfinder displaying  digital exposure info on a rangefinder-like compact isn't a fetish camera. It's what I've been after for years.

Still, I'll wait and see what this turns out like in the flesh.


----------



## paolo (Jan 3, 2011)

@stanley oWho wants range finder cameras?

(Answer: Almost nobody)

If it was in boring plastic case, would you want it? (Maybe you would)


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2011)

I've wanted this in a digital compact for ages too:



> With manual focus selected, focusing is achieved using the focus ring around the lens barrel. A distance indication bar enables you to pre-focus if required, or you can simply use the electronic viewfinder to focus accurately.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 3, 2011)

I thought it wasn't a rangefinder? Just dressed like one ...


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I thought it wasn't a rangefinder? Just dressed like one ...


I said rangefinder*-like.* Not sure how else you'd describe it


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 3, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> @stanley oWho wants range finder cameras?
> 
> (Answer: Almost nobody)
> 
> If it was in boring plastic case, would you want it? (Maybe you would)



My bet is that you're wrong. I suspect Fuji have seriously underestimated the demand for this camera. Quality RF's have always been in demand. Leica knew that! (Not that I'm a fan of Leica's).

But, no - I wouldn't want any camera at that price to be in a shitty plastic case. I'm quite happy with €70 FujiFilm JV100 for disposable snapping.

I want to be on the waiting list for when they finally release it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 3, 2011)

editor said:


> I said rangefinder*-like.* Not sure how else you'd describe it


 
Yeah sorry that was to paolo and stanley ... 

The distance scale in viewfinder thingy sounds interesting though.


----------



## paolo (Jan 3, 2011)

Hmm. ok, well I'll admit I'm not really into compacts.

But don't things like the NX5 at least give you a choice of lenses?

The idea of a proper focus ring but no flexibility in glass seems like one step forward two steps back.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 3, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I thought it wasn't a rangefinder? Just dressed like one ...


 
It's as good as an RF. The lens and focal plane are equivalent to a rangefinder. It just has the added digital benefit of a hy-brid viewfinder. Not a rangefinder in the literal meaning, but a digital evolution of the design principles.


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Hmm. ok, well I'll admit I'm not really into compacts.
> 
> But don't things like the NX5 at least give you a choice of lenses?
> 
> The idea of a proper focus ring but no flexibility in glass seems like one step forward two steps back.


Some of my best pics have been taken on the Ricoh GRD/Olympus XA and they both come with fixed lens. 

Sometimes less is more.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 3, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> ...
> 
> The idea of a proper focus ring but no flexibility in glass seems like one step forward two steps back.



The absolute, 100% no compromise about the lens design is it's appeal to lens snobs like myself. A single lens designed for optimum performance from a single sensor. The appeal of RF's (we've established this isn't literally an RF, but...) is that they get the best from a lens.


----------



## paolo (Jan 3, 2011)

editor said:


> Some of my best pics have been taken on the Ricoh GRD/Olympus XA and they both come with fixed lens.


 
In which case you don't need another camera

OR

You'll know that kind of argument doesn't give an objective view of the utility of a camera.


----------



## paolo (Jan 3, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> The absolute, 100% no compromise about the lens design is it's appeal to lens snobs like myself. A single lens designed for optimum performance from a single sensor. The appeal of RF's (we've established this isn't literally an RF, but...) is that they get the best from a lens.


 
Do you mean 'best' vs other compacts, or best generally (I.e. Including DSLRs ? )


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 3, 2011)

Well, pretty clearly there's a potential market for something that can deliver something _approaching_ the performance of current DSLRs in a smaller package, ideally with a real viewfinder and decent ergonomics.


----------



## paolo (Jan 3, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, pretty clearly there's a potential market for something that can deliver something _approaching_ the performance of current DSLRs in a smaller package, ideally with a real viewfinder and decent ergonomics.


 
A DSLR where you've glued a single lens onto it, maybe.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 3, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Do you mean 'best' vs other compacts, or best generally (I.e. Including DSLRs ? )


 
Best.

The shorter distance from lens to focal plane gives less time/length for distortion (or, summat?). It's the closest cameras and lenses get to replicating what the human eye sees. That's what I'm after when I photograph purely for the love of photography. Any other time I'll happily snap away with a €20 toy for memories, or quick reference.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 3, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> A DSLR where you've glued a single lens onto it, maybe.



Well the fixed lens aspect is offputting, but the niche it'd fall in is 'second camera' right? 

So if you want teles or whatever as well, they go on your DSLR. You won't be able to do camera movements either, but if you want that, get a view camera  

The assumption I think is that you have your DSLR and this is for those occasions when you'd currently leave it at home and take some tiddly little compact or a small film camera like editor is talking about. 

I mean we've just been having this conversation in the the next thread down. I don't think the usefulness of _something _along these lines is the least bit doubtful.


----------



## paolo (Jan 3, 2011)

Hmm. Distance from lens to sensor... that's not a significant factor. If it was, compacts would be fundamentally superior in image quality to DSLRs.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 3, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, pretty clearly there's a potential market for something that can deliver something _approaching_ the performance of current DSLRs in a smaller package, ideally with a real viewfinder and decent ergonomics.


 
For €1,000 I doubt very much if any current DSLR could match the optical quality at 'standard' focal length. We'll wait for the reviews.


----------



## paolo (Jan 3, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well the fixed lens aspect is offputting, but the niche it'd fall in is 'second camera' right?
> 
> So if you want teles or whatever as well, they go on your DSLR. You won't be able to do camera movements either, but if you want that, get a view camera
> 
> ...


 
Oh I can see the argument for having something much more manageable than a DSLR.

I was puzzling whether *this* was it.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 3, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Hmm. Distance from lens to sensor... that's not a significant factor. If it was, compacts would be fundamentally superior in image quality to DSLRs.


 
No. The fact that they are compact means compromise - fundamentally, smaller lenses. The priciples of a rangefinder(like) design mean it is going to be smaller than a DSLR. It's not so much a compact design for the sake of being compact. It's compact by design principle.

Whatever, I'm buying one  I like the looks and the idea and have faith in the lens quality.


----------



## paolo (Jan 3, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> For €1,000 I doubt very much if any current DSLR could match the optical quality at 'standard' focal length. We'll wait for the reviews.



If you introduce price, then your argument that this is a no-compromise solution falls apart. It does have compromises. Lots of them.

The no-compromise solution (without going medium format) would be a modern full frame DSLR with, say, Zeiss primes.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 3, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Oh I can see the argument for having something much more manageable than a DSLR.
> 
> I was puzzling whether *this* was it.


 
Quite, I can see a number of ways it could go wrong. Obvious one is that the lens/sensor combo isn't at least as good as the best micro 4/3 stuff. Another is sluggish autofocus. 

After all the hype people's expectations are fatally high.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> ...Who wants range finder cameras?


 
The people who've been buying up the Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss and Rollei 35mm rangefinders that are still being profitably produced, one supposes.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> A DSLR where you've glued a single lens onto it, maybe.


Some people are happy shooting with smaller, fixed lens cameras. Some people don't like zooms. Some people like to strut around with massive dSLRS and a bag fill of lens. Each to their own.

However, I imagine all photographers endeavour to use use the camera that suits the particular job best, and sometimes that might be a fast, high quality, pro-quality camera with excellent ergonomics like the Fujifilm. 

I really can't see why you're having such trouble understanding this.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> The no-compromise solution (without going medium format) would be a modern full frame DSLR with, say, Zeiss primes.


That would introduce its own, massive compromises of a huge price and reduced portability.


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

editor said:


> That would introduce its own, massive compromises of a huge price and reduced portability.


 
Sure. But Stanley said this camera was for no compromise lens purists. That's what I was responding to.

Do you agree with him?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 4, 2011)

Threads like this confirm my suspicions that the camera world is a bit like the hifi one. Inclined to agree largely with Paolo.

The fact that this thing is deliberately styled to look retro...to me that says a lot about the thinking that went into its design and the type of consumer it's aimed at.

Mock Tudor Barrat houses, those digital radios in 1950s style cases, hmmm


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

editor said:


> Some people are happy shooting with smaller, fixed lens cameras. Some people don't like zooms. Some people like to strut around with massive dSLRS and a bag fill of lens. Each to their own.
> 
> However, I imagine all photographers endeavour to use use the camera that suits the particular job best, and sometimes that might be a fast, high quality, pro-quality camera with excellent ergonomics like the Fujifilm.
> 
> I really can't see why you're having such trouble understanding this.


 
I'm having trouble seeing why the new compacts with interchangeable lenses aren't even a consideration.

I _think_ it's because this is a fetish camera.

Maybe it's not.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I _think_ it's because this is a fetish camera.
> 
> Maybe it's not.



It only looks like a rangefinder camera, it does not operate like one except in that the camera data is also being displayed in the optical viewfinder. Has it a split image that you align for focusing? If not you could argue it is just money spinning idea by the manufacturer. I was hoping the cheap and cheerful Fujifilm camera brand would actually knock the price down to the more realistic £300-£500 mark as it does not appear to offer much more than top of the range compacts.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jan 4, 2011)

teuchter said:


> Threads like this confirm my suspicions that the camera world is a bit like the hifi one. Inclined to agree largely with Paolo.
> 
> The fact that this thing is deliberately styled to look retro...to me that says a lot about the thinking that went into its design and the type of consumer it's aimed at.
> 
> Mock Tudor Barrat houses, those digital radios in 1950s style cases, hmmm


 
Well obviously it will have to deliver. I was interested in the Olympus EP-1 thing, which happened to have a retro look. However it turned out not to be for me due to the sluggish autofocus and not being able to set a manual focus easily.

As I wrote on my blog:

"I've almost given up waiting for a small, discreet, digital camera with decent controls, and a optical viewfinder that I would be happy using for [street] photography.

Having used digital compacts extensively I've come to the conclusion that I'm one of those weird people who will never be happy composing photos using an LCD at arm's length. A "proper" viewfinder is important to me.

Over the years, so many digital models have been launched that sounded promising - the Sigma D-something, the Olympus Pen-thing, the Ricoh G-doomidag and so on - but on closer inspection they all appeared lacking in one or more crucial departments.

All I want is a smallish digital camera with a short lens that focuses very quickly using autofocus, or allows me to set a manual focus instantly, and does not go "clack" when I press the shutter. And has an optical viewfinder, not an electronic one, and is not a stupid price like those Leicas. Are those outrageous demands? Certainly the technology is available, so presumably these must be niche demands!

It seems odd that although digital cameras have been readily available for about a decade now, people interested in street photography without the Leica budget are still resorting to using archaic old film cameras like the Olympus XA and the Hexar.

Maybe this Fujifilm FinePix X100 with the small, 35 mm fixed lens and built-in optical viewfinder will be the digital one. Maybe."


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

Paul Russell said:


> "I've almost given up waiting for a small, discreet, digital camera with decent controls, and a optical viewfinder that I would be happy using for [street] photography.
> 
> Having used digital compacts extensively I've come to the conclusion that I'm one of those weird people who will never be happy composing photos using an LCD at arm's length. A "proper" viewfinder is important to me.


Yep. That's why I'm excited by the X100 - and hope it delivers on its promises.


paolo999 said:


> I'm having trouble seeing why the new compacts with interchangeable lenses aren't even a consideration.
> 
> I _think_ it's because this is a fetish camera.
> 
> Maybe it's not.


Just because interchangeable lens are essential for you, that doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.  

The camera I use the most doesn't have interchangeable lens and that's a compromise I'm more than happy to make for the extra portability.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jan 4, 2011)

teuchter said:


> Threads like this confirm my suspicions that the camera world is a bit like the hifi one. Inclined to agree largely with Paolo.
> 
> The fact that this thing is deliberately styled to look retro...to me that says a lot about the thinking that went into its design and the type of consumer it's aimed at.


 
That was the case with the retro Olympus EP-1. All the marketing was about how cool you were. And Kevin Spacey. When they released the second version, the only real difference that they advertised was that it had 10 new art filters or something. WOW, art filters!


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

Paul Russell said:


> That was the case with the retro Olympus EP-1. All the marketing was about how cool you were. And Kevin Spacey. When they released the second version, the only real difference that they advertised was that it had 10 new art filters or something. WOW, art filters!


No one told me about the ART FILTERS!

To be honest, I've grown disappointed with the Lumix GF-1. It may have paolo999-pleasing interchangeable lens and take great pics, but the lack of an optical viewfinder means I may as well take my smaller LX5, or drag around my Nikon dSLR instead.


----------



## BlueSquareThing (Jan 4, 2011)

Any idea of a price for this yet?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 4, 2011)

teuchter said:


> ...
> 
> The fact that this thing is deliberately styled to look retro...to me that says a lot about the thinking that went into its design and the type of consumer it's aimed at.
> ...


 



stowpirate said:


> It only looks like a rangefinder camera, it does not operate like one except in that the camera data is also being displayed in the optical viewfinder...



It is actually very close in build and design to a rangefinder. It has all the benefits of a rangefinder with the added benefits of digital technology.

If I was to buy a top end DSLR I would buy just a standard prime Zeiss lens - nothing more. I would probably then worry about dust getting inside the camera. A fixed lens eliminates this problem (hopefully). There is truth in the theory that the closer the lens to the focal plane the better the optical image quality.

This is a list of what I'm looking for in my next camera:

Not to big and relatively indescrete.
Premium lens quality (standard).
Quick and easy to use when needed, but capable of quality landscape and copying of paintings for print.
Robust. Good ergonomics. Dust proof.
HD video capture at reasonable quality.
Versatile in-built metering options which I can rely on in all conditions.

I need a 'one camera does all' for carrying in a small backpack whilst hiking in dry, desert conditions at times.

The 'retro/classic' look isn't as 'old skool' as people seem to think. Colour it all black and it would look as modern as any other. The classic design is considered classic for good reason - it did the job perfectly. Also, to the untrained eye it won't look like a camera worth stealing. Alongside my 1950's Fuji RF (which I will be taking as fully manual back-up) it would be difficult to make a choice when viewed from the front.

For someone like myself who only ever shoots on standard lenses a fixed lens on a digital makes a great deal of sense. Dust is a major problem with DSLR's in dry, hot conditions. 

Stowpirate refers to Fujifilm as being cheap and chearful. They are sometimes. My JV100 are great fun for 12mp compacts with HD video capture at just €70. But, Fuji are also highly respected manufacturers of professional cameras with lenses that are hard to better. The only criticism from professionals has been the quality of the body sometimes. A robust, classic design on metal addresses this issue.

Obviously, I like the idea of this camera. I also fully expect it to deliver. The sensor is one I'm familiar with on Samsung cameras. I like it. Samsung 'in camera' processing tends to punch the reds a bit (easily corrected in PS). I expect Fuji to give it a more neutral capture.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jan 4, 2011)

Basically, the new Fujifilm will enable me to look really cool like this:





and you can take photos without even looking through the viewfinder!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 4, 2011)

Paul Russell said:


> Basically, the new Fujifilm will enable me to look really cool like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Oh dear 

That has immediately made me start asking more critical questions.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jan 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Oh dear
> 
> That has immediately made me start asking more critical questions.


 
Don't worry -- that's not the new Fuji. It's an old film camera. I was just mucking about and taking a cheap shot at Carl Barat. It's a recent pop music LP cover, I think.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 4, 2011)

Paul Russell said:


> Don't worry -- that's not the new Fuji. It's an old film camera. I was just mucking about and taking a cheap shot at Carl Barat. It's a recent pop music LP cover, I think.


 
OK. Most important to me that they get their marketing image right. Don't want to be associated with ponceyness


----------



## Paul Russell (Jan 4, 2011)

BlueSquareThing said:


> Any idea of a price for this yet?


 
I did see $1000 and £1000 mentioned somewhere. No official word though.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> The 'retro/classic' look isn't as 'old skool' as people seem to think. Colour it all black and it would look as modern as any other. The classic design is considered classic for good reason - it did the job perfectly. Also, to the untrained eye it won't look like a camera worth stealing.


Absolutely - and that's a major consideration when you're shooting in the street. 

I reckon I definitely got away with some pictures with my Ricoh GRD because the camera looked so crap.


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

Paul Russell said:


> Well obviously it will have to deliver. I was interested in the Olympus EP-1 thing, which happened to have a retro look. However it turned out not to be for me due to the sluggish autofocus and not being able to set a manual focus easily.
> 
> As I wrote on my blog:
> 
> ...


 
Ah OK, I'm getting it a bit more now. (And your "maybe" adds a dash of rationality. Some comments here suggest that all some people need, to be convinced, is a press release.)


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

Couple of questions:

- I'd assumed the viewfinder was optical. The press release says "electronic viewfinder". Is it optical or not? I'm now assuming it's not. Although if it doesn't show the lensed image, perhaps that's not such a big deal. (e2a: Ah, right - the original press release says it _does_ have an optical viewfinder, with electronic overlay)

- Manual focus has to be determined using a "distance indication bar". Is this something that's been done before, or is that a new way of doing things?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 4, 2011)

Paul's set out the requirements that I think most people who want one have for something like this pretty well, but nothing about smallish, quiet, camera/lens combo with good ergonomics and a real viewfinder that can focus fast, support various 'street photographer' techniques like zone focussing easily and deliver good images, absolutely says it has to *look* retro. 

It's just that what most people who want that camera are imagining is something 'like a classic rangefinder only with a good digital sensor' 

So it's not really surprising that when someone tries to make one they end up with something that *looks* something like a classic rangefinder as well as functioning like one, because if you start thinking about how to design something like that, the obvious starting point is the cameras that people still use in preference to digital for lack of such a thing (unless you count five grand Leica M9s) Some of that design undoubtedly is "cargo-cultism" though, duplicating the form when all we really wanted was the function. 

I'd probably add in-body image stabilisation to my personal wish-list, because if you can make one of these at all then why not? I'd also want it to have interchangeable lenses and the ability to use all those glorious Leica, Zeiss etc. m-mount lenses because again, why not?

I don't care particularly if it _looks_ retro though, as long as it's built to the same standard as a high-end DSLR and isn't particularly obtrusive-looking.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> ... I'd also want it to have interchangeable lenses and the ability to use all those glorious Leica, Zeiss etc. m-mount lenses because again, why not?
> ...



Why not? Because it's being sold as a camera with a lens designed specifically for optimum performance with the sensor. Absolutely no compromise. Then there's the dust issue with interchangeable lenses.

The viewfinder is hy-brid. An optical viewfinder with the added advantage of digital technology displaying info. RF viewfinders are as quick to focus manually as SLR's once you get used to them. It's not a 'lensed image' but it is replicating exactly what is going through the lens. You can't focus in the way you would with an SLR prism. Usually, if a focussing aid exists it's about lining up dots. I would imagine some sort of DoF preview will be incorporated.

With street photography being so popular it's not surprising that most will look at this camera with that in mind. Many legends of the past used rangefinders in preference to SLR's for various reasons. But, I don't see this camera as being aimed particularly at street photographers. 

It's biggest appeal is the no compromise lens sensor combo. It is a purists camera in that sense. Ideal for close up/macro work, but equally capable in all areas.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 4, 2011)

I appreciate that it may not be feasible for them to make something like this, at this price point without it having a fixed lens. I'm sure it simplifies the design process considerably over all the chuffing about with micro-lenses Leica and Kodak had to do to get the M8 and M9 to (more or less) work properly. It's not so many years since Leica were claiming that it was impossible to make a digital M work at all due to the technical challenges presented by the lens format. 

I don't think it's _inherently_ an advantage though. Pretty clearly if they could make something with equivalent quality (whatever that turns out to be) at the same price point, that also had an m-mount, it'd be a no-brainer, at least from the point of view of most of the people who'd be in the market for such a thing.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Paul's set out the requirements that I think most people who want one have for something like this pretty well, but nothing about smallish, quiet, camera/lens combo with good ergonomics and a real viewfinder that can focus fast, support various 'street photographer' techniques like zone focussing easily and deliver good images, absolutely says it has to *look* retro.
> 
> It's just that what most people who want that camera are imagining is something 'like a classic rangefinder only with a good digital sensor'
> 
> ...



What about just a basic cheap retro camera - 3.1-6mp sensor, iso100-400, f3.5 50mm lens with auto, manual and rangefinder focusing only. Real basic controls with no extra features?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 4, 2011)

What about it? I mean other than being cheap?

edited to add: also, I'm not sure it's possible to make rangefinder mechanisms at a price that'd match up with the rest of those specs, assuming the idea is a low cost-of-entry approach. I mean a new Voightlander Bessa is about £600 inc VAT (according to Robert White's site) and that's a very basic film camera with a rangefinder in it and no lens. I think the rangefinder bit, assuming you lose the constraints of wanting an M-mount and can use whatever lens and sensor, would be the hard part.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What about it? I mean other than being cheap?
> 
> edited to add: also, I'm not sure it's possible to make rangefinder mechanisms at a price that'd match up with the rest of those specs, assuming the idea is a low cost-of-entry approach. I mean a new Voightlander Bessa is about £600 inc VAT (according to Robert White's site) and that's a very basic film camera with a rangefinder in it and no lens. I think the rangefinder bit, assuming you lose the constraints of wanting an M-mount and can use whatever lens and sensor, would be the hard part.



The rangefinder could be achieved electronically with no mechanism as such. Robert White's site prices are all in the dealers name/reputation my Bessa R body cost £160 brand new on ebay from an unknown supplier and included the postage. I believe you can get the none rangefinder body for around £50 or £60 on ebay.


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Usually, if a focussing aid exists it's about lining up dots.



Do you expect that this will have that?



> I would imagine some sort of DoF preview will be incorporated.



Has that been done on any camera before, where you aren't looking through the lens?


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

The X100 has no rangefinder like focussing aids.



> The Hybrid Viewfinder on the FinePix X100 combines the window-type “bright frame” optical viewfinder found in high-end film cameras such as 35mm or medium-format cameras, and the electronic viewfinder system incorporated in fixed single lens or mirrorless digital cameras. By using integrating a prism for the 1,440,000 dot LCD panel image on the viewing screen in the reverse-Galilean optical finder, the Hybrid Viewfinder can show both the shooting frame and a variety of shooting data. Of course, it can also be used as a high-quality electronic viewfinder to compose or playback shots. With this ability to instantly switch between optical and electronic viewfinder images with simple “one touch” control. The new Hybrid Viewfinder offers users expanded freedom in the composition and enjoyment of photography in a range of challenging shooting conditions.
> While digital compact cameras have become ever slimmer and more compact in recent years, composing and viewing shots on large, higher resolution LCD panels on the back of the camera has become the mainstream practice for today's users. On the other hand, shooting with an optical viewfinder is the standard practice for conventional film cameras and the preferred method for large numbers of digital camera owners. Many prefer the finder to be as close as possible to the eye so the user can focus attention exclusively on photo composition to get a clear view of the subject without distraction.
> While traditionalists prefer the clear, sharp view of an ‘optical’ finder, modern electronic displays, giving data like shutter speed, aperture, white balance, exposure correction and sensitivity can aid the photographer tremendously. The new Hybrid Viewfinder on the FinePix X100 aims to give the user the ‘best of both worlds’.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Do you expect that this will have that?
> 
> 
> 
> Has that been done on any camera before, where you aren't looking through the lens?



If you look at the spec it appears to be a fudge, using a prism to reflect camera data in the viewfinder instead of a real rangefinder? It is not really a retro camera but a hybrid of looks with modern digital compact innards and obviously has that interesting viewfinder. It would be nice to see some sort of trickery in the software to create a real rangefinder action.


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

Well, for about 18 hours I've managed to labour under the idea that it was somehow a "fixed f2" 

...I'm used to primes being described thus: "35mm F2", not "35mm Fixed F2" as in the OP. Shouldn't have really been tripped up by that, but also compounded by me not spotting the aperture ring... doh!


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

stowpirate said:


> If you look at the spec it appears to be a fudge, using a prism to reflect camera data in the viewfinder


 
Quite, hence me wondering how stanley's anticipated DOF preview was going to work.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 4, 2011)

stowpirate said:


> The rangefinder could be achieved electronically with no mechanism as such. Robert White's site prices are all in the dealers name/reputation my Bessa R body cost £160 brand new on ebay from an unknown supplier and included the postage. I believe you can get the none rangefinder body for around £50 or £60 on ebay.


 
Sure, mine was about the same, but I was trying to use the standard retail price to estimate the cost of that component in a new camera like the one you were proposing.

What I was getting at was, by the time you've factored in the cost of a rangefinder in a new camera (as opposed to one on ebay), you're talking several hundred quid already by the time it's sold in the shops. 

So giving the rest of it camera-phone specs didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense unless I was totally missing your point. 

If you had a way to do it all in software, I guess via an EVF then fair enough, but I understood you to mean something that had a real viewfinder with a real rangefinder in it.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Sure, mine was about the same, but I was trying to use the standard retail price to estimate the cost of that component in a new camera like the one you were proposing.
> 
> What I was getting at was, by the time you've factored in the cost of a rangefinder in a new camera (as opposed to one on ebay), you're talking several hundred quid already by the time it's sold in the shops.
> 
> ...



The rangefinder, depth of field indicator could very easily & cheaply achieved in camera software? If I had £900 to sink into another camera I think I would go for a real 35mm rangefinder camera like the Leica M2/IIIg or a more recent Voightlander. Maybe even a digital Epson RD-1 body? The loss of flexibility of interchangeable lenses on the X100 is a real issue at this price point?


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Well, for about 18 hours I've managed to labour under the idea that it was somehow a "fixed f2"
> 
> ...I'm used to primes being described thus: "35mm F2", not "35mm Fixed F2" as in the OP. Shouldn't have really been tripped up by that, but also compounded by me not spotting the aperture ring... doh!


You managed to miss the aperture ring from this photo in the OP?






It's not a new camera you need. It's glasses!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 4, 2011)

Well, we may be at cross purposes here stowpirate, but to me the point of the rangefinder is really the viewfinder and being able to use it to see focus instantly and intuitively, rather than mucking about squinting at a ground-glass screen or having a computer tell you when something (but not necessarily the right thing) is in focus (like almost all modern cameras) 

So before a rangefinder mechanism can deliver the focussing experience that many people seem to value them for, it seems to me that you've _got to_ have a nice big clear viewfinder.

Which I suspect is the sticking point for modern manufacturing, because even the few non-DSLRs with viewfinders e.g. the Canon G-whatever, have tiny shitty little ones, as do all but the pro-level DSLRs.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> or having a computer tell you when something (but not necessarily the right thing) is in focus (like most modern cameras)



I also have that problem. My E420 is a complete joke, manual focusing is near on impossible as you end up trusting the camera indicators. You just end up abandoning any manual photography as the experience is disappointing. 



Bernie Gunther said:


> So before a rangefinder mechanism can deliver the focussing experience that many people seem to value them for, you've _got to_ have a nice big clear viewfinder.



This X100 does look as if it has a proper viewfinder but until I see one up close I suspect it will be another heap of pointless technology.  



Bernie Gunther said:


> Which I suspect is the sticking point for modern manufacturing, because even the few non-DSLRs with viewfinders e.g. the Canon G-whatever, have tiny shitty little ones.



Dumbing down of the photographer expectations and experience? Blind them with features that just work but not very well? then bring out an updated version as soon as you buy into the technology that attempts to fix some of the previous versions short comings 

That is why I always end up drifting back to using an early 1930's Leica rangefinder camera


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 4, 2011)

stowpirate said:


> <snip> Dumbing down of the photographer expectations and experience? Blind them with features that just work but not very well? then bring out an updated version as soon as you buy into the technology that attempts to fix some of the previous versions short comings
> 
> That is why I always end up drifting back to using an early 1930's Leica rangefinder camera


 
Yep, pisses me off as well. I've been experimenting for the last couple of days with a manual 28/2 on a quasi-pro DSLR and it's a pain in the arse. Even though the viewfinder is reasonably big and bright for a modern camera (still way inferior to my early 80's F3 though) you end up either relying on the AF 'green dot' to tell you what's in focus or just zone focussing, which given the depth of field required, sort of defeats the point of having an f2 lens in the first place. 

The camera isn't designed with manual focussing in mind. It assumes that that's the computer's job and that nobody in their right mind would want to do it themselves. 

From Nikon's point of view I'd guess, someone who wants to do what I want to do should go and buy their shiny new 24/1.4 autofocus lens, a mere snip at £1699 or so.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> From Nikon's point of view I'd guess, someone who wants to do what I want to do should go and buy their shiny new 24/1.4 autofocus lens, a mere snip at £1699 or so.



For that sort of money you can get a really nice classic manual camera kit. Something like a Leica M series camera with a couple of lenses and maybe even a worn spare body. I recently saw a near mint Nikon FM2 in a local charity shop going for £40 complete with a set of lenses! I nearly bought it but then sanity kicked in


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 4, 2011)

Well that's the thing isn't it? You can get fantastic lenses and cameras with way more flexibility and control than most digital stuff for a couple of hundred quid, all you have to be willing to do is go back to dealing with film


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

When you say film lenses, I assume you mean stuff that has an old (pre digital) mount?


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well that's the thing isn't it? You can get fantastic lenses and cameras with way more flexibility and control than most digital stuff for a couple of hundred quid, all you have to be willing to do is go back to dealing with film



Digital is quick with instant editing and printing. But film is somehow more rewarding. Funny today I started to use film again after a two month break. Only developing so far but I can see in the next few days I will be hooked again.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well that's the thing isn't it? You can get fantastic lenses and cameras with way more flexibility and control than most digital stuff for a couple of hundred quid, all you have to be willing to do is go back to dealing with film


That's not true at all. You can get an excellent dSLR with kit lens for under £400 and you'll be taking pictures every bit as good as a comparable film camera in most circumstances, and you won't have to keep spunking money on  film and developing. 

