colker
Well-known
between Leica digital w/ their simple menu and fujis at a more affordable price there sure is space for another camera. it´s all i am saying and these companies are listening to us.
Disappointing Encounter With The X100F
- Thread starter Keith
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 187
- Views 26K
between Leica digital w/ their simple menu and fujis at a more affordable price there sure is space for another camera. it´s all i am saying and these companies are listening to us.
colker
Well-known
If I should take only a camera with one lens, it would be a X100 camera. And sometimes I think I would be a better photographer if I had only this little/great camera...
brilliant. there is a clear feeling of space and time in the kid´s life on this image
davhill
Canon P
To put it simply, I agree with you pretty much across the board. But to get into specifics...
For my part, I've made use of others' suggestions, fiddled about and found a range of settings which suited me, and have more or less left it like that, shooting without much further tweaking. It is indeed purely subjective, its what I like, what suits me. And if someone can't find what suits them in a camera's feature-set, or feels obliged to get lost in complexity, then the camera 'won't work' for them. Look elsewhere.
I was quoting recent remarks. THAT one referred to: //It seems every camera upgrade has a little better sensor and another gadzillon options added to the menu. Based on most of the postings on this forum nobody really wanted them.// ... which in retrospect isn't exactly recent .. its the last remark in May, before this week's resurgence. What this remark illustrates is that people seem to like the features THEY want but not the others, without realizing that the options aren't there so you can use them all, but so you can use the ones which make the camera work for you. So we're back to "its subjective". As some wag has said "If it can't be turned off, its a bug, not a feature"... and thus we have options, options, options. We learn the possibilities, choose our feature-set, and leave it at that.
Oh my, yes, I do agree. I suspect the poster meant "a simple compact camera with a very fine lens", but in digital, the simple is not actually simple at all. With a film camera, given a decent lens and some basic competence with exposure, we can choose the film and process that suits us; these are all camera-independent. In a digicam, behind that lens is a sensor, and software, and lots of very complex and specific tuning. Digital needs options for color and latitude and grain and sensitivity &etc &etc. And if you want to do that right, our digi-Rollei35 is going to be a solid compact camera with a very fine lens with simple default functions, and lots and lots of options so we can tune it to work just as we want.. kinda like an X100(x).
Well now, there you go. You like a particular BW rendition, you learn to use it, to make it work for your personality. Someone else likes Velvia, or whatnot. And we're back to needing options to substitute for film choices.
I have no thoughts at all on the X100F, and defer to yours 🙂 I shoot the X100, and have never seen nor touched an F model. (To update another thread, my X100 is slightly waterlogged, but surprisingly enough seems to have recovered and continues to work. For now.)
I respect your thoughts because you express yourself well in this forum, thoughtfully and intelligently and respectfully; I respect your photography because you consistently show us excellent work -- and if I might say, I see your work as consistently better than mine own.
And my best wishes to you, Ms. Hill... despite your name, which suggests questionable judgment in either parentage or marriage, and I won't venture to guess which 🙂
-- David Hill.
peterm1
Veteran
In some respects this complaint about camera complexity is the story of my life. I own several cameras and every damn one is different, often with confusing and non instinctive menu placement of items and even naming of some items in those menus which quite often uses different names to describe the same function. So every digital camera I have had has started as a struggle. And sometimes ended as one.
I try to cut though a lot of the crud by always using each camera in the simplest possible ways for my style of shooting - always shoot RAW / JPG in tandem if that is an option otherwise RAW alone for best image quality, almost always use aperture priority unless I want to shoot quickly in simple lighting situations then shoot program if that suits me, always set the camera to auto ISO with upper and lower limits set by myself, always shoot with the focus point set on the single middle focus point and almost always use centre weighted average metering unless the lighting is really problematic. Some of these (like the last one) I use because they are what I am comfortable with from film camera days. Others because they are a good compromise which usually gets results and also because they require some exercise of skill by me or because I just do not trust cameras to get it right. But also it means I do not need to fritz around with menus much. Unless I accidentally bump a button and change something I did not intend to - then all bets are off.
BTW there are some other grounds for complaint. I was surprised at how frequently cameras have funny glitches in their firmware. My present Panasonic GX 7 is a case in point. A problem I have experienced and still do - one that a lot of people have judging by the many threads on it and complaints on the internet, is that the focus point can meander around the screen for no apparent reason - ie even though I have ostensibly "locked it down". This is not caused by bumping a button and causes me to lose shots because I am expecting the focus point to be in one location when in fact it has moved of its own accord and I have not noticed.
