Ah, the internet... where myths become fact. 🙂
It's OK, I stubbornly keep using an x100 to make photographs also.
Even though, apparently there is no way to actually focus it.
Guess neither of us knows what they are talking about.
It's OK, I stubbornly keep using an x100 to make photographs also.
Even though, apparently there is no way to actually focus it.
Guess neither of us knows what they are talking about.
again, could someone explain the no autofocus bit. i have used an x100 from
kosovo to nigeria and haven't had any problems with the af. is there another x100 model i am unaware of?
The XPro would have to be very slow focus indeed, for it not to be better value for money than a $1400, used R-D1. And I like the R-D1 very much.
In all fairness, a used M8 is around $2k, which puts it closer to the price of the Fuji, and without some of the potential compromises with regards to M mount lenses. The M8 has it's own set of compromises of course. Each individual will have to decide what's best for them.
again, could someone explain the no autofocus bit. i have used an x100 from
kosovo to nigeria and haven't had any problems with the af. is there another x100 model i am unaware of?
The two are completely different cameras. The Fuji is an autofocus first and foremost camera.
The RD-1 is a host for rangefinder lenses.
The Fuji won't help you focus your manual focus lenses when using the optical finder.
The RD-1 will.
Might as well compare a NEX to a RD-1, although that's not fair as it does have two focus aides.
Too expensive for landscape camera or for arranged pictures of the people (statistics of the content of the photos at "pictures taken with X100" here at rff would be very interesting..).
The Fuji X series are cheap cameras. In the mirrorless with-OVF segment they are a about 1/4 the price of the competition.
Dont want OVF? These cameras are irrelevant to you, dont bother.
If you have moving subjects just zone focus and leave it there, its a 24mm lens with tons of dof. It is also a camera with good high iso, so crank it up a bit so you can stop down and gain even more dof.
If you are an AF bokeh-junkie, again this camera is irrelevant to you. Better solutions elsewhere.
I tested the AF of two different X100 (latest fw) against the GF1+20mm f1,7 (1,5 y. older camera then X00, first fw) and GF1 AF was a bit faster.
Yes, I have had X100 two times within 5 months as the first one was early one. I experienced power supply failure with the first one, it was completely replaced under the warranty. I sold the first one and couple months later when I had opportunity to get another one for great price I give it a once more try. I thought that maybe there was something wrong with the first one, but no, AF was again slower than GF1.
And no, I dont buy those stories that you have to know hot focus with X100. Camera costs 1000 EUR. For the money it should just focus when you press the shutter button. That is how it is written in the manual.
Too expensive for landscape camera or for arranged pictures of the people (statistics of the content of the photos at "pictures taken with X100" here at rff would be very interesting..).
The Fuji X series are cheap cameras. In the mirrorless with-OVF segment they are a about 1/4 the price of the competition.
Dont want OVF? These cameras are irrelevant to you, dont bother.
If you have moving subjects just zone focus and leave it there, its a 24mm lens with tons of dof. It is also a camera with good high iso, so crank it up a bit so you can stop down and gain even more dof.
If you are an AF bokeh-junkie, again this camera is irrelevant to you. Better solutions elsewhere.
Exactly. It gets tiring when people keep telling you that your appreciation for a camera is misguided because it does not meet their requirements!
Exactly. It gets tiring when people keep telling you that your appreciation for a camera is misguided because it does not meet their requirements!
i am sad to hear that as i am entering my piece in NPAC's (Canada's version of NPPA) picture of the year competition. some of it was shot on one of those non-focusing x100s.
well, i suppose we are back to the drawing board Andy.
I have no idea what Andy is talking about.
I had three pieces accepted at a regional juried art show in early January (there were 142 photos submitted in total and 74 accepted by the juror). One of mine won an honorable mention. All three are from my X100. All three were focused by operating the AF manually. I pressed the AF button to lock focus and then pressed the shutter. The photo that won the ribbon was focused using the OVF.
My Flickr stream now starts with a large number of shots taken in low light at a horse racing track. These were focused the same way with the aperture typically set at 2.8 .
Obviously the X100 AF works. I use different methods for different situations. Action photography is not practical because of the AF speed and lens' relatively wide angle of view.
The X100 is an AF camera. The AF system will lock focus quickly if there is a reasonable amount of contrast available. If there isn't, one can focus and recompose if the contrast. The small focus box in EVF mode insures the focus lock is where you want it.
My LUMIX G1 focused a bit better than the X100. My D200s, 300 and 700s all focused quicker. But even these bodies required practice and different methods depeending on the situation.
This discussion remembers me of many threads around the "unreliable" focussing of Hexar AF (fixed lens) or Contax G (IC lens), both very special AF cameras. Very different AF technology for Fuji's X series, but still the same complaints vs how great it works. Maybe we should accept that dedicated AF cameras will find their masters as well as their haters.