Fuji X100 alternatives?

We've been able to buy compacts with physical controls and knobs for years. Look at a Canon G10, it has a shutter speed (correction: ISO) knob, exposure compensation knob and mode selector knob, plus another dial at the back for doing in-menu selections. That was two generations ago. If it was all about that, people wouldn't be as excited.

I think it's exactly the opposite and that it's all about the old-fashioned look. When the first pictures appeared, people were all about how sweet it looks. Now they ask questions such as what's the best bag to go with it. In a world where people buy things such as the ThinkGeek Bluetooth Retro Handset telephone receiver, "retro" is about appearance first, and about ergonomics a distant second.

There is no way to directly change the aperture and shutter speed simultaneously, or with no button presses, or without having to look at the LCD screen to see what number you have adjusted to, or when the camera is switched off, or when you're using the OVF with the G10. It's (at best) a bandaid solution to small camera ergonomics - which means in real world terms it's clumsy, slow and limited in comparison to an ergonomically good camera like a high level dslr or an m9.

The x100 will do all those things, plus it will crap all over the g10 in just about every place a camera should be good - IQ, high ISO, dof control, build, ergonomics, lens speed, responsiveness, OVF usability etc.

If you can't see that from here I can't help you!
 
Last edited:
I think what you are not understanding is the return to not only knobs, but to a dedicated shutter speed dial (not a mode dial), a dedicated aperture ring, a manual focus ring, etc.

You will never understand the appeal of this, if you think DSLRs and the G series are designed great.

Well, it's a bit of a stretch from my "there are some other digital cameras already with physical dials for some functions" to your "the G series is designed great", and I don't think there is much more that needs to be said about that.

As far as DSLR design is concerned, they mainly follow the same design principles that film cameras had already adhered to for over a decade after the late 1980s. If you look at a 1986 T90 with a data back, you have modern DSLR ergonomics in a nutshell, a quarter of a century ago. Practically all camera makers increasingly moved away from dedicated dials already during the film era. There was a good reason for that, which is simply that as soon as camera functions exceeded the complexity of one-dial-per-function, the old 1950s interface began to break down ergonomically. The photography world at large accepted this design change; by the mid-1990s, well before the advent of DSLRs, most newly-designed film SLRs already were shifting from dedicated dials to software-controlled programmable dials, and customers largely appreciated this shift - otherwise, for example, the newly-introduced Canon EOS series would have tanked, being completely built around this new user interface concept, instead of becoming the market leader.

A look at Leica is very instructive. A lot of people seem to associate Leica cameras with traditional, one-dial-per-function interfaces, but this is really just a tribute to the ideological stance of the retro-loving parts of the customer base, which can nowadays be considered proven allergic to changes, and the technical limitations of the M platform.

However, take a look at Leica's really high-end cameras. By this I mean not the M9, which basically caters to affluent enthusiasts, but those newly designed exclusively for working professionals, such as the S2. The latter has exceptionally clean ergonomics; it does have a dedicated shutter speed dial, but everything else, including setting the aperture, setting ISO etc. is done in software using a thumb wheel. The interface in turn can be heavily customized to suit the preferences of the photographer On the S2, dedicated dials would have resulted in a cluttered interface, but without the dedicated dials, the S2's interface design is cleaner than that of the M9, in spite of providing much more powerful functions. In other words, it's exactly through doing away with dedicated dials that the S2 has such outstanding ergonomics. Before embarking on a highly risky development venture, I think Leica made pretty sure they knew that this is what professionals want.
 
There is no way to directly change the aperture and shutter speed simultaneously, or with no button presses, or without having to look at the LCD screen to see what number you have adjusted to, or when the camera is switched off, or when you're using the OVF with the G10. It's (at best) a bandaid solution to small camera ergonomics - which means in real world terms it's clumsy, slow and limited in comparison to an ergonomically good camera like a high level dslr or an m9.

The x100 will do all those things, plus it will crap all over the g10 in just about every place a camera should be good - IQ, high ISO, dof control, build, ergonomics, lens speed, responsiveness, OVF usability etc.

If you can't see that from here I can't help you!

If you read my G10 post again, you will find that I was merely using it as an example that there have been other, earlier digital compacts with physical dials for some functions.

I can see that you're excited about the X100, but there is really not much need to go all "if you can't see that from here I can't help you", nor to prove that a camera that costs $1200 in 2011 is better in some respects than another that cost $900 in 2008.
 
Well, it's a bit of a stretch from my "there are some other digital cameras already with physical dials for some functions" to your "the G series is designed great", and I don't think there is much more that needs to be said about that.

As far as DSLR design is concerned, they mainly follow the same design principles that film cameras had already adhered to for over a decade after the late 1980s. If you look at a 1986 T90 with a data back, you have modern DSLR ergonomics in a nutshell, a quarter of a century ago. Practically all camera makers increasingly moved away from dedicated dials already during the film era. There was a good reason for that, which is simply that as soon as camera functions exceeded the complexity of one-dial-per-function, the old 1950s interface began to break down ergonomically. The photography world at large accepted this design change; by the mid-1990s, well before the advent of DSLRs, most newly-designed film SLRs already were shifting from dedicated dials to software-controlled programmable dials, and customers largely appreciated this shift - otherwise, for example, the newly-introduced Canon EOS series would have tanked, being completely built around this new user interface concept, instead of becoming the market leader.

A look at Leica is very instructive. A lot of people seem to associate Leica cameras with traditional, one-dial-per-function interfaces, but this is really just a tribute to the ideological stance of the retro-loving parts of the customer base, which can nowadays be considered proven allergic to changes, and the technical limitations of the M platform.

However, take a look at Leica's really high-end cameras. By this I mean not the M9, which basically caters to affluent enthusiasts, but those newly designed exclusively for working professionals, such as the S2. The latter has exceptionally clean ergonomics; it does have a dedicated shutter speed dial, but everything else, including setting the aperture, setting ISO etc. is done in software using a thumb wheel. The interface in turn can be heavily customized to suit the preferences of the photographer On the S2, dedicated dials would have resulted in a cluttered interface, but without the dedicated dials, the S2's interface design is cleaner than that of the M9, in spite of providing much more powerful functions. In other words, it's exactly through doing away with dedicated dials that the S2 has such outstanding ergonomics. Before embarking on a highly risky development venture, I think Leica made pretty sure they knew that this is what professionals want.

I'm not arguing that... yes, DSLRs are more popular and they are the norm. However, why come into a thread about a camera for the rest of us who prefer a simpler camera? Yes, we like retro style cameras because it is what we are used to. If you are a M user... the X100 is appealing because it is set-up in a similar fashion. The ss knobs, the aperture rings, etc are what we like. Why is that a bad thing?
 
I'm not arguing that... yes, DSLRs are more popular and they are the norm. However, why come into a thread about a camera for the rest of us who prefer a simpler camera? Yes, we like retro style cameras because it is what we are used to. If you are a M user... the X100 is appealing because it is set-up in a similar fashion. The ss knobs, the aperture rings, etc are what we like. Why is that a bad thing?

I don't know about "the rest of us" and your use of the plural. Basically this thread revolves around the idea of "retro" styling and what it means to be "retro". Someone suggested that "retro" was primarily about ergonomics (which I doubt; I think it's mainly about gut feelings of quality and about fashion statements). It was you who brought up DSLRs, and I was just replying to you by stating that some DSLR design is indeed "great" and provides good ergonomics precisely by not being "retro".
 
Here are my alternatives...

Olympus XA, Retinas, Minolta AF-C, Pentax PC35 AF, Minox... etc. Plus film and a scanner... + a decent negative scanner. Yes, I'm serious... and, hey, it's even full-frame.
 
Gavin,
Well said! I agree completely. The ergonomics of both the compact digitals and the big DSLRs, until now, have been completely goofy... in my opinion of course. I've tried many of these and always sold them due entirely to the stupid erogonomics. The X100 looks like its returned some sanity to digital camera design (size, viewfinder, grip).
 