Digital also lets you instantly preview, edit and upload your pics, you're not limited to individual film speeds or a mere 36 shots a roll, and in just about every way digital is superior when it comes to costs. The biggest disadvantage is how the actual cameras look.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> When you say film lenses, I assume you mean stuff that has an old (pre digital) mount?


 
I was thinking of stuff like old Nikon AI and AIS manual focus lenses, which are only fully useful (for me at least) in cameras with focus screens, like the F3 etc. 

They do work on modern Nikons, but are a pain in the arse to use.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 4, 2011)

editor said:


> That's not true at all. <snip>


 I disagree. I think it's true to some degree. I wouldn't claim it as universal truth though.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 4, 2011)

editor said:


> That's not true at all. You can get an excellent dSLR with kit lens for under £400 and you'll be taking pictures every bit as good as a comparable film camera in most circumstances, and you won't have to keep spunking money on  film and developing.
> 
> Digital also lets you instantly preview, edit and upload your pics, you're not limited to individual film speeds or a mere 36 shots a roll, and in just about every way digital is superior when it comes to costs. The biggest disadvantage is how the actual cameras look.



Digital is great for instant results. However I don't think there is any real cost in film photography if you are motivated enough to find the cheaper options. At minimal cost I am using well out of date films and chemicals and still getting great results.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 4, 2011)

editor said:


> The X100 has no rangefinder like focussing aids...



Well, no - it's not an RF even though I keep making comparisons with RF. They do say you can focus accurately using the viewfinder. I suppose that's going to be digital focusing?


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

stowpirate said:


> Digital is great for instant results. However I don't think there is any real cost in film photography if you are motivated enough to find the cheaper options. At minimal cost I am using well out of date films and chemicals and still getting great results.


I took nearly 1.000 pics in NY in December. How much do you think all that lot would cost to get onto my computer in terms of cost and time?


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> They do say you can focus accurately using the viewfinder.


 
They say you can use "the *electronic* viewfinder to focus accurately", i.e. not optical.

Better than no viewfinder at all, of course - and the resolution of the internal LCD driving the viewfinder is way better than any LCD rear panel (including top end DSLRs). But it's not optical. It'll be interesting to see how well it works.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> They say you can use "the *electronic* viewfinder to focus accurately", i.e. not optical.
> 
> Better than no viewfinder at all, of course - and the resolution of the internal LCD driving the viewfinder is way better than any LCD rear panel (including top end DSLRs). But it's not optical. It'll be interesting to see how well it works.


If you look at their video, the focussing indicator seems to be much the same as what you get in a modern dSLR, with a green square overlaid when the  lens is focused.


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> They do work on modern Nikons, but are a pain in the arse to use.


 
In what way?

I'm curious - dipping my toes in the blossoming 'HDDSLR' filmmaking world, where there's people that seem to like them as cheap way of stocking up decent primes without spending L Series* bucks. (lack of AF is less of an issue in film making)

* HDDSLR film making is massively dominated by Canon right now.


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

editor said:


> If you look at their video, the focussing indicator seems to be much the same as what you get in a modern dSLR, with a green square overlaid when the  lens is focused.


 
Watched that now, but I'm still not completely clear.

On my Canons, there's a matrix of red AF dots.

If I focus manually:
- The viewfinder shows the lensed image.
- A half press illuminates each of the (nine) dots that are in focus.

I think Nikons work similarly.

Do you mean like that? (With the obvious proviso that the lensed image on the F100 will be coming from the internal LCD, or one foregoes it and uses the optical instead).


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> In what way?
> 
> I'm curious - dipping my toes in the blossoming 'HDDSLR' filmmaking world, where there's people that seem to like them as cheap way of stocking up decent primes without spending L Series* bucks. (lack of AF is less of an issue in film making)
> 
> * HDDSLR film making is massively dominated by Canon right now.


 
Well, I use a mixture of old AF and manual prime lenses, plus a couple of modern zooms. A pro or semi-pro Nikon, like a D200, 300, 700 and up can be set to meter with any of them (I *think* the D90 etc can too). The older AF lenses can be just as good bargain-wise as the manual ones, depending on what you're going for. The problem with the manual ones is simply focussing. An old Nikon film camera like an F3 will have a ground glass screen to make focussing easier. If you're doing something like street photography, you can zone focus to work around the problem as long as you have good enough light to stop it down enough. Thing is though, if you're buying a manual 35/1.4 say, rather than an autofocus 35/2, you're probably doing it for the wider aperture and zone focus isn't going to be terribly reliable wide open. 

If you want a comprehensive guide to the good and the bad in terms of ancient and weird Nikkors, as well as all the modern ones, then this (while opinionated) is pretty reliable: 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> The problem with the manual ones is simply focussing.


 
Manual is OK for film making. The viewfinder on the 5D is usable, unlike their lower end bodies. (you can't go too shallow anyway for moving image, otherwise people drift in and out of focus during a shot. Or even worse, at very narrow DOF, individual body parts drift in and out!)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Manual is OK for film making. The viewfinder on the 5D is usable, unlike their lower end bodies. (you can't go too shallow anyway for moving image, otherwise people drift in and out of focus during a shot. Or even worse, at very narrow DOF, individual body parts drift in and out!)


 
If you're using them at f4 and up, which it sounds like you are, then there's tons of really nice old bargain Nikkors that would work very well.

This might be nice and it probably is a bargain, albeit a high-priced one 

http://www.apertureuk.com/Nikon_300mm_f2.html


----------



## paolo (Jan 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> If you're using them at f4 and up, which it sounds like you are, then there's tons of really nice old bargain Nikkors that would work very well.


 
Yep f4 and up is usable focal length for that stuff. Interesting.


----------



## editor (Jan 13, 2011)

Little bit more info about the camera here, with a rough video showing the viewfinder in action:
http://www.wirefresh.com/fujifilm-finepix-x100-camera-gets-video-demo-remains-deeply-delicious/


----------



## Paul Russell (Jan 21, 2011)

On show in March. Possibly £1200. Ouch. Blimey, they are stringing this out...

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1937629/fujifilms-x100-uk-apparition


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 21, 2011)

Paul Russell said:


> On show in March. Possibly £1200. Ouch...



I read that as a sub 1K actual selling price. It better be anyway!


----------



## editor (Jan 21, 2011)

I love this camera. But I don't love it £1,200.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jan 21, 2011)

I don't know how "legally binding" this is but Park Cameras have it to pre-order at £1,019.95

http://www.parkcameras.com/17126/Fujifilm-FinePix-X100.html


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2011)

DPReview have had a hands on preview:



> The X100 is a camera that has intrigued ever since its announcement, and this has only been compounded by the wait since Photokina so see a working version. And while the model we have is still a prototype, it's fair to say that it lives up to expectations in many respects.
> 
> The X100 is every bit as pretty in the flesh as it looks in pictures, but what these can't convey is the sheer quality and solidity of the build. The magnesium alloy top and base plates and solid metal dials are more than a little reminiscent of the Leica M9, and (we think) a cut above the Leica X1. In your hand the camera has a solid, weighty feeling that immediately suggests a real purposefulness.
> 
> ...



http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmx100/

Still *want*.


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 8, 2011)

More details, I think

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...lm-x100-coming-gbp999-specifications-unveiled


----------



## editor (Feb 8, 2011)

The lack of image stabilisation is an annoying omission.


