Fuji X100 Digital SOMETHING from Fujifilm

naruto said:
...people still buy the 6MP Epson RD1 and are happy with the sensor. So, how bad can a 2 year old 12 MP technology be? Considering the same sensor might have been on the D90 ?
Click to expand...

Not bad at all. The current APS-C and 4/3 sensors are astonishingly good for general photography, and those who would claim otherwise are, to a first approximation, fools.
 
tlitody said:
Well if they are pointing it at the serious hobbyist to maybe pro, then that likely indicates that pricing will be significantly more than their current point and shoot cameras. Thats why I rekon £500. Thats 25% more than current top of the P&S range.
Click to expand...

hahahha this is funny.... outright the best comment of the day.
£500 is like what? almost 70.000 yen? Come on, it's not the Klasse W we're talking about here ;-)

How can anyone compare this to a P&S price-wise? i just can't understand the logics behind this. Even the old Ricoh GR1 costs more than that used.

If at all, people should compare it to Pen or GF1 or Nex, and here the X100 is definitely superior spec-wise in all respects. 70.000 Yen?????
 
Keith said:
Anyway Juan ... we all know that the only real focusing method is with ground glass and a loupe ... and it only happens on real cameras! :D
Click to expand...

Although I love my view camera and it can do things this Fuji wouldn't even dream of :D, I prefer cameras that can be carried inside a pocket and that can be focused... That absurd obsession of focusing what the photographer decides to focus...:p

Cheers,

Juan
 
semilog said:
Yes, but if it were simple to do with good IQ, it would be a universal approach, since robust and precise mechanical assemblies are far more expensive to make than a bit of extra circuitry on a CMOS die. The fact that electronic shutters are not yet found on any mass-produced high-quality still cameras tells us that at present it cannot be done cheaply with good IQ.

The engineeers at Sony, Canon, Samsung, Nikon et al. may be conservative, but they are not stupid.
Click to expand...

The key is _cheaply_. CMOS global shutters exist and are in use, but not on cameras most of us can afford, the trick it being able to read the entire sensor that quickly, not just "a bit of extra circuitry on a CMOS die".

A rolling shutter is used on all current DSLRs with a movie mode or live view which makes skew very visible. Reading a 1080HD sized image (2mp) is already a challenge, a 14mp size image will be considerably more difficult.

Cameras like the old D70, 1D classic and current M9 use a CCD sensor instead of a CMOS one. All CCD sensors have global shutters, you read the whole sensor at once... just that support chips required to read a full sensor in 1/4000 second aren't cheap. So a physical shutter is still cheaper.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Although I love my view camera and it can do things this Fuji wouldn't even dream of :D, I prefer cameras that can be carried inside a pocket and that can be focused... That absurd obsession of focusing what the photographer decides to focus...:p
Click to expand...

I'm always curious about this sort of statement. I've used, off the top of my head, 9 different fixed-lens AF consumer digicams since 2004 (bought a Canon Powershot SD200 the afternoon of the US elections that year).

All of them (Canon SD200, SD800, SD1100, SD1200, SD780, SD3500, SX110, Lumix LX1, and an Olympus from about 2006 whose model # I forget) have focused on whatever I desire far more quickly than I ever have with a manual focus lens on RF, SLR, or TLR. The exception is in light so low that it is also past the point where I can effectively focus with an RF or SLR.
 
Kin Lau said:
All CCD sensors have global shutters, you read the whole sensor at once...
Click to expand...

Not true.

The accumulated charges on a CCD sensor are still (in the vast majority of cases) transferred to the A/D circuitry and read one pixel at a time. This can be done slowly or quickly, but it's still one pixel at a time. The exceptions are generally exotic, are used for specialised scientific applications, and generally have poor SNR and lower (spatial) resolution.
 
Last edited:
semilog said:
Better depends on your requirements.

Thinking that your requirements define everyone else's is a common internet disease.
Click to expand...

What for, a camera without real manual focusing, would be a better tool? As I said, a better tool for the masses, and as I said it will sell well for common people preferring autofocus and wanting background blur... And this is not about me: 99% photographers prefer real focusing...

To me, a better tool, as I said, is a more complete, powerful and efficient one...

This thing isn't a great tool. It's a limited toy. Designed for people who have not gotten great results previously: that's the niche it's aimed at...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
zumbido said:
I'm always curious about this sort of statement. I've used, off the top of my head, 9 different fixed-lens AF consumer digicams since 2004 (bought a Canon Powershot SD200 the afternoon of the US elections that year).

All of them (Canon SD200, SD800, SD1100, SD1200, SD780, SD3500, SX110, Lumix LX1, and an Olympus from about 2006 whose model # I forget) have focused on whatever I desire far more quickly than I ever have with a manual focus lens on RF, SLR, or TLR. The exception is in light so low that it is also past the point where I can effectively focus with an RF or SLR.
Click to expand...

As you're curious, I'll explain: I started using autofocus 25 years ago and yet I use it sometimes.

All the time I've had some out of focus shots and also some delay caused by low light and subject movement. Maybe I have good sight, but manual focus is faster and more precise to me. And at least seeing through lens you can know a bit more what's happening with your autofocus...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Looks like a really interesting camera. After thinking really hard I do have a critique though. There should not be two separate knobs for shutter speed and for shutter speed adjust. This is much nicer solved by a single knob e.g. by the Minolta CLE and the new Zeiss Ikon. The second knob should instead control ISO. What do you think?
 
zumbido said:
Of course they do, because you're defining "photographers" right out of the gate as "certainly not anyone who uses autofocus!" :)
Click to expand...

Not true... I use autofocus too.

But I prefer manual focus... And in general all photographers... That's why all pro cameras are manual focus cameras, even those with autofocus...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Carlos M said:
You're joking, right?
Click to expand...

No, I'm serious. If I buy it and use it, there'll also be thousands of totally different to me shooters buying it and using it: young people who never shot before. RFF members are not this camera's niche. It's another kind of people: the common young people with compact digicams who dream they'll make great photographs because of this camera if they buy it and use it at f/2.

Cheers,

Juan
 
I don't get why some would be "disgusted" the looks of this camera. If you take away the mirror and add a dial for shutter speed on the top plate, you'll wind up with a streamlined camera that looks like a rangefinder. So, this camera did that and it looks like an old rangefinder. Take a garden variety SLR, remove the hump. Viola - rangefinder. Same with this. I don't think this camera is going for a "retro look" as much as some are saying. It has a classic, streamlined, proven design. Nobody kvetches because DSLRs look like old film SLRs or that they're trying to hard to be "retro".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom