Fuji X100 Digital SOMETHING from Fujifilm

There are other threads here about people committing $2k to a vaporware home-built digital back for their Ms...the Fuji looks cheap by comparison.

If anyone is really concerned about the price, stop posting in the thread that you'll buy one. Instead, start trashing it. :)
 
aizan said:
i also expect the price to be on the high side. fuji's niche is cameras for photography enthusiasts and pros who either have money to spare to get something unique or want certain eccentric things bad enough to save up for it.

some people will think it's ridiculous, but i've pretty much decided that the design is so ugly, i'm not going to buy it. it's a non-starter. i like old stuff, but i don't like new stuff that looks like a lousy copy of old stuff. if it's a great "copy," well, that's not really a copy at all, but a new design inspired by the past. the product designers at fuji took a risk, but the design is a failure, imo. gotta give them that, at least.

also, it's probably just my disgust at the design, but i doubt that the contrast detect autofocus or manual focus aids will cut it for me. a DOF scale in the viewfinder is not the same as a DOF scale on the lens, and a plain focusing ring is not the same as one with a focusing tab. i can only hope ricoh gets their act together and puts passive af in a similarly viewfindered camera.

anyhow, just venting. maybe i'll change my mind later.
Click to expand...

I feel the same: those imitations and retro looks are offensive to me... I'd prefer a modern and totally new design... And the lack of real manual focus makes it (to me) the same crap as always: give me money you fool weak photographer and I won't even allow you to enjoy real control over my expensive, inferior and easy to damage plastic thing...

If it's metal and gives total control, it's another world to me, and I like it even if it's digital, like an M9 or an R-D1.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aizan said:
also, it's probably just my disgust at the design, but i doubt that the contrast detect autofocus or manual focus aids will cut it for me. a DOF scale in the viewfinder is not the same as a DOF scale on the lens
Click to expand...

It will be on the back LCD and in the VF. That is far better than a scale on the lens. If we get lucky, we'll get scale focusing in both locations with dynamic DOF. That would far outclass on-the-barrel DOF scales, especially in dodgy light.

and a plain focusing ring is not the same as one with a focusing tab.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that is the single dumbest thing that I've read about this camera, in over 500 posts.
 
Last edited:
Frankie said:
I know, I know...true Leicaphiles love film, yet they want M8/9/10/11...
Click to expand...

hahaha... LOL
there's a reason why it's called Leicaphiles instead of Kodakphiles/Fujiphiles.


I'm definitely will buy any digital rangefinder that have OVF... if i can afford it (of course) :D
 
It is confirmed that it has the same two years old sensor as the entry-level cameras Pentax K-x, Ricoh GXR and Nikon D90.
Click to expand...
So what if it does? It's not just the sensor, it's the firmware.

So far, it's a non-starter to some folks due to (a) a top plate design that isn't 'crisp'; (b) the retro looks and (c) lack of a focusing tab. Folks, this proves the camera is a real winner! Otherwise the complaints would be much more serious. :)
 
digitalintrigue said:
So what if it does? It's not just the sensor, it's the firmware.

So far, it's a non-starter to some folks due to (a) a top plate design that isn't 'crisp'; (b) the retro looks and (c) lack of a focusing tab. Folks, this proves the camera is a real winner! Otherwise the complaints would be much more serious. :)
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's because I own eleven cameras that can do more than it, and one that's a much better tool?

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kin Lau said:
I'd like to see the reference for this.
Click to expand...

You won't see it. It's more internet BS.

That said, the sensor in the K-x was a good year to two years ahead of anything else on the market when it was released, and today it easily runs with the very best of them. It would be more than satisfactory, as the OP would know if he'd actually been paying attention.
 
digitalintrigue said:
So what if it does? It's not just the sensor, it's the firmware.
Click to expand...

...and it's not just the firmware, it's the hardware in the imaging pipeline.

As an example, the Sony interline CCDs are some of the best sensors in scientific imaging, and the basic designs have been competitive and relatively unchanged for a decade. Yet not all cameras using these chips have equivalent performance.

Imagine that.
 
Last edited:
semilog said:
It will be on the back LCD and in the VF. It's far better than a scale on the lens.



With all due respect, that is the single dumbest thing that I've read about this camera, in over 500 posts.
Click to expand...

Agreed and agreed. We get it, people.

Yes, contrary opinions can be interesting.

No, a thread shouldn't only be cheerleading and positives.

But if you're going to say something negative, make it something relevant and interesting about the specific subject. Not just another thinly veiled "I don't like digital" or "I don't like cheap plastic camera makers" (which is especially dumb when it comes to Fuji) or "I don't like Japanese cameras" or whatever ax-grind. Yes, we know you demand feature XYZ even though you'll buy any body or lens at any price from Leica without a tab. :rolleyes: Yes, yes, this is just another digital, even though it gives everyone the OVF--lack of which made the EP1 a joke, incapable of taking a photograph in any light brighter than a 60W bulb, yet whose lack was rarely mentioned in the LEICA X1. But this camera is just a junky digital unlike the X1, even though it has that OVF--with a better HUD than any thus produced in any camera, film or digital, no less.

Yes, yes, we get it. Move along, please.
 
ywenz said:
without a mechnical shutter to "cut-off" light, grabbing snap-in-time data from a sensor will be blurry, due to the fact that the pixels are still gathering light.
Click to expand...

It can be done. Video/movie cameras can do 1/4000 exposures. The old Nikon D70 and Canon 1D classic employed an electronic shutter in addition to a physical shutter, that's why both cameras can flash sync at 1/500 or even higher - I've done successful sync's at 1/2000 with my old 1D (not HSS, but using a manual flash or studio strobe).

However, I do think that the X100 will have a physical shutter like my GH1.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Or maybe it's because I own eleven cameras that can do more than it, and one that's a much better tool?
Click to expand...

Better depends on your requirements.

Thinking that your requirements define everyone else's is a common internet disease.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frankie said:
You forgot one thing...film/processing/scanning are recurring downstream costs. In my part of the world, it is ~$1/exp for B/W.

We cannot make film, even you process/scan your own, there are still 2/3 the cost to pay...assuming your time has no value, or you enjoy the tasks.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that you aren't going to get a scan file of higher quality than today's average consumer DSLR sensor can produce unless you spend about 20x times the cost of said DSLR.

If you prefer the look of that scanned film, more power to ya, but asserting that it's a drop-in for a file from an average contemporary APS-C sensor is just not realistic.

Personally I think it's ridiculous. I use a DSLR for certain things, and for other things I use 35mm and 120... and wet print. I'll scan some negs for posting on the 'net for friends and neighbors but I long ago gave up the idea that scanning negatives without a $30k scanner was meaningful as my go-to workflow. One or the other.
 
Kin Lau said:
It can be done.
Click to expand...

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 (or, more precisely, that mechanical shutters have not been eliminated) 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.
 
Last edited:
An appeal to the Mod: could you take this thread off the main page and never let it appear on top?

The thread is surely going towards the Film Vs Digital debate.

BTW, 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 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom