Catto
Photographer
Hey folks - just FYI, I've posted a few observations of the X100 to my blog just now, based on a pre-production sample that came through town today.
I had a bit of hands-on time with it, but killed the battery and had to wait for it to charge in the shop before I could do more. So, it's definitely nothing like a comprehensive review (lemme make that really really clear - just a bit of user experience!
Have a look if you've got a sec - http://robertcatto.tumblr.com/post/3323199711/a-brief-visit-with-the-fuji-x100
Highlights for the RFF folks -
- focus is VERY quick. Much more so than my Canon S90 - I’d have said the X100 was in the same league as my 500D, though I didn’t have that with me to compare. This was shooting indoors only at the camera shop, under mixed discharge & fluorescent lighting plus some window light (at a distance) - so very quick, and not just in broad daylight.
- focus with optical viewfinder is interesting; of course, you can’t see what’s sharp through there, since you’re looking straight through a window; but I would say that the focus point you’re being shown is about as accurate as the framelines. That is to say, it’s a rough guide to where the actual focus point has landed, but won’t tell you precisely - and I did try tweaking the size of the focus point using the jog lever, but the box in the optical viewfinder remained the same. Obviously, in the EVF, you see a more accurate guide of what’s in focus.
I didn’t try manual focus, but I couldn’t actually see a mark on the scale in the optical viewfinder showing me the focus distance - and I didn’t see in the menus how to turn that on, if that’s what was needed. So I can’t comment on that, really. (Did I mention PRE-PRODUCTION SAMPLE?)
- very little lag in any form, by my standards. Apart from the battery dying, of course! I wasn’t really pushing it, but at no stage (shooting RAW + .jpg to a Sandisk Extreme III) did I feel like I jammed up the buffer and slowed the camera down, or was waiting for focus, or mashing the shutter and wishing it would fire. I would rate the camera as very responsive, and very consistently responsive.
- 6400 ISO is pretty darn impressive (that was as high as I pushed it); some signs of noise reduction, but I would put it in at least the same class as my 500D or 1D MkIII (and - maybe even - the MkIV), just based on the in-camera .jpgs I’ve got. Naturally, the RAW files may be even better - but Adobe don’t support them yet, so we’ll have to wait to find out about that! That said, I did see the same kind of noise reduction at 2000ISO as well - to a much lesser extent, but I did notice it. Again, that would put it on a par with my 1D MkIII, though not the MkIV.
- the files have some pretty impressive detail, noise reduction notwithstanding. When it’s sharp, this baby’s SHARP. Highlight transitions in the .jpgs (and note this is in Provia mode, I believe) are good, too - what I remember from my brief ownership of a Fuji F11 (which lost down a river in ‘06) was that the transition from blown highlights to bright white was marked by odd colour changes to green for some reason, which I’d wondered about in current Fuji cameras, but in this case I’d have to say they’re looking good.
- the lens is NIIIIIIIICE. Maybe not as nice as my Summilux 35mm pre-ASPH, but still - it’s half the price of my used mid-70s lens, and comes with a camera body! Out of focus areas are very nice (to my eye), and (at f/2) it gives a really pleasant overall look to the image.
More at the blog, obviously - and a few (resized) .jpgs. I don't think it's fair to post full-res files from a pre-production sample shot in less than optimal conditions (though lord knows that's when I'll be using it!); but I'm pretty impressed with what I saw, and that's with firmware 0.69. If it gets even better, or if the RAW files improve it further, I'll be really REALLY impressed!
R
I had a bit of hands-on time with it, but killed the battery and had to wait for it to charge in the shop before I could do more. So, it's definitely nothing like a comprehensive review (lemme make that really really clear - just a bit of user experience!
Have a look if you've got a sec - http://robertcatto.tumblr.com/post/3323199711/a-brief-visit-with-the-fuji-x100
Highlights for the RFF folks -
- focus is VERY quick. Much more so than my Canon S90 - I’d have said the X100 was in the same league as my 500D, though I didn’t have that with me to compare. This was shooting indoors only at the camera shop, under mixed discharge & fluorescent lighting plus some window light (at a distance) - so very quick, and not just in broad daylight.
- focus with optical viewfinder is interesting; of course, you can’t see what’s sharp through there, since you’re looking straight through a window; but I would say that the focus point you’re being shown is about as accurate as the framelines. That is to say, it’s a rough guide to where the actual focus point has landed, but won’t tell you precisely - and I did try tweaking the size of the focus point using the jog lever, but the box in the optical viewfinder remained the same. Obviously, in the EVF, you see a more accurate guide of what’s in focus.
I didn’t try manual focus, but I couldn’t actually see a mark on the scale in the optical viewfinder showing me the focus distance - and I didn’t see in the menus how to turn that on, if that’s what was needed. So I can’t comment on that, really. (Did I mention PRE-PRODUCTION SAMPLE?)
- very little lag in any form, by my standards. Apart from the battery dying, of course! I wasn’t really pushing it, but at no stage (shooting RAW + .jpg to a Sandisk Extreme III) did I feel like I jammed up the buffer and slowed the camera down, or was waiting for focus, or mashing the shutter and wishing it would fire. I would rate the camera as very responsive, and very consistently responsive.
