Fuji X100 EVF will turn every picture into a dutch still life!

ChrisN said:
Technically, I'd say nothing. But in today's market, who wants it apart from the few weirdos that hang out here? 😀 99% of the market is perfectly comfortable with other forms of focus confirmation.
Click to expand...

I want one.

And it is way cheaper than my Minolta Hi-Matic 9. I spent the whole Summer of 1969 mowing lawns to buy it. I would only have to mow 40 lawns to buy an X100, and I have a John Deere.
 
As for the price of the Fuji ... $1000 is fine with me if it does what it should be capable of ... I'd like a compact digicam to replace my ailing faithful Canon A620 at some stage and this thing looks a hell of a lot better than any Canon!

The 35mm f2 Fujinon lens should be a gem and what's a top shelf 35mm worth these days? And this one comes with it's own digital back.
 
Last edited:
When does this camera hit the stores?

I think it's cool and i will be considering one, I'm hoping it will be a digital GSN

Until there has been a review, comments by owners and hands on shooting it's all just bull****

$1000 USD is about $1297. New Zealand dollars and maybe more ... I hope it offers good value for that money.
 
sper said:
Can we change the name of this forum to Mirrorless Compacts, or some variation. The Sony NEX, the Fuji X100, and the sad Samsung cameras need a true home.
Click to expand...

Here you are : http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=146
"Micro 4/3 & Micro PK Cameras & Sony NEX Micro 4/3 cameras from Panasonic and Olympus, the new Micro PK mount from Samsung, and the new Sony NEX cameras all offer the photo enthusiast an incredible array of adopted lenses which was not possible before these new digital formats. The MICRO 4/3 / PK forum is here at RFF because via adapters these cameras offer an inexpensive way to use rangefinder lenses on digital cameras -- in addition of just about every 35mm SLR lens you can think of. Not everyone wants to spend $7000 for a Leica M9, or even $1600 for a used Epson RD1 in order to use their Leica lenses on a digital body. Using Leica M or screw mount lenses on a relatively inexpensive digital body is a big deal. Who knows, in time we might see a rangefinders in these new mounts. Take note the Micro 4/3 format is NOT the same format as 4/3! Will other MICRO formats follow based upon established SLR mounts? HMMMM. Time will tell..."
 
$1000 would be great but here in 'Rip-off Britain' as we natives like to call it that'd be £1000 or $1500. Always pans out like that.
Don't know about the fixed lens discussion - I'm always reaching for 35'cron on my M6TTL. Haven't used the others in a while - does that count. 😀
An M9 is way way out if reach. This could serve me very well.

Steve.
 
Last edited:
Cute.

But a Leica viewfinder does pretty much the same thing, really. Just much less fooferaw to look at...and you get to do your own focusing.....
 
Ye Gods, it really must have turned into an old-style Photo.net donnybrook here! I remember some of the knock-down, drag-out fights that took place over there...especially in the Leica section, for some reason....🙂

I prefer removable lens cameras myself, just for versatility's sake, but a lot of the time when I head out, I'll just take one camera and one lens....guess that's a de facto "single-lens camera"....

Of course, in the end , it's not how many lenses you have, it's what you do with them. As the old saying goes, "Watch out for the man who uses only one gun. He's apt to be pretty good with it." Same likely goes for someone who uses a single-lens camera....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fixed Lens:
People who use a camera with interchangeable lenses are looking for their ideal lens, people who use a fixed lens have already found it.

X-100: I will certainly buy a Fuji X-100 because I did not have enough money to buy an M9 ... What a pity!
The Fuji is a great device ... for rennoncement
 
Last edited:
ChrisN said:
Technically, I'd say nothing. But in today's market, who wants it apart from the few weirdos that hang out here? 😀 99% of the market is perfectly comfortable with [strike]other[/strike] superior forms of focus confirmation.
Click to expand...

There. Fixed it for ya. 😛
 
Calling the X100 sensor a "crop sensor" makes no sense.

Even if you are concerned with relative DoF. Still doesn't make sense.

Before digital you still had to make these adjustments if 35mm was your frame of reference and you were looking at MF or LF. So was 35mm the original "crop sensor"? No.

IMO, crop sensor can only be used logically when referring to DSLR families that use lenses designed for full-frame or 35mm film but contain a sensor smaller than full-frame/35mm.

Also, it's amazing what you can accomplish with one lens. Especially a 35mm lens.
 
Paddy C said:
Calling the X100 sensor a "crop sensor" makes no sense.

Even if you are concerned with relative DoF. Still doesn't make sense.

Before digital you still had to make these adjustments if 35mm was your frame of reference and you were looking at MF or LF. So was 35mm the original "crop sensor"? No.

IMO, crop sensor can only be used logically when referring to DSLR families that use lenses designed for full-frame or 35mm film but contain a sensor smaller than full-frame/35mm.
Also, it's amazing what you can accomplish with one lens. Especially a 35mm lens.
Click to expand...

This falls apart because of cameras that can mount both 35mm FF lenses and dedicated cropped frame lenses. I'm thinking of say a Nikon D90 and Nikon's 2 lines of lenses.
 
A little OT Frank but I was stunned to discover that when I put a DX crop lens on my D700 it brings up a set of frame lines in the viewfinder giving the actual field of view ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one referred to 110, Minox, Minolta 16 as "Cropped Frame Film". No one ever referred to the Robot or Tessina as Cropped frame. Or the APS format, which you could crop in camera. Weird one. Funny how sensors are APS-C or full-frame. It's very confusing.

18x24 format on 35mm film, Half-Frame cameras. Go figure. 35mm film was developed for movie cameras, which used 18x24. Therefore, 24x36 format should be called double-frame.

The X100 has a fixed-lens and sensor that are matched for each other. That should produce some good results. Kind of like my Minolta Hi-Matic 9.
 
DOF comparisons between full-format 35mm and APS-C cameras are a tricky business. You can't just compare focal lengths with your normal (35mm-based) DOF scale. You also have to take into account the applicable circle of confusion (i.e. the maximum acceptable 'blurry disk' size, in which a point light source will be projected on the film/sensor and still be perceived as 'sharp').

I fired up the Dofmaster software on my Palm PDA and had it do the math (gogle Dofmaster, the website also has an online calculator):
  • Circle of confusion for full-frame (135 film) image size = 0.03mm (that's the accepted value since the 1930s)
  • Circle of confusion for APS-C image size = 0.02mm (as calculated from the same premises as above)
Based on these values, I compared depth of field of a 35mm focal length for full-frame with that of a 24mm focal length for APS-C, both set at f2.0 and a focusing distance of 6ft:
  • 35mm/FF ..... near DOF limit = 5.52ft; far DOF limit = 6.58ft; DOF = 1.06ft
  • 24mm/APS-C near DOF limit = 5.33ft; far DOF limit = 6.86ft; DOF = 1.53ft
At first sight, this result is surprising, because DOF is far more similar than I had expected. On a second thought, however, results are logical because you need to use different CoC values as the images from both sources need to be enlarged by different factors to come to the same print output format.

So, even the DOF differences between full format and 'crop' cameras are far less relevant than one might think.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom