ElectroWNED
Well-known
Of course that price was an exaggeration, but one must admit: the buzz generated from this camera's announcement (for example, look at this thread) will have everybody and their cousin releasing a slightly upgraded camera. The biggest step will be interchangeable lenses (then a $100+ lens adapter from Camera Quest), then a larger sensor, no LCD screen & less clutter, then a lowered price overall.
Buying this camera is like buying one of the first personal computers. If you've got the money now, go for it, but I'll be waiting until this revolution has matured.
Buying this camera is like buying one of the first personal computers. If you've got the money now, go for it, but I'll be waiting until this revolution has matured.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^---- I think the other mfr.'s will be more interested in sales than chatter. This site is pretty much the epicenter of interest in the X100, at least on the English-speaking www. Other places are generally dismissive. That suggests to me that this is a niche market for, pretty much, us and people like us.
So I'm not as optimistic as you are.
So I'm not as optimistic as you are.
Spyro
Well-known
which means that since all of... "us" seem to like the camera, and the price seems reasonable, and there is plenty of warning to start putting $6 a day aside, if Fuji releases X100 sales numbers we are about to find out how many of us curmudgeons are still out there
tonyjuliano
Wooden Indian
Thats exactly what I said when the RD-1 was released, and where did that get me?
Im not making the same mistake again.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I've been saying this sort of thing for a long time. For every new generation of "almost there" camera. Better cameras will come along soon, they always do. For me, I think I can jump in at this point and be quite happy for some time.
All the usual disclaimers about it living up to expectations apply.
__--
Well-known
Microlenses = No A-A filter?
Microlenses = No A-A filter?
Interestingly, someone in a posting somewhere above — this thread has now gotten so long that it's hard to find anything; could we start a new one? — suggested that the use of microlenses by Leica on the M8 and M9, and now on the X100, militates against using an A-A filter because of physical difficulties — and, it seems, there is a good chance that the X100 won't have an A-A filter as well. According to that poster, Leica did not leave out an A-A filter in the digital Ms from a design consideration of the desirability of not having an A-A filter, but from the imperative introduced by the microlenses.
Does anyone know that, indeed, the X100 is not likely to have an A-A filter for for the reason asserted?
—Mitch/Bangkok
Flickr Site
Microlenses = No A-A filter?
Interestingly, someone in a posting somewhere above — this thread has now gotten so long that it's hard to find anything; could we start a new one? — suggested that the use of microlenses by Leica on the M8 and M9, and now on the X100, militates against using an A-A filter because of physical difficulties — and, it seems, there is a good chance that the X100 won't have an A-A filter as well. According to that poster, Leica did not leave out an A-A filter in the digital Ms from a design consideration of the desirability of not having an A-A filter, but from the imperative introduced by the microlenses.
Does anyone know that, indeed, the X100 is not likely to have an A-A filter for for the reason asserted?
—Mitch/Bangkok
Flickr Site
user237428934
User deletion pending
Not again talking about a digital camera without the lcd screen.
The X100 aims already at a niche market. A digital camera without the lcd screen is a niche that is so small, you need a microscope to find it.
Why do you believe that a camera gets cheaper when you leave away some stuff? The ramp up costs are almost the same. When you only have 1000 potential buyers instead of 100000 then you know how much such a camera must cost.
ElectroWNED
Well-known
Keep in mind that I'm the same person that said I couldn't afford this camera back on page 50 and people starting shi**ing bricks.
Short memories?
Short memories?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
That was me (post #1239), and it was pure speculation.
Last edited:
ElectroWNED... I don't know... (BTW your post starts page 34 for me!), but I recall a lot of sentiment earlier that this had to be a $2000 camera, or at least $1699... If it comes through for $1000 retail, that's pretty amazing. A lot of value.
We all would like new gear to come in at lower "affordable" prices, and indeed some stuff does seem to be a bargain. But we almost always hear complaints about high pricing. For instance... Isn't the R-D1 is just a cheap Bessa with a sensor in the film gate; how could it be worth $3000? Leica pricing for anything is simply insane and going higher all the time... who would/could pay $23k for a dSLR? And so on up and down the product scale.
We always want it to be more affordable, but it costs what it costs. Suck it up! Later there'll be some discounting, and some early-adopters will sell theirs used. There will be other ways to keep costs down, like refurbs.
We all would like new gear to come in at lower "affordable" prices, and indeed some stuff does seem to be a bargain. But we almost always hear complaints about high pricing. For instance... Isn't the R-D1 is just a cheap Bessa with a sensor in the film gate; how could it be worth $3000? Leica pricing for anything is simply insane and going higher all the time... who would/could pay $23k for a dSLR? And so on up and down the product scale.
We always want it to be more affordable, but it costs what it costs. Suck it up!
Later there'll be some discounting, and some early-adopters will sell theirs used. There will be other ways to keep costs down, like refurbs.ElectroWNED
Well-known
ElectroWNED... I don't know... (BTW your post starts page 34 for me!), but I recall a lot of sentiment earlier that this had to be a $2000 camera, or at least $1699... If it comes through for $1000 retail, that's pretty amazing. A lot of value.