----------



## cybertect (Feb 28, 2011)

DP Review have some preproduction samples up

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11022510fujifilmx100betasamples.asp

check out the fruit at 6400

and this guy has some on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ramdiboy/sets/72157625992434661/with/5466114745/

This could be a _very_ usable street camera 

e2a: Photoblog with more samples and commentary here

and more samples and discussion here


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 28, 2011)

cybertect said:


> DP Review have some preproduction samples up



Yes, taking a quick look, it seems to perform like a good digital SLR. To be honest I would have been happy if the images were usuable up to 1000 asa but it looks like this goes way beyond that.

If this is nippy in operation I will be very keen.


----------



## Paul Russell (Mar 10, 2011)

First impressions report:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/...from-a-rangefinder-shooter-by-pieter-franken/


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2011)

Still *want*! The built in ND filter is a nice touch too.


----------



## Paul Russell (Mar 10, 2011)

There's probably a few of these reports on the web, as a few camera seem to be hitting the shops (even in the UK, I think). I have joined two Flickr groups like a saddo.


----------



## damnhippie (Mar 17, 2011)

i don't know if these are everywhere now, but if you want to see it face to face there is one sitting in the window of Camera Exchange on the Strand. 

it looks very nice...


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2011)

I'd best not go there as I'd only drool over the window!

Word is that there's going to be big shortages of these puppies as Fuji underestimated the demand.


----------



## mick2007 (Mar 18, 2011)

..


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 18, 2011)

mick2007 said:


> Love old cameras. Trouble with digital is any camera you buy is crap and worth about 10p after about 10 minutes.
> 
> Love the design..


 
You should be more careful in your buying decisions. I still enjoy the quality of images from my Olympus E420 that I bought several years ago. I also love my Lumix LX3 which I bought about a year after they came out when it became evident that there wasn't going to be an LX4 model. Even now after a two year gap and they have released the LX5 I am quite happy with the LX3.

I don't love old cameras any more. I have had my fill of them. At one time people kept giving me old film cameras because they knew I was interested in photography.I have used Zeniths and the other East German camera whose name I have forgotten, Pentax K100s Canons even Cosmic Symbols and several other types.  I have my  old OM1 that bought new back in the olden days; I like it a lot and keep threatening to put a film though it but it never happens.


----------



## mick2007 (Mar 18, 2011)

I attempted to delete that comment a while ago..but you've quoted me!

In principle I sort of agree with that off the wall comment..

I have a few digital cameras..my fav is the Kodak 14n...ho ho! that cost me just over 300 quid. I also have a D700.

What I meant (without really thinking about it) was just that..you could buy an 14n for a few grand and then five years later it's worth peanuts..though I love that camera for it's quirky sharp film like images.

Nikon might come out with a who knows what MP camera next..in the same market as the D700. I won't be buying it for obvious reasons...I've spent enough.

The comment that I deleted..is just that..a very nice camera and sensor..but the image quality doesn't really change...minus the odd tweak...five minutes down the line your grand is gone with the next new edition.

To be taken with a pinch of salt..


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 18, 2011)

I get you. Certainly in the early days digital cameras got out of date almost by the week, as ones with better image quality were brought out. I always stayed with the lower end of the market though so didn't feel that I had wasted my money.


----------



## mick2007 (Mar 18, 2011)

Yeah..exactly. I sort of see digital cameras like used cars now..


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2011)

Man oh man. It's just got a rave five star review.



> The X100 delivers all of the goods and more in terms of its overall handling and image quality. Fujifilm have married the best of the past, in the multitude of external controls, leaf-shutter, optical viewfinder and stunning appearance, with some cutting-edge features, most notably the hybrid optical / electronic viewfinder, which really is a revelation to use. The ability to frame your subject in not one, not two, but three different ways, each of which offers certain benefits and all housed within a compact body, makes the X100 incredibly versatile, although we suspect that most owners will exclusively enjoy using the bright optical viewfinder and its unique information overlay.
> 
> All of the nice handling touches and cutting-edge technologies in the world wouldn't matter if the X100 didn't deliver the goods in terms of image quality, but thankfully the X100 scores a bullseye in terms of the photos that it produces. Noise is noticeable only by its almost complete absence throughout the ISO range of 100-12,800, while the Dynamic Range function helps to boost contrast and detail. The 23mm lens is sharp from the center to the edges, while the F/2 maximum aperture makes it easy to creatively throw the background out of focus. The X100 is right up there with the best APS-C sensor cameras on the market.



http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/fujifilm_finepix_x100_review/


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 19, 2011)

When, when, when?

My cash is waiting!


----------



## leftistangel (Apr 2, 2011)

editor said:


> Man oh man. It's just got a rave five star review.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/fujifilm_finepix_x100_review/


 
Wow. The ISO performance is scarily good, displaying results previously only possible on a 35mm sensor.


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2011)

As if to horribly tempt me, I sold £970s worth of photos last month!

Check out the quality of this ISO 6400 image - it's incredible!
http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/fujifilm-finepix-x100-15857/images/DSCF5545.JPG

(From this review: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-finepix-x100-digital-camera-review-15857 )


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 3, 2011)

The main minus point that I've seen people talking about is the speed of focusing. The autofocus is not that speedy apparently. And using manual focus is not easy because you have to turn the focusing ring three complete turns to get from close to infinity:  http://www.flickr.com/groups/x100/discuss/72157626188721681/


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2011)

Paul Russell said:


> The main minus point that I've seen people talking about is the speed of focusing. The autofocus is not that speedy apparently. And using manual focus is not easy because you have to turn the focusing ring three complete turns to get from close to infinity:  http://www.flickr.com/groups/x100/discuss/72157626188721681/


I'm guessing that a firmware update will fix that - the camera 'on' time appears horribly sluggish too.


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 3, 2011)

editor said:


> I'm guessing that a firmware update will fix that - the camera 'on' time appears horribly sluggish too.



I hope so. BTW, 4 years after seeing your Ricoh GRD, I finally bought one. My local camera shop had the GRD II for 199 first hand. I like it.


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2011)

Paul Russell said:


> I hope so. BTW, 4 years after seeing your Ricoh GRD, I finally bought one. My local camera shop had the GRD II for 199 first hand. I like it.


I still use my GRD for all the Offline gigs. It's still a fab camera but now way behind the LX5 in terms of quality.


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 3, 2011)

editor said:


> I still use my GRD for all the Offline gigs. It's still a fab camera but now way behind the LX5 in terms of quality.



I can see it's v noisy compared with a lot of modern day compacts - I don't plan to use it beyond 200 ASA. I've found it's a good camera to get me taking stuff when I have "photographer's block" with the SLR.

Anyway, back to the X100!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 3, 2011)

Slow autofocus, and slow on time are not good for a camera which is targeting the current trend for street photography. Not considerations for myself. I never autofocus and spend at least an hour in a place before taking photographs, but I think Fujifilm should drop the RRP 50%, or so given these not so good points


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 3, 2011)

Amazon UK are listing it as £899 (when they have some), so it's getting there!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 3, 2011)

Paul Russell said:


> Amazon UK are listing it as £899 (when they have some), so it's getting there!



OK. I have a plan 

I've heard the build quality isn't brilliant


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 20, 2011)

The hands on AP Magazine test does not really give the thumbs up for this camera. It hints in the text that the Samsung NX100 does a similar job with the ability to change lens and costs £700 less. The much hyped optical viewfinder novelty feature apparently wears off with the evf part being a tad on the dark side and as I mentioned before it does not use the hyped exr sensor but a cmos sensor with a seperate exr processor - I guess that just means a software emulation of the exr sensor or more just clever marketing?


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2011)

I still reckon the LX5 is the best small camera compromise.


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 20, 2011)

editor said:


> I still reckon the LX5 is the best small camera compromise.



