Opinion piece on the X100

[TMP]

Hello everyone!

Following my last piece, here is a new one concentrating on Fujifilm's upcoming X100. -- As always, C&C are most welcome.


Photographers using reflex cameras had theirs for a while now. You know, a digital camera, with the same body, controls, ergonomics and feeling that a reflex loaded with film gave you.

Admittedly, the best camera I ever had was a Voigtländer Bessa R3A rangefinder with a 40mm f1.4 lens. Since then, I have been struggling to somehow find an affordable digital “equivalent”.

It is within this context that I recently bought a Panasonic GF1 with its 40mm-equivalent f1.7 kit lens along with a Voigtländer 40mm bright line finder. After waiting for years and following months of deliberations and hesitations, I finally got what I was looking for; or so I thought. Indeed, I soon discovered that the bright lines of my new finder were sideways, and when I mean sideways, I mean you cannot properly frame an horizontal line indoors…

That’s when it hit me. I should have waited for Fujifilm’s X100. Its sensor is bigger. Its body has the ergonomics of an actual camera and it is made out of magnesium. While not a 40mm f1.7, its 35mm f2 lens is close enough and, finally — ! —, it has an integrated electronic as well as optical finder. Most importantly, it is all made to work together.

While Fujifilm seems to have found a way to reach photographers with similar requirements to mine, we can only hope that its engineers give the required attention to features such as metering, autofocus and overall reactivity. Indeed, if Fujifilm botch the aforementioned aspects, the X100 could become the year’s biggest disappointment despite its innovations.

On the other hand, if successful, the Japanese company could deliver the first ever non-reflex digital camera. Moreover, its market could become substantial, including single-lens Micro Four Thirds users, not to mention Leica’s X1 users and potential buyers. Accordingly, this might push other manufacturers to follow Fujifilm’s success and, subsequently, allow a new market to emerge. Regardless, the ball is in Fujifilm’s court. In the meantime, I have one and only request: Fujifilm, please, do not screw up… ♦


Again, you will also find this opinion piece on my website, The Monthly Page. Feel free to check it out and, again, C&C are most welcome =0)

 

[kully]

Use the GF1, it's great. There's always something better around the corner, but whatever it is does not make what you have worse.

 

[Snapper_uk]

So what's wrong with the R3a + 40mm? Is it broken?

You have a far superior set up there than the X100 is likely to be.

 

[TMP]

Kully -- It is a great camera indeed although the finder issue is bothering me a lot as I often use it. As I am currently in Lebanon, exchanging it will be difficult (it clearly is deficient).

Snapper -- I sold it. The main reason was that I only was able to use it in a cost-efficient way while I had access to the facilities at school (developing, printing and scanning).

 

[kshapero]

Lately I believe if you are film person that finding the right film is more important that what camera you use. The different types of film have more individual personality than the different types of camera. IMHO.

 

[TMP]

Despite working in digital, I agree with you although it is a question of finding the right filters. Now, I'll have to add the focal length to that.

 

[Lss]

On the other hand, if successful, the Japanese company could deliver the first ever non-reflex digital camera.

Seeing that you used to own a Bessa R3A and base your evaluation on that camera, it is worth noting that it was pretty much replicated for the digital domain with the release of Epson R-D1 already in 2004.

 

[jsrockit]

Lately I believe if you are film person that finding the right film is more important that what camera you use. The different types of film have more individual personality than the different types of camera. IMHO.

Wait, weren't you just making threads about your M3's soul? 😉

With regard to the OP, the GF1 is great... use it for awhile, sell it, buy the X100 once it is released and you are sure it is what you want. Problem solved.

 

[ruby.monkey]

On the other hand, if successful, the Japanese company could deliver the first ever non-reflex digital camera

You must have a *very* restrictive definition of what makes a camera, because pretty much every company out there has already managed this.

If, on the other hand, you mean 'the first ever digital equivalent to the fixed-lens rangefinders (often trying hard to ape the looks of the M3) that were popular until the SLR became widely affordable', then you could well be right.

 

[TMP]

Lss -- Good point although I remember that it was pretty expensive.

