Thoughts

[gho]

I will not comment on the lens, sensor or menu system as I do not see any problems here. Very well done.

I have some suggestions.

1. Intercangeable lens. The camera concept is good enough to deserve an interchangable lens system. It would be cool if the system had a smooth, workable manual focussing system with focus indicator -such as a rangefinder patch- and autofocus. Personally I would prefer the manual focus, but the lack of autofocus may deter some potential customers. I am not sure if I would piggyback on the M-mount system, I think this only makes sense, if one uses a sensor format equivalent to 135 film.

2. Basic dust and weather sealing.

3. On board flash. Not really necessary, but I guess most customers want it. Better: Hot shoe and a connector for an external flash system. The space could be used for the focussing system.

4. Retro design. Also not really necessary. Personally I prefer simple, such as "black bento box" design.

That's basically it. The main idea is to pick up the abandoned rangefinder concept and to bring it up to the 21st century.

Combining the optical viewfinder with an EVF was a smart and original move in my opinion, so one can get an SLR- and rangefinder-like experience.

Edit: Just an afterthought. Movie mode. A connector for an external microphone is pretty useful. Combine that with the EVF, manual focus, interchangeable lens system and it would be a pretty flexible camera.

 

[capitalK]

I like the fact that you can use a manual cable release but I can't help but think this camera would make a good remote camera because it is so light and compact. It would be nice if there were an electronic trigger as well that could be used wirelessly or hooked up with a PocketWizard.

 

[jsrockit]

Is that all you want? You and most other digital RFFs.

 

[Keith]

No retro design ... bad idea! They will lose sales straight away because almost invariably everyone loves the look of this camera (even non photographers) and looks sell!

If you want a manual focus RF ... go the extra mile and get a used M8. There's a lot of people out there who bought this camera because it is auto focus ... if it had been manual focus the demand wouldn't be so high IMO. A lot of the eager buyers of the X100 have probably never focused a camera manually in their lives.

The only thing I would change would be a less sensitive button and jog wheel set up ... it's too easy to change something inadvertently while shooting.

The thing's near perfect IMO ... let's not push our luck! 😀

 

[lynnb]

I like some of Nick Devlin's suggestions - perhaps could be incorporated into a future X100 series (though I'm not sure I would appreciate hearing a cacophony of photographers barking commands to their voice-control cameras):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/five_technologies_we_want_but_wont_get.shtml

 

[gho]

Is that all you want? You and most other digital RFFs.

I am not a fan of feature overload. The only thing I can think of apart from the stuff mentioned above is a squivel screen. But otherwise it would be a nice, flexible and useable camera. Talking to the camera does not seem so essential to me as for example dust sealing, a workable manual focus plus focus indicator, interchangable lens and an external microphone connector.

There's a lot of people out there who bought this camera because it is auto focus ... if it had been manual focus the demand wouldn't be so high IMO.

This is what I am thinking too, Keith. I am not saying that AF is a bad idea. But it would be nice if it had a decent manual focus mode in addition to AF. In my opinion, for the genres this camera could play in best , a MF is more essential than AF, but sure AF is an accomodation to the market. If I were into sports or something similar, I would get a decent DSLR.

If you want a manual focus RF ... go the extra mile and get a used M8.

If I really needed a digital RF camera, an M9 would be just right. But film gives me some more flexibility and decent results, so buying an M9 is not justifyable for me.

The thing with the X100 is, that it would give more flexibility than the M9 if the above mentioned suggestions could be worked in. The main point is the hybrid viewfinder. With interchangeble lens, dust sealing, manual focus in addition to AF, external microphone connector and a swivel screen it would be a very useful and flexible field camera for all kinds of documentary work and basic movie making. Manual focus helps with shooting video and focussing in low light. Sound could be recorded with an external microphone. One would not have to be worried if using the camera in adverse environments. It is relatively small and portable. It would be a quite unique, leightweight and very useful design.

 

[willie_901]

Forget about interchangeable lenses.