My son bought an LX5 and it does look like a future classic.  

I have recently been using a horrible looking Sony Cybershot DSC-T99 because it is a true compact with no lens protruding from the camera body. I think the results are just as good as I would have achieved with an LX5 or similar. Also maybe because the camera is so small and compact I have been able to use it more often, especially recently in NHS hospitals where photography has been banned and a real camera would have security stopping me ?


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2011)

stowpirate said:


> I have recently been using a horrible looking Sony Cybershot DSC-T99 because it is a true compact with no lens protruding from the camera body. I think the results are just as good as I would have achieved with an LX5 or similar.


With respect, the DSC-T99 really is not capable of matching the quality of the LX5.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 20, 2011)

editor said:


> I still use my GRD for all the Offline gigs. It's still a fab camera but now way behind the LX5 in terms of quality.


 
It's been ages since the GRD III came out, which, barring an opportunity to get a cheap one, means I'm hoping for a GRD IV. 

I really like the basic concept, but right now I use my 'ghetto Leica' (Voightlander+Zeiss 35/2) for that kinda stuff because there really isn't anything digital that works that way apart from the GRDIII (sorta) and real Leica M9.


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 20, 2011)

editor said:


> With respect, the DSC-T99 really is not capable of matching the quality of the LX5.



It depends on what you are photographing and what the conditions are like. Low light would be one situation where the LX5 is going to be a lot better but in good light the lower quality of the DSC-T99 is not going to be that noticable. You must have seen this with all the cameras you have tested?


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2011)

stowpirate said:


> It depends on what you are photographing and what the conditions are like. Low light would be one situation where the LX5 is going to be a lot better but in good light the lower quality of the DSC-T99 is not going to be that noticable. You must have seen this with all the cameras you have tested?


The LX5 has better optics, a faster lens, better sensor and better handling, and although it may be hard to tell the difference it you were looking at a small print taken in absolutely optimum conditions for the Sony, the gulf in class would soon reveal itself over the day.

As compacts go, the DSC-T99 isn't really that good:


> Lacklustre performance was matched by mediocre image quality. Photos were plagued by image noise, which manifested itself as multicoloured blotches in darker parts of photos and smeared details due to aggressive noise reduction in brighter areas. These problems were visible when shooting outdoors and fairly catastrophic in indoor photos.
> http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/digital-cameras/1281031/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-t99


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 20, 2011)

editor said:


> The LX5 has better optics, a faster lens, better sensor and better handling, and although it may be hard to tell the difference it you were looking at a small print taken in absolutely optimum conditions for the Sony, the gulf in class would soon reveal itself over the day.
> 
> As compacts go, the DSC-T99 isn't really that good:



I never really print any digital photos beyond A4 so not really an issue - just edit crop and upload to flickr. I would not really consider using the DSC-T99 for serious photography just as a pocketable throw away camera. I still believe in good light the differences in quality between a high end camera and cheap and nasty one are not so obvious. I have to point out i would not have chosen the DSC-T99 but was given it as a birthday gift.  If you look at my recent photos on the April photo thread you can see the results are surprisingly good for what is a horrible looking peice of kit. It does suffer from some digital noise but over sharpening is not an issue.

This imaging-resource review is not that bad

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T99/T99A.HTM


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 28, 2011)

Not quite the reviews I was hoping for. Looks lovelly, but I think I'm going with Samsung. I've never been disappointed by Samsung cameras. Bang for Buck, they're very difficult to beat at all levels. Some quality lenses on some models also.


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2011)

I had a go with one on the weekend and it was sooooo close. The viewfinder is awesome, but I still prefer my LX5 overall which I still reckon is the best small compact available.


----------



## what (Nov 12, 2011)

Have a look at the comparison here http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stu...r&x=-0.6192952050837665&y=-1.1162061532431904
quality not quite upto a 5DMK11 but looks better than an M9. Is this for real?


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2011)

what said:


> Have a look at the comparison here ...
> quality not quite upto a 5DMK11 but looks better than an M9. Is this for real?


It has a pretty big sensor so it should output some high quality images, but the handling is no match for the 5D.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 12, 2011)

I don't think it has been mentioned on this thread so far but quite a few Fujifilm X100 owners are experiencing sticky aperture blades causing the aperture to stick wide open and requiring a return for repair.


----------



## what (Nov 14, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't think it has been mentioned on this thread so far but quite a few Fujifilm X100 owners are experiencing sticky aperture blades causing the aperture to stick wide open and requiring a return for repair.


Its amazing a camera that seems to have so many good things and also so many flaws. Has this been rushed to the market in preparation for the next iteration?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 14, 2011)

what said:


> Its amazing a camera that seems to have so many good things and also so many flaws. Has this been rushed to the market in preparation for the next iteration?



Well Fujifilm are launching or have just launched another slightly lower spec camera, the X10.

According to the internet, they have a modified aperture design to correct this sticky aperture blade issue and when repairing cameras are fitting the new assembly. Hopefully new cams also have it.

And also there a rumours about a mirrorless dslr type camera with an advanced EVF viewfinder. Apparently that might be arriving in 2012.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2011)

Thread on the lovely looking X10 here: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/fujifilm-x10-compact-camera-stunning-retro-camera.280293/


----------



## what (Dec 21, 2011)

Played with one in John Lewis on Oxford Street today. Its just stuck out on display for anyone to try. The viewfinder is great as is the look of camera but the write speed to card is shockingly slow.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 8, 2012)

Met someone with one of these today.  It looks sexy.  He said the colour is good.  Bit expensive though.


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2012)

How good does it look in black?!







http://www.photographyblog.com/news/fujifilm_x100_black_hands-on_photos/


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 28, 2012)

what said:


> Played with one in John Lewis on Oxford Street today. Its just stuck out on display for anyone to try. The viewfinder is great as is the look of camera but the write speed to card is shockingly slow.



I had a play with one of these in a store during the week.

Autofocus seemed shockingly slow and unreliable, perhaps at least in part due to poor lighting. You could at least tell what it was trying to focus on though. I liked the hybrid display a lot in principle, although it could certainly benefit from more refinement.

With the X10, the AF seems a lot quicker, but there's nothing in the viewfinder to tell you what it's focussing on. Just a green light off to one side that tells you it's focussing on _something_.

I'm sure there are ways around this issue, most obviously, especially with the smaller sensor, just set the aperture so everything that you might be interested in simply has to be in focus.

Such a pity the focussing lets them down though, these are lovely little cameras and the image quality, especially on the X100 seems to be outstanding for what they are.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2014)

Version three has been announced. 











Still looks lovely. 

More here: http://www.wirefresh.com/fujifilm-x...pact-with-aps-c-sensor-and-f2-lens-announced/


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 5, 2014)

Be very interested to see how well the autofocus works in low light.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2014)

wow, they're really pushing the price up there.


----------



## kage (Dec 1, 2014)

Just bought an x100S as there was 400$ off at B&H. Will let you know what it`s like when it arrives


----------



## starfish2000 (Dec 1, 2014)

I love my X Pro 1


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 2, 2014)

kage said:


> Just bought an x100S as there was 400$ off at B&H. Will let you know what it`s like when it arrives



The 100T has come out now, so I guess they're selling them off.



starfish2000 said:


> I love my X Pro 1



And I love my X-E1


----------



## kage (Jan 23, 2015)

Here's a few taken straight out of camera apart from cropping, the more saturated ones are from the Velvia mode. I got into Bangkok yesterday and have been wandering around.