- 6400 ISO is pretty darn impressive (that was as high as I pushed it); some signs of noise reduction, but I would put it in at least the same class as my 500D or 1D MkIII (and - maybe even - the MkIV), just based on the in-camera .jpgs I’ve got. Naturally, the RAW files may be even better - but Adobe don’t support them yet, so we’ll have to wait to find out about that! That said, I did see the same kind of noise reduction at 2000ISO as well - to a much lesser extent, but I did notice it. Again, that would put it on a par with my 1D MkIII, though not the MkIV.
- the files have some pretty impressive detail, noise reduction notwithstanding. When it’s sharp, this baby’s SHARP. Highlight transitions in the .jpgs (and note this is in Provia mode, I believe) are good, too - what I remember from my brief ownership of a Fuji F11 (which lost down a river in ‘06) was that the transition from blown highlights to bright white was marked by odd colour changes to green for some reason, which I’d wondered about in current Fuji cameras, but in this case I’d have to say they’re looking good.
- the lens is NIIIIIIIICE. Maybe not as nice as my Summilux 35mm pre-ASPH, but still - it’s half the price of my used mid-70s lens, and comes with a camera body! Out of focus areas are very nice (to my eye), and (at f/2) it gives a really pleasant overall look to the image.
More at the blog, obviously - and a few (resized) .jpgs. I don't think it's fair to post full-res files from a pre-production sample shot in less than optimal conditions (though lord knows that's when I'll be using it!); but I'm pretty impressed with what I saw, and that's with firmware 0.69. If it gets even better, or if the RAW files improve it further, I'll be really REALLY impressed!
R
pkreyenhop
Established
Darn, a preview in Wellington and I wasn't invited!
gavinlg
Veteran
Looks awesome, thanks for the report. Makes me want it more!
tom in mpls
Member
I'm keeping my name on the preorder list.
I hope the production model will prove easier to choose accurate focus point.
I hope the production model will prove easier to choose accurate focus point.
Yes, it appears to be the camera I've been waiting for... but I'm skeptical until I get it in my hands.
Paul T.
Veteran
Thanks for this. Promising news on the focusing.
DO you have larger versions of the high ISO Images on your blog? It's hard to tell much when they're reproduced so small.
DO you have larger versions of the high ISO Images on your blog? It's hard to tell much when they're reproduced so small.
NLewis
Established
This was actually my biggest concern about the camera -- AF speed and accuracy, shutter lag and so forth. Sensor IQ is no longer an issue with DX-format cameras today, but AF speed is still a struggle for many (note X1 for example). The lens' MTF charts are awesome, better than the current-production 50 Summicron, so that will probably be just fine in practice. I have the S90 and it has impressively fast AF. If the X100 is faster, it will be more than adequate for anything but the most AF-intensive needs like shooting football with a 600m lens.
It looks more and more like Fuji scored a 10/10 with this one. Great!
It looks more and more like Fuji scored a 10/10 with this one. Great!
gavinlg
Veteran
Yesss I would loove to see some larger examples - maybe just post them in this thread? Around 1000 pixels on the long side would be perfect!
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
I think the OP said that since it was a pre-production camera, and that he didn't get a very good amount of time with the camera, he didn't think it fair to publish big image samples. I want to see them as much as everyone else, but I also one to see them from a production model--and from someone who can spend a bit more time with the camera shooting different subjects (not backlit for example, and macro, etc). So I agree with the OP--and thanks for publishing your comments. The biggest news is your impressions of the AF performance, shutter lag and how the EVF/VF works. Thanks!
doug
doug
willie_901
Veteran
Thanks for taking the time to share.
foolproof
Established
viewfinder magnification comparison - is it on par with say the hexar af or worse?
eleskin
Well-known
The Camera Leica Should have built!!!!
The Camera Leica Should have built!!!!
It it not depressing to see Leica behind the curve again? I consider the X1 inferior to this new Fuji X100 based on what I am hearing, and to rock everyone else's boat, the high ISO and sharpness of the lens make the M8 and M9 inferior as well. The only thing Leica has going for it is the interchangeable lenses, thats it. I have 2 M8's and a full range of lenses and can say this. I wont use the word inferior too strongly though as my M8 has 85% of the time given me wonderful image quality. But the Fuji is showing us that a camera can be made at a reasonable price that can deliver image quality better than cameras costing thousands more. This is an issue with the sensors in the M8 and M9, software, etc,,,,.
The thing that irritates me is when I was using film, Leica's were championed for their low light capability. When they went digital, that was lost to some extent, so everyone is saying they are only good if it s not too dark. Well excuse me but one of the reasons why I like a rangefinder is to focus in very low light!!!
We need an M mount camera that has incredible high ISO. I do not care if it was 10.5MP like the M8. All I (and others) want is incredible high ISO, thats it. Is that too much to ask? We are seeing it in a $1,200 Fuji, why not in a $7,000 M9??????
High ISO will unleash the awesome potential of fast Leica lenses!!! Immagine shooting with a Noctilux with incredible ISO 6400!!!! It is nuts that we cannot have this at this time!!!
The Camera Leica Should have built!!!!
It it not depressing to see Leica behind the curve again? I consider the X1 inferior to this new Fuji X100 based on what I am hearing, and to rock everyone else's boat, the high ISO and sharpness of the lens make the M8 and M9 inferior as well. The only thing Leica has going for it is the interchangeable lenses, thats it. I have 2 M8's and a full range of lenses and can say this. I wont use the word inferior too strongly though as my M8 has 85% of the time given me wonderful image quality. But the Fuji is showing us that a camera can be made at a reasonable price that can deliver image quality better than cameras costing thousands more. This is an issue with the sensors in the M8 and M9, software, etc,,,,.
The thing that irritates me is when I was using film, Leica's were championed for their low light capability. When they went digital, that was lost to some extent, so everyone is saying they are only good if it s not too dark. Well excuse me but one of the reasons why I like a rangefinder is to focus in very low light!!!
We need an M mount camera that has incredible high ISO. I do not care if it was 10.5MP like the M8. All I (and others) want is incredible high ISO, thats it. Is that too much to ask? We are seeing it in a $1,200 Fuji, why not in a $7,000 M9??????
High ISO will unleash the awesome potential of fast Leica lenses!!! Immagine shooting with a Noctilux with incredible ISO 6400!!!! It is nuts that we cannot have this at this time!!!
eleskin
Well-known
Fuji X100 an embarrassment for Leica??
Fuji X100 an embarrassment for Leica??
Lieca is behinnd the curve again!
The X1 is inferior to the X100!
The high ISO performance of the X100 kills the M9 for a fraction of the price!!
One of the reasons why I like rangefinders is because I can focus in low light!
I do not care about Megapixels. The hell with Megapixels!! We need superior high ISO in an M mount rangefinder camera, full frame.
I want superior ISO 6400 so I can take full advantage of what fast Leica M lenses can do (what they were designed for).
What we have today is a joke! The X100 is illustrating this quite well!!!
Fuji X100 an embarrassment for Leica??
Lieca is behinnd the curve again!
The X1 is inferior to the X100!
The high ISO performance of the X100 kills the M9 for a fraction of the price!!
One of the reasons why I like rangefinders is because I can focus in low light!
I do not care about Megapixels. The hell with Megapixels!! We need superior high ISO in an M mount rangefinder camera, full frame.
I want superior ISO 6400 so I can take full advantage of what fast Leica M lenses can do (what they were designed for).
What we have today is a joke! The X100 is illustrating this quite well!!!
Paul T.
Veteran
I thought you put your case better the first time - without all the exclamation marks...
Frank Petronio
Well-known
It looks like a pretty good bet.... and it bodes well for competitors making similar and better cameras.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
It is interesting to see how the goal line has moved. Leica was the king of low-light photography when ISO 1600 was a practical limit for any sort of image quality at size. I shot a couple of rolls of TMAX 3200 back in the day and for me it really was a film for when the choice was between an image with golf-ball size grain and no image at all. Actually, 1600 and a 1.4 lens will still do me fine in many situations. It is clear that our expectations have changed materially if the M8 is being used as an example of how we are now being held back by our equipment.
Ben
[BTW, does anyone know the size of the R-9 DMR back's chip? We are in a day when you can buy your "film" in the form of a Sony NEX and slap it behind an R lens for $500 bucks all in. Not really a rangefinder, but pretty impressive nonetheless.]
Ben
[BTW, does anyone know the size of the R-9 DMR back's chip? We are in a day when you can buy your "film" in the form of a Sony NEX and slap it behind an R lens for $500 bucks all in. Not really a rangefinder, but pretty impressive nonetheless.]
Last edited:
_larky
Well-known
I'm very glad that a: focus is quick and b: lag is minimal. That's all I care about really, the way I process film a 2 megapixel sensor can do better 
yanidel
Well-known
I'd be interested to know what you can't do shoot with a 50mm Noctilux (or Summilux) at ISO1600 ?
Catto
Photographer
Hi guys - morning here in NZ now. As I said, I don't think it's fair to post pre-production samples for serious analysis, but...put it this way, if I posted them at 1000 pixels across, you still wouldn't see any noise or noise reduction artifacts! Not at 6400 ISO, at least.
Also, in looking back at the images, in the one at 2000ISO I described as having NR artifacts, I'm now wondering whether i'm just seeing a slightly out of focus area in the foreground instead. In which case 2000ISO would be really quite good!
The rep also had a book of A3+ prints from the camera with him, ranging up to 6400ISO - and again, there was very little noise / NR visible in them. 6400 showed a hint of it, and 3200 had a touch of colour noise in the shadows, but overall what I saw looked very very good...
R!
Catto
Photographer
Holy specific questions, Batman! Um...compared to a camera I've seen but never used? It's, uh, realer.
It's definitely not as wide as an XPan; how about that?
R!