At the core of the X100's performance is the the sensor micro-lenses design. Unlike DSLRs and m4/3 cameras, the X100 uses different micro-lenses in different regions of the sensor. This means the outer regions of the sensor have an efficiency similar to the center of the sensor. The X100's sensor and lens are a matched set. This lens-sensor system means the rear lens element can be very close to the sensor without compromising performance. Changing the lens would mean changing the sensor. The Richoh GXR system employs this sort of design philosophy. Fuji does not.

Someday Fuji may very well release a EVF/OVF system on a camera with interchangeable lenses. But it will not be anything like the X100. An camera with interchangeable lenses and an APS-C sensor will have a deeper body and longer lenses (actually the lens would not be longer, it would just stick out of the body a lot further). The flexibility you want would come at the cost of convenience. There's nothing wrong with that trade off, but the larger camera will not be part of the X fill-in-the-blank line.

 

[timor]

The only thing missing from X100 is a small computer which will tell the average user what to take picture of, when to take that picture and will compose for them too. Like a car, which can park by itself, no driving skill needed. Somewhere, with this avalanche of computerized novelties the sens and feel of photography is fading away replaced by fashion of having camera instead of having photographs. Just thoughts...

 

[gho]

Forget about interchangeable lenses.
[...]

Oh well, if it does not happen, no problem with me, I am quite happy with what I have. Actually I think that most cameras are quite usable.

 

[Keith]

The only thing missing from X100 is a small computer which will tell the average user what to take picture of, when to take that picture and will compose for them too. Like a car, which can park by itself, no driving skill needed. Somewhere, with this avalanche of computerized novelties the sens and feel of photography is fading away replaced by fashion of having camera instead of having photographs. Just thoughts...

Have you used an X100? ... it's a very intuative camera IMO that aside from it's auto focus has a very user friendly interface of traditional manual controls if you choose to use them!

 

[gho]

The only thing missing from X100 is a small computer which will tell the average user what to take picture of, when to take that picture and will compose for them too. Like a car, which can park by itself, no driving skill needed. Somewhere, with this avalanche of computerized novelties the sens and feel of photography is fading away replaced by fashion of having camera instead of having photographs. Just thoughts...

I would not see it that pessimistic. I think that most camera owners even do not use their cameras to their fullest extend, but somehow it seems that innovation is important, even if certain features are not really needed. I guess one of the corner stones of the success of Leitz cameras is the radical simplicity of these cameras. At my desk is sitting my first SLR-camera, a Pentax K-mount Ricoh KR-10x. It is very simple, but if I look at it, I must say it has all the features one needs to provide one with the possibility of getting a good photograph.

As for the fashion factor: yes, it is certainly there.

 

[jsrockit]

I am not a fan of feature overload. The only thing I can think of apart from the stuff mentioned above is a squivel screen. But otherwise it would be a nice, flexible and useable camera. Talking to the camera does not seem so essential to me as for example dust sealing, a workable manual focus plus focus indicator, interchangable lens and an external microphone connector.

My point was that most people want to see a more fleshed out version of the X100 with interchanable lenses... you are not alone.

Me? I just want someone to make a M9 rip-off for 1/4 of the price... that's all. I mean, it should be no big deal to do...right? 😀😀😀

 

[jsrockit]

The only thing missing from X100 is a small computer which will tell the average user what to take picture of, when to take that picture and will compose for them too. Like a car, which can park by itself, no driving skill needed. Somewhere, with this avalanche of computerized novelties the sens and feel of photography is fading away replaced by fashion of having camera instead of having photographs. Just thoughts...

This is all in your head. Cameras, no matter how automated, do not find content for you. The digital ignorance on this forum at times is silly...nothing has changed. The X100 isn't any different than any other camera.

Also, just because a car can parallel park for you doesn't mean that you don't need to know how to drive it the other 99.9% of the time.

 

[btgc]

Manual focus, you say? I'm happy with AF compact, allowing to preset lens at certain distance (even through menu). Set distance and play from there; for "real" manual focus there are cameras, designed for this.

 

[capitalK]

Menu button and dial needs to be a shade bigger. I feel like the fat Homer Simpson trying to dial the phone. "The fingers you are using to dial... are too fat. To obtain a special dialing wand..."