I don't know about "the rest of us" and your use of the plural. Basically this thread revolves around the idea of "retro" styling and what it means to be "retro". Someone suggested that "retro" was primarily about ergonomics (which I doubt; I think it's mainly about gut feelings of quality and about fashion statements). It was you who brought up DSLRs, and I was just replying to you by stating that some DSLR design is indeed "great" and provides good ergonomics precisely by not being "retro".

This thread is NOT about retro styling - it's about compact cameras with BIG sensors/35mm film (meaning good IQ) and direct controls/ergonomics. You're the ONLY person saying it's about 'retro styling'. Every single other person is interested in these cameras because of their ergonomics and how good they are to shoot.

And yes, my main camera is a DSLR - a 5d, and yes it's good ergonomically. The problem is that it's big and heavy, and up until now digital compacts have sucked for either IQ or ergonomics or both. Try shooting a Canon G-series camera, and switch to something like a voigtlander bessa R2a and you'll very quickly realize that the traditional ergos of the r2a lend to significantly more fluid, efficient and satisfying shooting. The shared dial and menu based adjustments of the G camera and other compacts end up being clumsy in use.

If you ask me, the x100's form is secondary to the function - fujifilm obviously wanted to target an advanced audience as there is very little automation available on it.
 
From my personal impression, however, the user interface model of putting often-changed things on user-configurable wheels under the thumb (and/or index finger, G12) arguably has been working very well for the last 25 years or so, since the T90 and the early EOSes.

The success of some "retro" cameras, however, seems to illustrate that some "retro" minded people see this differently from me.

Well, people are different. Nothing against thumb wheels, I would be happy with a compact camera with the interface of the Leica S2. But not the G10, I remember being very disappointed when I found out how the knobs of the G10 worked. Privileged access to program mode and ISO, but none to shutter speed and aperture. The X100 just gets a lot of things right.
 
This thread is NOT about retro styling [...] You're the ONLY person saying it's about 'retro styling'.

No need to shout. Do take the time to read the original posting again. All the OP asks for is "high end, retro-styled cameras"; "compacts" aren't even mentioned, but "retro styling" seems to be at the heart of the question. Blame me all the way for saying something you don't like, but blaming me for bringing it up seems a bit silly.

I brought up the Canon G series not because I think that they're the best thing since sliced bread, but because you mentioned the "disappearance of physical controls and knobs". All I said was that digital compacts with physical knobs have actually been around for a while.

Leaving away those parts where you read stuff into my posts that isn't there, your whole angry argument after that seems to boil down to that those knobs didn't do what you want them to do. As a sentiment that's fine, but why you get so worked up at me about it escapes me.
 
Just curious, but are there any other high-end retro-styled film/digital cameras still in production?

I can think of:

Voigtlander Bessa R3 / R4
Leica MP / X1 / M9
Fuji X100

Hi,

Bessas and Leicas are not retro-styled: they look the way they've always looked like.

But if you consider them retro-styled, two alternatives in that price range -and a lot more capable cameras- are the R-D1 and the M8. And their external designs are (to me) way more attractive and classy than that of the X100, and they can be focused how (where) the photographer wants, and use lots of different lenses (best ones in the world), in case you're looking for better options...

Cheers,

Juan
 
No need to shout. Do take the time to read the original posting again. All the OP asks for is "high end, retro-styled cameras"; "compacts" aren't even mentioned, but "retro styling" seems to be at the heart of the question. Blame me all the way for saying something you don't like, but blaming me for bringing it up seems a bit silly.

I brought up the Canon G series not because I think that they're the best thing since sliced bread, but because you mentioned the "disappearance of physical controls and knobs". All I said was that digital compacts with physical knobs have actually been around for a while.

Leaving away those parts where you read stuff into my posts that isn't there, your whole angry argument after that seems to boil down to that those knobs didn't do what you want them to do. As a sentiment that's fine, but why you get so worked up at me about it escapes me.

Yes, the G series had knobs, no, they weren't the right knobs and no, it's not in the same class of IQ as the x100, not even on the same planet.