This is not caused by having LCD "swipe" control activated and then bumping the screen. It is a firmware glitch. The responses by the Panasonic folk answering these complaints on the official bulletin board would be priceless if they were not so gormless, useless and repetitive. Their responses to every one of these thousands of complaints (over and over and over again to every complainant ) is tantamount to accusing the user of being an idiot who has set the camera up wrongly or is using it wrongly. (Which of course begs the question that if this were true and thousands of users all make the same dumb mistake then why would Panasonic not change the firmware to make it easier for the problem to be avoided by their stupid user base- i.e. like me and other folks like me). But of course the problem is not user error, it is obviously poorly written code that has not been rectified in testing.
Yet Panasonic online "technicians" keep asking users the equivalent of the question asked relentlessly in the BBC comedy program "The I.T. Crowd" whenever someone rings them up for help and the I.T. people want to fob them off - "Have you tried turning it off and on again" then for all intents and purposes ending further communication. (Love that comedy).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn2FB1P_Mn8
This is not a Panasonic rant as such (I quite like their cameras) just an anecdote about the realities of using modern cameras with too complex software that has perhaps been rushed to meet a deadline and never properly tested. Just to make our lives a teensy bit more annoying. In short we can mediate it by choosing to use the cameras more simply but that is not by any means the end of the story - the machines always get their revenge somehow it seems.
I try to cut though a lot of the crud by always using each camera in the simplest possible ways for my style of shooting - always shoot RAW / JPG in tandem if that is an option otherwise RAW alone for best image quality, almost always use aperture priority unless I want to shoot quickly in simple lighting situations then shoot program if that suits me, always set the camera to auto ISO with upper and lower limits set by myself, always shoot with the focus point set on the single middle focus point and almost always use centre weighted average metering unless the lighting is really problematic. Some of these (like the last one) I use because they are what I am comfortable with from film camera days. Others because they are a good compromise which usually gets results and also because they require some exercise of skill by me or because I just do not trust cameras to get it right. But also it means I do not need to fritz around with menus much. Unless I accidentally bump a button and change something I did not intend to - then all bets are off.
BTW there are some other grounds for complaint. I was surprised at how frequently cameras have funny glitches in their firmware. My present Panasonic GX 7 is a case in point. A problem I have experienced and still do - one that a lot of people have judging by the many threads on it and complaints on the internet, is that the focus point can meander around the screen for no apparent reason - ie even though I have ostensibly "locked it down". This is not caused by bumping a button and causes me to lose shots because I am expecting the focus point to be in one location when in fact it has moved of its own accord and I have not noticed.
This is not caused by having LCD "swipe" control activated and then bumping the screen. It is a firmware glitch. The responses by the Panasonic folk answering these complaints on the official bulletin board would be priceless if they were not so gormless, useless and repetitive. Their responses to every one of these thousands of complaints (over and over and over again to every complainant ) is tantamount to accusing the user of being an idiot who has set the camera up wrongly or is using it wrongly. (Which of course begs the question that if this were true and thousands of users all make the same dumb mistake then why would Panasonic not change the firmware to make it easier for the problem to be avoided by their stupid user base- i.e. like me and other folks like me). But of course the problem is not user error, it is obviously poorly written code that has not been rectified in testing.
Yet Panasonic online "technicians" keep asking users the equivalent of the question asked relentlessly in the BBC comedy program "The I.T. Crowd" whenever someone rings them up for help and the I.T. people want to fob them off - "Have you tried turning it off and on again" then for all intents and purposes ending further communication. (Love that comedy).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn2FB1P_Mn8
This is not a Panasonic rant as such (I quite like their cameras) just an anecdote about the realities of using modern cameras with too complex software that has perhaps been rushed to meet a deadline and never properly tested. Just to make our lives a teensy bit more annoying. In short we can mediate it by choosing to use the cameras more simply but that is not by any means the end of the story - the machines always get their revenge somehow it seems.
shawn
Veteran
Split image focus is for EVF or ERF modes. If you were just using the OVF it does not work there. Flip the front lever to the right to put the camera in EVF mode or push it to the left to put the camera in ERF mode which is the OVF with the small EVF box in the side to confirm focus. Split image can be used in either mode.
The trick with the hyrbrid rangefinder cameras is they have multiple personalities depending upon which viewfinder mode you are using. Best way to learn them (IMO) is to stick with one at first and figure that all out before venturing on. If the camera does something one doesn't like then ask on a forum. For many things it can be tweaked with the settings in the camera.
Shawn
shawn
Veteran
I'd say the Leica menu is sparse, but not simple. The camera's menus are filled with idiosyncrasies. Way to easy to change a function and then have the camera change the setting back because you didn't exit the menu the way to camera wants you to. Or settings kind of buried in odd places due to Leica not wanting to make the top level menu any bigger. Or buttons that are inconsistent in their use. For example the Info button is used like an 'OK' sometimes, but not always.
Yeah, the Fuji has loads of options. But really, once setup there is no need to jump into the menus much. I can change what I want by direct access buttons I setup.
Ugly menu design goes to either Olympus or Sony IME.....
Shawn
colker
Well-known
I don´t even use auto iso.. I set each iso like i was using film on nikon d700 and I never use autofocus. Otoh i trust program exposure and concentrate on focusing if i am shooting fast. If on old lenses it´s aperture priority. I just use it as i would shoot a film camera.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I'm a bit surprised that Fuji hasn't come out with a wide(r) angle version of the X100. Id like a 28mm or (maybe even better) 25mm equivalent. It can be just like X100, only wider. I don't need the fancy improvements of the later models.
peterm1
Veteran
I often but do not always use MF lenses - usually reserving AF for those situations where I feel events will be too fast moving. But in general my point is still the same - keep your settings as simple and as customized for your own needs as possible, and take control rather than letting the camera control you - except where it is convenient and to the extent needed to do so. Then stick to those settings.
Ccoppola82
Well-known
What a strange thread. If the x100f menu is anything like the xpro2, it's really about as simple as you want to make it. Aperture is on the lens, shutter speed and ISO dials on top. Done! Anything else is just gravy IF one chooses to explore a little into the camera. For Fuji, the jpg settings are well worth exploring imho because you can nail a shot with no PP. I think about my xpro2 the same way I think about my film M's when shooting. I love using film and the magic of developing, but the xpro2 has an advantage of instantly changing ISO and choosing between the 7 "film" sims I have customized.
cz23
Well-known
I can't think of any recent fixed lens cameras that offer multiple focal lens versions of the same camera. It must not make good business sense to OEMs. 35mm seems a sensible compromise. Of course there are the two extenders, but I know that's not the same as a native lens.
Personally, I'd rather see a monochrome version of the current model. That seems simple enough.
John
colker
Well-known
Fabricating a monochrome sensor sure seems way more complicated than releasing another focal length 100. Also.. BW rangefinder is a niche within a niche.
Having said that i would love to see an official monochrome Fuji X. (I can buy a converted sensor at a premium price... but that´s a different story).
colker
Well-known
I call for a "50mm" equivalent. It´s a classic RF focal length.
davhill
Canon P
Hmm. It’s not like the concept is untried — A couple of film cameras come to mind (Nikon 35Ti and 28Ti, which fits the high-end consumer compact market segment of the X100 series; also the Fuji GA645 and GA645W, in the pro segment) — but nothing recent, nothing I recall in the digital realm.
Simple, sure, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for a monochrome version.
colker
Well-known
You can buy/order a custom tweaked 100 monochrome and it´s not cheap. The files are worth it.
willie_901
Veteran
No. They are not.
There is only one brand that sells digital cameras with a mechanical coincidence rangefinder.
FUJIFILM sells two digital cameras with reverse Galilean optical finders (link).
I am unaware of any other digital cameras where manual focusing is a design priority. By manual focusing I mean turning a lens collar (mechanical or digital) to set focus.
I am unaware of any other digital cameras that that let photographers compose while viewing outside of the frame lines.
While it is possible to focus manually with many digital cameras, all but two brands assume customers only care about AF. The others only support visual inspection via EVF magnification or various implementations of focus peaking. All their product development is AF centric.
The D1H appeared in 2001 and offered the D100 a year later. In the 16-17 years that followed there have been only Leica, Epson and FUJIFILM have offered the RF experience for digital photographers.
If the other companies were listening to us, how come our MF options are so limited?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
They have listened and heard that not that many people are asking for them.
colker
Well-known
Oh Yes... they are:
Developments on the Fuji 100 line followed wishes from users. This is well known. The complexity which was blamed by the OP may have resulted from Fuji trying to appease everybody.
olifaunt
Well-known
The Fuji XF10?
shawn
Veteran
Sigma has been doing this for years with their DP series cameras. They currently offer 4 fixed focal length cameras of 21,28,50 and 75mm effective focal lengths.
Shawn