        

I absolutely love the thing and it's rather nice not lugging around an SLR. Having a fixed focal length takes a lot of the decision making and faff about the composition out I find so you can just whip it out and shoot. The skin tones off the flash are incredible as well, i'll post more once I get round to it.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2015)

Nice pics! I really like the look of this camera but it's just a bit too big for my needs (I went for the Ricoh GR which fits in my pocket).


----------



## starfish2000 (Jan 23, 2015)

Nice, whats the "Classic Chrome" film simulation like? I sort of fancy that William Egglestone look sometimes.


----------



## kage (Jan 24, 2015)

Will give it a try today and post later.


----------



## fractionMan (Jan 24, 2015)

The bottom shot is ace.  Nice one.


----------



## big eejit (Oct 10, 2015)

Was thinking of getting an X100t but now started looking at some of the alternatives, eg Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 or Sony RX100.

Think I need to go and do some handling.


----------



## MBV (Oct 10, 2015)

I went with the LX100 as there was a cash back deal at the start of September. Nice chunky camera. People like the Sony for how small it is.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 5, 2015)

I've got an x100t, I'm loving it and I'm now seriously thinking about flogging my Nikon gear and maybe getting an x-pro (v2 seems fairly imminent) outfit in the new year.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 5, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I've got an x100t, I'm loving it and I'm now seriously thinking about flogging my Nikon gear and maybe getting an x-pro (v2 seems fairly imminent) outfit in the new year.


People seem to really like the X-Pro—the complaints I've heard have have been about the range (and cost) of lenses. You're definitely dependent on Fuji there. Having said that, it's an issue that's going to bother some people more than others.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 5, 2015)

Yeah, they seem to have everything I need in lens terms already, which isn't a great deal given what the x100 already does. Flogging all my Nikon kit would more than cover another body and 2-3 lenses, even fancy ones like that Zeiss macro lens.

I recently got a pocket-sized flash that does Fuji TTL and I was thinking of replacing my speedlights with something big, cheap and manual anyhow. So all I'd need beyond the body and a nice lens or two is a couple of bits like tripod brackets.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 20, 2020)

So I got an X100V recently - the middle of a fucking pandemic obviously being the absolute best time to buy a street and travel camera.

I'd tried one out in the Fuji shop in Covent Garden before lockdown and tbh I was pretty "meh" about it, but actually using it, well, it's very good tbh. I think "best dedicated street camera" really does come down to this and the GR, and I was leery of buying another GR (regardless of how good they are) after my previous one got the dreaded sensor dust.

The X100V is weather sealed and doesn't have a retractable lens anyway, so won't have that problem. It's not as pocketable as the GR of course, but it's still _reasonably_ pocketable, in a jacket say. The AF is terrific, the sensor has great performance at high ISOs, the lens seems great quality, it has sync with phone GPS, but one of the big things for me is the OVF - it is really good, and really flexible, you have all sorts of useful overlays if you want (and you don't have to have them if you don't) and you can just switch to EVF if necessary by moving a switch on the front with your finger, or have a partial EVF with a zoom view of the centre. What with my eyes getting worse as I get older, I really can't work with a back-screen finder in any sort of close situation any more, not without spending ages angling my head so I can see the damn screen with my varifocals, and I've always preferred an optical finder anyway.

It's at the point where I'm not sure what more they could do for a next version apart from just improve some of the performance. I do also like how good Fuji's JPEGs are, and also how customisable the system is. The presets are really nice but you can set up all sorts of custom post-processing options too. I'm always sceptical of systems which claim "film simulation" but there are certainly ones where you say "oh yes that is Superia" and it's quite easy to get some really specific looks - I spent a while dialing in options I found on the net for Tri-X and Cinestill and so on and they're surprisingly good.

ETA: re-reading the above, it doesn't really give an idea of the main point which is just how _handleable_ it is. Everything is set up to be natural to use and easy to adjust. This is the real skill when designing a camera - make it _feel_ right, because if it feels right it doesn't get in the way and if it feels wrong you keep getting distracted by it. The GR has that feel, Leicas have that feel, it's quite rare generally though.


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> So I got an X100V recently - the middle of a fucking pandemic obviously being the absolute best time to buy a street and travel camera.
> 
> I'd tried one out in the Fuji shop in Covent Garden before lockdown and tbh I was pretty "meh" about it, but actually using it, well, it's very good tbh. I think "best dedicated street camera" really does come down to this and the GR, and I was leery of buying another GR (regardless of how good they are) after my previous one got the dreaded sensor dust.
> 
> ...


I think it's a lovely camera with fantastic looks, but seeing it's about the same size as my full frame RX1R, I could never justify buying one when I have the GR.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 20, 2020)

editor said:


> I think it's a lovely camera with fantastic looks, but seeing it's about the same size as my full frame RX1R, I could never justify buying one when I have the GR.


I've been thinking about the intersection between it and the GR (I mean you know I love the GR as well) and while they do overlap, they do slightly different things. Both of them have top-of-the-line sensors and lenses so there's not going to be any real difference there. Both of them also have pretty bad battery life too, but they're not meant for long sessions without recharging.

I'd say the X100V was a better "general purpose" camera - ~35mm is good for all sort of different purposes, the OVF I find very handy, and if I had to pick one camera I owned to keep in my bag in case of any eventuality it would be that - but the GR is going to be better for social things and a certain style of close street photography, it's best in class there, and obviously is a lot smaller. While the X100V is compact, it's still "camera-sized", which not only affects portability but how you can manoeuvre the camera in use. Some of the recent street shots I did with the X100V, I really wished I had a GR instead.

For the record the X100V also has an amazing flash system, which does absolutely perfect fill-in every time, but that's just not something I use. Sometimes it might be handy I guess but it's not my style.


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I've been thinking about the intersection between it and the GR (I mean you know I love the GR as well) and while they do overlap, they do slightly different things. Both of them have top-of-the-line sensors and lenses so there's not going to be any real difference there. Both of them also have pretty bad battery life too, but they're not meant for long sessions without recharging.
> 
> I'd say the X100V was a better "general purpose" camera - ~35mm is good for all sort of different purposes, the OVF I find very handy, and if I had to pick one camera I owned to keep in my bag in case of any eventuality it would be that - but the GR is going to be better for social things and a certain style of close street photography, it's best in class there, and obviously is a lot smaller. While the X100V is compact, it's still "camera-sized", which not only affects portability but how you can manoeuvre the camera in use. Some of the recent street shots I did with the X100V, I really wished I had a GR instead.
> 
> For the record the X100V also has an amazing flash system, which does absolutely perfect fill-in every time, but that's just not something I use. Sometimes it might be handy I guess but it's not my style.


I get that - the Sony RX1R is 35mm too and it's a different animal to the GR.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 24, 2020)

Battery life is pissing me off though. Perhaps I shouldn't run it constantly with bluetooth and geotagging on. But I was just out for a couple of hours this afternoon and it went below 20%.

It is also very easy to take huge numbers of really pretty large files, but that kind of goes with the territory.

I'm not used to framing people in 35mm is another problem. I'm much more used to 50 and I end up shooting too high most of the time so their feet are cut off and there's loads of space above their heads.


----------



## Infidel Castro (Nov 4, 2020)

Just took delivery of an X100F yesterday. I've had the original and the S previously. A load more responsive. Brilliant camera. Got an eye on an upgrade to a V next year if I wangle things right.


----------



## Infidel Castro (Nov 4, 2020)

Should add I bought it used for about £550, but it is in mint condition with 1700 shutter count. Had to offload a Fuji X-T1 body, Fujinon 27mm pancake lens and a Samyang 21mm manual lens. The 23mm fixed lens on the X100F covers both for me and I have a couple of other bodies for my other lenses.


----------