You inferred that we're all drooling over the x100 because it's a fashion statement, and because we like it's retro looks. This is untrue - we're drooling over it for the reasons I have already listed a few times in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the G series had knobs, no, they weren't the right knobs and no, it's not in the same class of IQ as the x100, not even on the same planet.

Good that you got that out of your system. On a side note, I found your post funnier when it just said "retro styling" five times before you started editing it.

You inferred that we're all drooling over the x100 because it's a fashion statement, and because we like it's retro looks. This is untrue - we're drooling over it for the reasons I have already listed a few times in this thread.

I don't care much what you personally are drooling over and why. (Interesting, however, how sometimes people have to insist they're part of a collective when stating their opinion.)

Regarding the X100, well there are the discussions about what bag to go with it, which strap to buy, whether they will make it in black and so on. You could try and find functional explanations for this kind of discussion, but it does become a bit of a stretch rather soon. I mean, seriously, "best bag"? The best bag is a pocket, what else do people buy small cameras for??

So I do think a lot of the drooling over the X100 actually has to do with how its styling fits current fashion trends for consumer items. Retro styling is hip and cool, for some items prices have gone through the roof. (My 1960s rotary-dial telephone that was made by the millions and used to be a junkyard item is now worth $80 to some people.) Hard to explain that by anything else than by "retro" being a fashion statement. When using my Leica in the street, I regularly get asked about it by people who basically don't care about photography at all. They couldn't care less about shutter speed and aperture dials and wouldn't know what to do with them, they just think it's cool.

So I do think that "retro" is a strong selling point for cameras, as I mentioned earlier in the thread. That doesn't preclude other people such as you liking them for functional reasons - but this in turn doesn't make it wrong, after all the world doesn't revolve around you either, whether you agree with it or not.
 
rxmd: A lot of the posts on RFF ask the same questions about Leica M's and other cameras: should I get black or chrome, what strap, Domke 803 vs BBB etc. I agree that the look of the X100 may be a strong selling point but having recently tried both a M8.2 and D7000, the look reflects the type of ergonomics I am looking for. That is why I am still using film M's.
 
...

So I do think a lot of the drooling over the X100 actually has to do with how its styling fits current fashion trends for consumer items.

...

That's one way to see it, but not the only one.

Leicas, Bessas , Contaxes and many other cameras used a specific control element layout for a reason: Straightforward operation and a maximum of user control. This actually has nothing to do with fashion.

Later camera generations tried to establish different control paradigms that were meant to (a) better reflect digital workflows (I contend they mostly were unsuccessful), and (b) save manufacturing costs (among which also were fingernail-sized sensor formats that deliver crappy IQ).

The X100 is the first product that tries to come back to an old-school user interface AND contains an image sensor that finally promises an image quality on par with larger DSLRs.

That's a technical statement, not a fashion statement. Of course, the Fuji designers also listened to their key target market, which apparently comprises a lot of older photographers that still remember the clear, uncluttered controls of the cameras from classic times. If that's a fashion statement, then so be it, but I don't think this was their first priority.

I would be interested in any camera with the features of the X100 - independent of its design. Although I suspect that form follows function. 😉
 
Last edited:
rxmd: A lot of the posts on RFF ask the same questions about Leica M's and other cameras: should I get black or chrome, what strap, Domke 803 vs BBB etc.

I know - after all you can't really escape it 🙂

However, I think that asking, for example, whether one should buy a black or chrome lens to go with a chrome body etc. is essentially a fashion question, too; maybe this is the form fashion discussions take on a gear-centric hobbyist forum such as this :angel:

And asking bag questions about a camera that isn't even on the market yet (and that fits in a pocket) really doesn't seem practically or ergonomically motivated at all...

...having recently tried both a M8.2 and D7000, the look reflects the type of ergonomics I am looking for. That is why I am still using film M's.

I can appreciate that sentiment; myself I use an M5, which I consider the pinnacle of the M line from an ergonomics point of view. To me it seems, however, that this works mainly because the M line offers such a reduced function set.
 
Back
Top Bottom