Fuji X100 Digital SOMETHING from Fujifilm

This camera strikes me as being useful at a Wedding or other engagements that a Fast 35mm lens would go. The Nikkor 35/2 was fixed on the Nikons of a lot of Pro Photographers doing Weddings when the Nikon F and F2 were new. A number of Pro's that I knew "back in the Day" would keep a fixed-lens 35 for low-light work. Konica S2 comes to mind.

So, I'm thinking of this camera as a Konica S2. The Fuji 35ML was not as popular.

picture.php


Are those sunglasses back in style...
 
Last edited:
I personally much prefer a viewfinder to using a screen. When I was working at a camera store, every time I picked up either the NEX's or µ4/3 cameras without viewfinders, without fail I would bring it up to eye level and try and take a picture.
 
Wow, the S2 had shrinking, parallax-corrected frames? Hilarious, really, when you look at current digital rangefinders...
 
The Konica and my Polaroid 180 with the Zeiss viewfinder had compensating lines.

That Zeiss finder on the high end Polaroids was nice.

According to some sources, the camera is aimed at the $1000 mark. I find that amazing, considering what a Nikon 35Ti and Leica Minilux sold for a few years ago. This lens looks like it will be tack sharp, and is an F2.
 
The ep-2 with the 17mm and EVF is $1149 where I live so if this new Fuji is about the same price it will definitely muddy the waters.

I definitely prefer the viewfinder in the camera but being left eyed I find my slightly large, and occasionally greasy, nose smears the screen...

such is the way it goes!
 
andersju said:
Some do. Mitch Alland comes to mind. He's been using Ricoh GRD cameras for a long time; see this thread and scroll down to "LCD versus viewfinder" for his take on it.
Click to expand...
Hej, Anders!

The key aspect for me of using the LCD is, as I wrote in the thread you linked:

Indeed, I have Zeiss 28mm and 21mm optical finders that probably are the best ones around and don't use them with the GRD3 because, for street photography, I prefer the "looser" and more fluid style that using the LCD encourages: what I do is to establish the edges of the frame by looking at the LCD and then look directly at the subject when pressing the shutter.
Click to expand...
Another advantage for street photography is that subjects often are not aware whether you're taking a picture or simply looking at the LCD. Many people like the "directness" of a viewfinder in a rangefinder camera, but looking directly at the subject, once having framed roughly with the LCD, in my feeling, is still more direct. I understand that many prefer using a viewfinder. All I can say is that this way of shooting transformed my street photography when, four years ago, I shifted from using the M6 to small-sensor cameras without viewfinders.

I should also state that framing with the excellent high resolution LCDs, that can be used even in bright sunlight, on cameras like the Ricoh GRD3 and the GXR/A13 allows, with experience, to judge exposure without having to look at the histogram. For this purpose I use manual (spot) exposure on these cameras, which on the latter cameras is implemented well: you press a button to "center the needle" to the the recommended exposure and then move the ADJ lever on the back of the camera to the left or right to decrease or increase the shutter speed until you have the look, that is, the exposure, that you want.

As for the X100 hybrid viewfinder, if well implemented, it could be a great step forward. If I had the X100, I might use it occasionaly particularly because of all the exposure data can be shown, but, for me, it would be a trade-off with the size of the camera — I might one that would be smaller than the X100, like the GXR with the forthcoming 28mm-e lens/sensor module. Also, I might miss judging the actual look of the exposure unless that would be visible as accurately as on the LCD by swtching to the EVF view.

I think that people who simply assume that framing with a viewfinder is better and, and don't try seriously to frame with the LCD are missing something.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria Book Project
 
Last edited:
So next you are going to tell me the white shoes are out too.

And agree that the $1000 mark is going to sell a number of these cameras.

From the "inflation Calculator"

What cost $150 in 1970 would cost $819.59 in 2009.

So that $1000 mark is close to that Konica S2.
 
I don't know other people, but at $1000 mark and given specs, I can see BUNCH of RFF members falling for this like abandoning Titanic. I'll be one of them.
 
coelacanth said:
I don't know other people, but at $1000 mark and given specs, I can see BUNCH of RFF members falling for this like abandoning Titanic. I'll be one of them.
Click to expand...

Your kidding, Sug. All you need is some additional room in your back-pack, to carry it together with M2, Mamiya & OM1 (did I forget something ?). :)
 
Brian Sweeney said:
The Konica and my Polaroid 180 with the Zeiss viewfinder had compensating lines.

That Zeiss finder on the high end Polaroids was nice.

According to some sources, the camera is aimed at the $1000 mark. I find that amazing, considering what a Nikon 35Ti and Leica Minilux sold for a few years ago. This lens looks like it will be tack sharp, and is an F2.
Click to expand...

My Fuji GA series cameras had moving frame lines to compensate for parallax..
p.
 
ferider said:
Your kidding, Sug. All you need is some additional room in your back-pack, to carry it together with M2, Mamiya & OM1 (did I forget something ?). :)
Click to expand...

Hehe, that's pretty much it. Well, IIIf & Elmar 50 would make a great combo with this cam. :D
 
Lol . . . I'm sorry, but at $1000, unless if the thing is DOA, you must be borderline ... or sucking too much you-know-what from someone that works at Leica to buy a X1 over this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom