Can the X100 be considered 'professional grade'?

[andrew00]

Hey,

I thought I'd submitted this but I guess not.

I shoot music videos where the budgets don't exist and you have to do a billion jobs at once, all of which take you away from focusing on the band/actors and giving them what they need to give you the best performance - be that making them comfortable, building a connection and discovering the 'truth' (/pretention) of their emotions.

In my photography I like to ensure I do connect and therefore try to use as little 'gear' as I can. It's also why I like small cameras, although to date these aren't of a pro grade imo. I love my Ricoh GRD3 for example but I wouldn't shoot a fashion/editorial/music piece with it. M4/3's I don't feel is quite enough quality wise and the APS-C sensors to date are clumsy.

And yet, in the time since the release of my 5dmk2, my go to 'pro' camera, we've had loads of APS-C sensor cameras, mostly fuelled by ever improving Sony sensors.

Do y'all feel now that, say, an APS-C crop sensor camera is a viable pro option, something that will do great where quality is needed, essentially that the tech has progressed to this point now?

I look at the X100 and it's a winner for me. I like viewfinders, external flashes and large sensor/smallish body cameras - X100 ticks the boxes so I'll get it.

But I'm also wondering if it's quality could be good enough to replace my 5dmk2 as my go to pro camera for most jobs. I mean, I'm not shooting 50 foot billboards yet, one day perhaps heh but not yet.

What do you think?

 

[tbarker13]

Of course any piece of equipment can be used professionally.
But I'll be surprised if this camera is considered, in general terms, to be a pro camera.
It is, after all, pretty limited in function. As for replacing what you now use, what kind of stuff do you do with your Canon 5DmkII? Do you only shoot it with a 35mm lens?

 

[andrew00]

Personally I use either my 24-105, mostly for video due to the IS, and my 50 1.2 for most shots. Primes are cool imo hehe!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If your pro work is autofocus 35mm focal length only, and the camera focuses where you need it to focus, yes... But it can't replace a 5D in lots of aspects... It could be better in others because of size, though... But sure, its results can be more than enough for a pro full page or double page magazine print, for example, if the shot was well done... Its sensor for sure is very good.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[GSNfan]

Can the X100 be considered 'professional grade'?

Depends on the professional.

 

[jsrockit]

Do y'all feel now that, say, an APS-C crop sensor camera is a viable pro option, something that will do great where quality is needed, essentially that the tech has progressed to this point now?

Canon apparently thinks so... since it charges $4500 for one.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_1d_mark_iv

Crop sensors have the advantage of making long lenses longer. That's certainly not the idea of the Fuji though...

Now, the Fuji probably isn't versatile enough for most professionals, but professionals certainly could use it. It's quality appears to be pretty good and I could see some pros using it in certain situations.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

The camera is pretty much irrelevant. I've shot published photos with just about every type of camera imaginable. If you are asking if the camera will be rugged enough for professional use, that is still to be seen. As others have said, it just depends what kind of stuff you shoot.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Yeah, jsrockit, I shoot a 1DmkIV along with the 5DII. It's a really nice crop sensor! 🙂

 

[user237428934]

For me the indicator for a professional camera is the professional support by the manufacturer. Critical question: when your camera fails, how fast do you get support?

 

[damien.murphy]

To the original poster: define professional grade.

 

[andrew00]

I'd define professional grade as being able to consistently produce images that reach a minimum level of quality for usage, in my case, in mag's/print adverts/campaign adverts/editorial shots etc.

In other words, perhaps you can take a good picture with a cheap camera, but does it consistently produce results that tick the image quality boxes for inclusion.

In my video world for example, you can shoot anything with anything but it realistically needs to hit a certain quality for broadcast - the codec needs to hold up, bit rate etc at a minimum level. That's why the BBC/Discovery are so troublesome, they rule out most prosumer cameras as not being good enough for full hd acquisition.

I'm thinking the same w/the X100 - are we at the point where it reaches that minimum level of quality, regardless of the specific quality of the image, to be published/printed/accepted for a campaign.

I.E. Yes you can take a good image with a camera phone, but can you consistently take images of the required quality levels that standup under the poking and prodding or a critical eye.

Edit - To give an example from the video world - the 5dmk2's video is awesome and is now being used extensively in TV environments, lots of music videos etc. When it came out it wasn't considered of required quality but it's got there now through skilled usage and a PP workflow that lets you get the best quality out of it and therefore hit that minimum level of quality.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Well... a 14 x 44 billboard only requires a 6mp camera for the optimal printer resolution (the printers are really low resolution)....

Only a jerk of a client cares what camera you use. Not saying they don't exist, but the ones who do are the low-end crappy ones.

If I can make a good image, Outside or Esquire or Pentagram or the biggest ad agencies really don't care.

As for "pro support" hahaha as if Canon or Nikon really care. Maybe they show up for Sports Illustrated type stuff but you're not solely using an X100 for that are you?

 

[damien.murphy]

are we at the point where it reaches that minimum level of quality, regardless of the specific quality of the image, to be published/printed/accepted for a campaign.

No offence, but what do you think professional photographers shooting digital were using before the advent of 12mp cameras.. 🙂

 

[tbarker13]

No offence, but what do you think professional photographers shooting digital were using before the advent of 12mp cameras.. 🙂

The problem with that line of thought is that times, equipment and expectations change. That's particularly true in the world of digital images, where yesterday's "acceptable" may very well be tomorrow's "unacceptable."

 

[ampguy]

I think that if it's meant for professional use, then Fuji will prominently label it as such, as they have done with their GW/GSW MF products. Check out the lettering on say, a GSW690III or other model in the Pro line.

 

[andrew00]

No offence, but what do you think professional photographers shooting digital were using before the advent of 12mp cameras.. 🙂

Hehe none taken, I'm pretty new to digital let alone pro digital so the exact time at which the tipping point for pro use went from film to digital isn't something I particularly know.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I could see it being a problem with wedding photography, as most of the serious wedding photographers seem to have these big DSLR rigs with big potato masher flashes and fancy brackets and fat zoom lenses.... even if they are horrible hacks, it's impressive.

And then you should up with am X100 or two and run around, getting close and doing great candids and really building a unique and intimate story... but to the unaware, an X100 will look like an old camera or a cheap digital P&S that the other guests have. If the payers (parents) aren't in on what you're doing, it could be awkward.

 

[andrew00]

Yes, perhaps in a context where image is important, same kind of challenge DSLR's have in the video world, causing some to pimp them out to ridiculous levels heh.

A lot of my favourite photographers thought used Leica M and R's, M's especially, so I don't worry about the image of the camera for the areas I work in.

But certainly the image quality is something I do wonder about, whether it can stand toe to toe with the big guns and at least hold it's own.

 

[GSNfan]

I still don't know if the OP wants a X100 for video or still images... I have a bad habit of actually reading the post rather than the thread title only.

 

[peterm1]

While I am pretty sure it will be able to take nice images, one of the key issues for me in a high grade semi pro or prosumer camera is shutter lag.

As an example I recently went on a trip to Hong Kong taking with me a Leica M8 and instead of a digital SLR for those times when I needed something different I decided to take my Canon G11 to keep weight down.

I now regret that decision as while the G11 is adequate (even excellent) as a shooter for static scenes I found it to be pretty hopeless for taking fast moving street shots as by the time I pressed the button and waited for the camera to focus, then actually get the shot, the scene had changed. I lost a lot of good opportunities through that.

I have no idea how good the x100 will be in that department but I would advise you to test it carefully before decidiing if it meets your needs. One other thing - the G11 is not bad at high ISOs but I am confident that there are better cameras now available. That might be another consideration for a camera in your line of work. I would hope that the x100 would do better than the G11 (large sensor plus later technology) but its something to look and test for.

cheers.