Jsrockit -- That's the plan, I just want to wait for the first tests in order to make sure Fujifilm didn't botch anything 🙂

Ruby.monkey / JSU -- I firmly believe that this is down to the individual / photographer. As far as I am concerned, I am talking about a digital camera with the same body, controls, ergonomics and feeling that a film cameras gave you and, therefore, I do not agree with your statements. I think that we will have to agree to disagree 😉

N.B. Italic text might not be clearly visible on the forum but my idea was to emphasise the word camera both at the beginning and the end of the text, echoing each other.

 

[tapesonthefloor]

I think we all know that when TMP says camera he means a serious photo-taking device with an intuitive interface (whether analog or electronic) and well-placed manual controls. Cameras are tools for control freaks with good eyes. Misunderstanding him for the sake of semantic argument ("You must have a *very* restrictive definition of what makes a camera") isn't really advancing the conversation.

Besides, I have the same restrictive definition. Or, should I say, the same restrictive description has me. I have no vested interest in the digital camera industry. I don't need to spend well-earned money on a product that only half satisfies my needs, and that is programmed for obsolescence and designed to sell accessories. I actually like taking photos. I'll wait for the right camera. The ex-hundred forum is an excitable place because it seems to be the first right camera for a lot of people. I hope they're right!

 

[bwcolor]

Opinion on the Opinion on the Opinion on the X100

Opinion on the Opinion on the Opinion on the X100

ehhhhhhh ... let it rest At least get one in your hands. Pleasuring yourself without a camera should be illegal.

 

[videogamemaker]

ehhhhhhh ... let it rest At least get one in your hands. Pleasuring yourself without a camera should be illegal.

You pleasure yourself with a camera? 😵

 

[Frankie]

There are now more than one party who has [had] the X100 in their hands, and at least one who had taken pictures with it. Firmware issues notwithstanding, I guess the naysayers would be quiet now.

I for one, had little issue with the X100 design. Although weaned in the old school of all manual mechanical cameras, I have no problem living with automation, so long it does not totally take over. Taking a picture the old-fashioned way has its own satisfaction.

I have long conceded AF is faster and more consistent than my matured eyesight most of the time. Many an old romantic picture taking ideas and practices need a revisiting. As soon as I had gleamed enough info out of the Internet, I have formed my MO in using this camera.

Like all my camera tinkering in the past, I have ideas borrowed from other fields that could make the X100 better...parallax-wedge RF focus aid is high on my list, but I am not hung up on it.

Chrome on magnesium is a good finish. Being both white metals, inevitable scratches won't be as noticeable.

In the scheme of things ~$1000 is not out-of-line.

 

[gekopaca]

Lss -- Good point although I remember that it (R-D1) was pretty expensive.

A second-hand R-D1 is about 1000-1200$, and you can use your Bessa's lenses.

The X-100 will cost certainly around, or a few more.

I don't understand you.

 

[tapesonthefloor]

You pleasure yourself with a camera? 😵

Well, he bought his M body before he could afford the lenses, like so many of us... and, well, it was just there. And the open M-mount so, so... enticing. Who among us hasn't even considered it? That's right. Let he without man-on-camera carnal sin throw the first incident-light meter...

 

[jsrockit]

A second-hand R-D1 is about 1000-1200$, and you can use your Bessa's lenses.

The X-100 will cost certainly around, or a few more.

I don't understand you.

Perhaps the R-D1 is getting a bit long in the tooth?

 

[Griffin]

If I understand the circle of conspiracy correctly, an F2.0 on 1.5 crop is an F3.0 DoF (in 35mm world) with the light absorbing properties of an F2.0.

Just to put things a little into perspective. I still want one.

 

[tapesonthefloor]

Kudos on "circle of conspiracy". Both clever and catchy!

Carry on.

 

[TMP]

Gekopaca -- My Bessa and its lens are unfortunately both gone since a long time now. Moreover, I believe (but can be wrong) that the Epson R series is getting old. A lot of progress has been made since they have been released (e.g. in high ISO outputs) although I am among those who would keep a digital camera if I like (1) its output and (2) the actual camera.

Griffin -- I see this as a plus as I only shoot with available light. Ricoh's GR DIGITAL III 28mm-equivalant f1.9 lens and its small sensor allowed me to capture scenes I couldn't have captured with a 35mm camera. I don't really care to have a nose in focus without the rest of the face.