We all would like new gear to come in at lower "affordable" prices, and indeed some stuff does seem to be a bargain. But we almost always hear complaints about high pricing. For instance... Isn't the R-D1 is just a cheap Bessa with a sensor in the film gate; how could it be worth $3000? Leica pricing for anything is simply insane and going higher all the time... who would/could pay $23k for a dSLR? And so on up and down the product scale.
We always want it to be more affordable, but it costs what it costs. Suck it up!
Refurbs and competition, which was my point in the previous post.
I guess I am just a poor, bitter rangefinder photographer that is wishing for something better. Until I have the money for something better, I'll be stuck with what I've got.
And a most interesting speculation. I picked that up and it makes sense. It opens a bit more hope for crisp image quality. And the comment led me to wonder too about IR filtration, just to add to the list of curious questions that have been raised. Fuji engineers are likely working to finalizing the design...
Fabian
Established
When i saw the fuji the first time i thougt that will be my next camera.
But there are a few reasons why i might instead get an m8.
First the price. I think it is to cheap. It is aimed at a niche market with low production rates and it is still cheaper than a nikon d7000 without a lens.
So i am asking myself, where are they saving money?
The second reason is that used m8s are really getting affordable these days.
I wonder if fuji can keep the hype alive for half a year. Their marketing people are either genius or not very bright at all. We will see.
Anyway its good to see a few new ideas in the camera market.
But there are a few reasons why i might instead get an m8.
First the price. I think it is to cheap. It is aimed at a niche market with low production rates and it is still cheaper than a nikon d7000 without a lens.
So i am asking myself, where are they saving money?
The second reason is that used m8s are really getting affordable these days.
I wonder if fuji can keep the hype alive for half a year. Their marketing people are either genius or not very bright at all. We will see.
Anyway its good to see a few new ideas in the camera market.
Paul T.
Veteran
If memory serves, Mitch (and by the way, I always appreciate your informative posts) the weak AA filter was required because of physical restraints other than the microlenses; the exit pupil of some lenses would have been very close to the filter, and light rays were more likely to simply bounce off it.
The R-D1 also used microlenses, and has a (more powerful, but still not impremeable) AA filter.
cam
the need for speed
i asked about this to the most knowledgeable person at the booth a the time and, i'm afraid, he looked like at me like i was mad. there is every chance in the world i did not explain it correctly, he did not know/understand, and/or it was lost in translation...
essentially, he looked ay me quizzically and did not understand why a camera would not have an AA filter. he then started talking about the fact that the X100 would have filters in the camera and that the sensor was built for the lens.
i tried and failed to get an answer and was hoping somebody else would get a chance to ask in a more succinct and technical way.
mea culpa.
i can not confirm or deny that there will be an AA filter, a weak AA filter, or no AA filter at all.
if somebody would like to send me an e with the reasons why (short and sweet) it would be beneficial to have a weak or nonexistent AA filter, i would be glad to pursue this with my contact.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I assume the high iso performance of the X100 will be much better than that of the M8. Even my old 40D performed better at high iso (>640) than the M8 and when the chip is newer than this could be a good reason to buy the x100 over the M8.
__--
Well-known
The X100 will have a CMOS sensor while the M8 and M9 have CCD sensors. The former have generally better high ISO performance, while the latter, as I recall, have more resolution at low ISOs; so, the issue is how the low ISO performance will compare.
My question is this: somewhere I read that the X100 will use the same Sony sensor as the X1 and, I beleive, as the Ricoh GXR/A12. Is that correct, that the X100 will use a Sony sensor?
Furthermore, I also read that this Sony sensor is the same one that will be used by the new Ricoh GXR 28mm EFOV lens/sensor module. However, the specs of the latter show maximum ISO of 3200, while the X1 is to have a mximum of 6400. So. I wonder whether the X100 and the new 28mm GXR module will have the same sensor after all?
—Mitch
Flickr Site
cam
the need for speed
Fuji are building the sensor specifically around the lens -- they are not using anything that already exists.
thus, the sensor is *not* the same as in the Ricoh modules or the X1...
as for the new 28mm from Ricoh, they are using the same sensor that is currently in the 50mm (this from the Ricoh stand).
Paul T.
Veteran
My understanding is the opposite. Their site indicates they've adapted a sensor: "FUJIFILM has customised an APS-C size 12.3 megapixel CMOS sensor for the FinePix X100."
The key word to me is 'customised.' Which is not at all the same as 'custom'. That would suggest they've taken an existing sensor - which must be from an outside source, such as Sony, otherwise they would have mentioned that they'd designed, rather than customised it - and added the microlenses. Have a good look at their Sensor page, but I think that's the only viable interpretation.
http://www.finepix-x100.com/x100/custom-aps-c-sensor
.
Last edited:
tokek
Member
My understanding is zilch!