Finally, fullsize, v1.0 Fuji samples

[tomtofa]

Another at 1600. Kind of shaky for 1/240th - guess the adrenaline was surging...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotois/5494354608/sizes/o/in/set-72157626187132582/

 

[jsrockit]

I will not speak for others. But for myself, the unique and compelling combination of characteristics that this camera promises is the reason that I am "clamoring" for it.

You can speak for me too...

 

[steveyork]

Which digital cameras, at this price point? Name them. I can't think of any.

Any of the 4/3 cameras from Panasonic and Olympus. Too many to recite.

 

[sper]

Any of the 4/3 cameras from Panasonic and Olympus. Too many to recite.

None of those cameras have simple mechanical interfaces, good optical view finders, or a rangefinder like shooting experience. I want the X100 because I DON'T want to have to compose on a live view LCD. All of those cameras force you to go through menus more frustraiting than DSLRs to activate the key features. On an M43rds camera you can't even use exposure compensation via a simple dial.

These are VERY big differences in design and usablility. So if you would, please do name a camera that has the features of the X100, at the general price point. I'm waiting. I could round up for the Leica X1, but that's 800 bucks more expensive and you don't even get an OVF, or f2 for that matter.

 

[PatrickONeill]

cute. almost sexy. :angel:

 

[BMacW]

None of those cameras have simple mechanical interfaces, good optical view finders, or a rangefinder like shooting experience. I want the X100 because I DON'T want to have to compose on a live view LCD. All of those cameras force you to go through menus more frustraiting than DSLRs to activate the key features. On an M43rds camera you can't even use exposure compensation via a simple dial.

These are VERY big differences in design and usablility. So if you would, please do name a camera that has the features of the X100, at the general price point. I'm waiting. I could round up for the Leica X1, but that's 800 bucks more expensive and you don't even get an OVF, or f2 for that matter.

You make many good points, except the experience is simply not the same. If you want to manual focus, you almost have to use the EVF on the x100. I'm drawn by the x100 because of it's size vs IQ. For the money you can get GXR. I still think GXR takes better pictures than x100, even though it doesn't have all the 'looks' and VF everyone raves about the x100.

You want to just point and shoot (AutoFocus), x100 will give you advantage with the hybrid VF.

It's a point and shoot that takes EXCEPTIONAL pictures for its compact size.

I'm not saying one form is better than the other. It's highly subjective anyways. One day, a robot can probably factor in everything around a sene and take a perfect shot. X100 does not have to be better than M9 or 'feels' like M9 to be a great camera.
I wanted the rangefinder manual focus experience and I want to shoot digital, to this date, I only have 3 choices. I will get an x100 in additional to the M camera I have, but I chose the GXR since takes just as good pictures and it has more flexibility.

 

[kuzano]

But what about Fujifilm... the company????

But what about Fujifilm... the company????

The hype on this camera is WAY over the top. We won't know what it is until it's in the marketplace.

I've read all the pandering about this camera with jaded interest.

However, on a note more important to me, I'm interested more in what this camera says about Fujifilm-The Company.

Continuing to maintain a wide range of film product, bringing NEW medium format camera's to market, and now, products like this. Are there many other camera manufacturers who have been reaching out with creative and new products.

While I still use 40 year old Fuji rangefinders to my great satisfaction, I have also been impressed by more than a few Fuji digital offerings, such as the F30 (low light cult camera) F31fd (same) E550 and my Fuji S2 Pro. All superb in their rankings. I may soon get a S5 Pro.

But I still use my G690, 100 3.5, 65 f8, and AE100 lenses.

Would love to have the new F670W non folder, but $$$?

Fujifilm-The Company has been a fun watch over the years. I wouldn't say they have always set he benchmark for other manufacturers, but I would be inclined to say that they meet others benchmarks and often exceed them through good decisions and creativity.

If film should disappear, and I seriously doubt that. I truly expect to see a resurgence. But if it does go away, I fully expect Fujifilm to be the last holdout on supply and range of emulsions. They seem to be exerting much effort into film while creating some interesting digital cameras as well.

 

[bhop73]

I would love to have an X100. Sure it's not a Leica and it's not a rangefinder, but so what?

Image quality looks good enough to me, but what appeals to me most about it is the viewfinder and the ergonomics. There is no other digital camera currently on the market (other than the M9) that you can hold up to your eye and look through an optical viewfinder in typical rangefinder fashion and adjust shutter speed knob with your finger like you would a typical rangefinder.

Lack of viewfinders in smaller digital cameras is the #1 reason for my lack of interest in them, and $250+ add-on electronic viewfinders don't count.

 

[JoeV]

Hmmm. Have you been reading this forum long? You do realise that this IS a gear forum?

I guess you didn't see this sticky, indicating that "There is no such thing as a Gear Forum or Photography Forum at RFF!!!"
?

~Joe

 

[Spyro]

Any of the 4/3 cameras from Panasonic and Olympus. Too many to recite.

Just to recap, let me list the reasons why a x100 is different to these cameras:

1. the real viewfinder (not an expensive mini-TV that you buy separately and destroys the form factor of your camera - which is the main reason one bothers with m4:3). In fact you get one of those mini-TV's too, but built-in, not attachable.
2. the quiet leaf shutter with crazy sync speeds
3. the bigger sensor with better dof control and high ISO capabilities,
4. the manual controls
5. the 35/f2 combination which is the most popular lens and still doesnt exist in m4:3 or NEX, let alone exist in such a size
6. The distance scale which enables hyperfocal shooting for landscape and zone focussing for street.
7. Seeing outside your frame in OVF mode, like a rangefinder. Awesome for moving subjects.
8. Electronic overlay in OVF, which means histogram, dof scales etc. Not even DSLRs have that in the viewfinder.

As for the p&s comment, what can I say. It seems the popular internet forum rule is that if the camera doesnt change lenses its a p&s. Not to be rude but there's only one answer to this: whatever.

 

[sper]

Just to recap, let me list the reasons why a x100 is different to these cameras:

1. the real viewfinder (not an expensive mini-TV that you buy separately and destroys the form factor of your camera - which is the main reason one bothers with m4:3). In fact you get one of those mini-TV's too, but built-in, not attachable.
2. the quiet leaf shutter with crazy sync speeds
3. the bigger sensor with better dof control and high ISO capabilities,
4. the manual controls
5. the 35/f2 combination which is the most popular lens and still doesnt exist in m4:3 or NEX, let alone exist in such a size
6. The distance scale which enables hyperfocal shooting for landscape and zone focussing for street.
7. Seeing outside your frame in OVF mode, like a rangefinder. Awesome for moving subjects.
8. Electronic overlay in OVF, which means histogram, dof scales etc. Not even DSLRs have that in the viewfinder.

As for the p&s comment, what can I say. It seems the popular internet forum rule is that if the camera doesnt change lenses its a p&s. Not to be rude but there's only one answer to this: whatever.

+ a million. Exactly what I'm saying.

 

[PatrickT]

Just to recap, let me list the reasons why a x100 is different to these cameras:

1. the real viewfinder (not an expensive mini-TV that you buy separately and destroys the form factor of your camera - which is the main reason one bothers with m4:3). In fact you get one of those mini-TV's too, but built-in, not attachable.
2. the quiet leaf shutter with crazy sync speeds
3. the bigger sensor with better dof control and high ISO capabilities,
4. the manual controls
5. the 35/f2 combination which is the most popular lens and still doesnt exist in m4:3 or NEX, let alone exist in such a size
6. The distance scale which enables hyperfocal shooting for landscape and zone focussing for street.
7. Seeing outside your frame in OVF mode, like a rangefinder. Awesome for moving subjects.
8. Electronic overlay in OVF, which means histogram, dof scales etc. Not even DSLRs have that in the viewfinder.

As for the p&s comment, what can I say. It seems the popular internet forum rule is that if the camera doesnt change lenses its a p&s. Not to be rude but there's only one answer to this: whatever.

Bingo!

10char

 

[alt4852]

Well yes. More and more people are starting to realize how utterly RIDICULOUS this material obsession is with buy "the new thing" and thinking it will make you a better photographer.

It's not BS when they say "just use the camera you have!". Buying the newest thing does NOTHING to make you a better photographer AT ALL but just putting a bigger hole in your wallet. Get over it!

The OP has confessed that he has a camera already, in fact, a whole mess of them, USE THEM.

wow, you should read the posts preceding yours before lashing out in a tirade like that. nobody said that newer cameras make you a better photographer.

..nobody.

the purpose of buying newer equipment is mostly ease of use, and technical advances. you're the only one so far who has alluded to a correlation between equipment and skill.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

Which digital cameras, at this price point? Name them. I can't think of any.

I completely agree!

 

[GSNfan]

So when people see clipped highlights and black shadows in a jpeg file, they go on about digital has no dynamic range, and then when they see a jpeg with large dynamic range and very little highlight clipping and deep shadows, they complain that it's flat and bland.

It's flat and bland because thats what professional photographers want from their cameras. They want the original picture to be a good base, retaining as much contrast and color detail as possible. As soon as you ramp up contrast and saturation you're throwing away information and potential to tune the image to exactly how you want it.

Exact reason PnS cameras are always oversaturated, but pro cams like the 1ds and phase one digital MF backs are ALWAYS muted and low contrast straight out of the camera.

You claim that you see deep shadows, a lot of dynamic range and many other stuff, but I don't and neither are a lot of experienced members in this forum...

 

[Matus]

Somebody on flickr described the photos as 'natural' - I would agree about that. But I just do not see that 'breath taking detail' in the photos at 100% size - in particular in lower contrast areas. But I guess that is simply Mr. Bayer who is limiting per-pixel detail (downsize to 8 Mpix and things much better). Sharpening would make the photos to 'pop' more, but would not bring more detail. I do not see any obvious signs of contrast range that would be higher that expected from 12 Mpix APS-C sensor, but that is OK.

I think Fuji decided to put out lower contrast images to produce smoother tones - the images do lack a bit of 'pop' we got used to with DSLRs.

High ISO seems to show too much noise suppression at first, but one would have to play with that setting and compare to raw output without any noise suppression at all to get to some conclusion.

And once side-by-side with Leica M - the Fuji looks larger that I expected - how does it feel in hand?

Still, after all my criticism, it looks like quite a nice camera :angel:

 

[GSNfan]

And here is the rebuttal to the nonsensical notion that top digital cameras produce low contrast 'muted' images.

this is a sample image from D7000, its takes sometime to load but this is the standard quality for current digital images, not washed out low contrast stuff that fuji's viral machine is churning out.

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d7000/img/sample/img_02_l.jpg

 

[Athos6]

D7000 is a consumer camera....

 

[Andy Kibber]

The X100 looks cool for the most part but I can't get over the wrong-way aperture ring. It's probably not a problem in practice but it looks funny to me. Especially when you see the camera sitting next to a Leica M.

Carry on.

 

[gavinlg]

And here is the rebuttal to the nonsensical notion that top digital cameras produce low contrast 'muted' images.

this is a sample image from D7000, its takes sometime to load but this is the standard quality for current digital images, not washed out low contrast stuff that fuji's viral machine is churning out.

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d7000/img/sample/img_02_l.jpg

a) d7000 is a consumer camera
b) that image you linked to is also low contrast and saturation
c) most fujfilm jpeg that has so far been posted has been on the average jpeg settings - meaning saturation and contrast and sharpening are 'normal' or untouched.

The following are links to photos taken with the 'velvia' preset which turns up saturation and contrast:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ramdiboy/5479711981/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ramdiboy/5461656688/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ramdiboy/5458735079/

Now, are you still going to sit there and whine that the images are flat and dull? Can we please establish that a normal JPEG out of a pro orientated camera is purposely flat and under-sharpened so to be more useful to someone who wishes to process their photos in their own way? Please also remember that there ARE the velvia, provia and astia pre-settings, and that you can adjust contrast, saturation, sharpness and even dynamic range from within the camera for the JPEG files. In other words, JPEG files are nearly infinitely adjustable within the camera - you can have them completely flat or so contrasty it makes your eyes hurt if that is what you want!