user237428934
User deletion pending
If it provided only the quality of an entry level dslr then it would be very disappointing for me!
gho
Well-known
Oh well, we should not diss the unknown photographer who took the pictures. But surely, a good marketing also means asking some icons for testing out the camera in the wild.
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I had promised myself to stay away from all of this commentary, but I can't help offering the following: in the past, cameras were boxes, more or less. Now, though, the "box" contains all sorts of magic bits and bobs. When the name of the game is massaging electrons, the who-what-where of what's in the box suddenly matters a lot. As an example, I'd offer the advent of in-camera processing to correct the aberrations of cheap lenses. So you get a $200 electronically chipped wide-angle out-performing (or equaling the performance of) a $2000 lens on a m4/3. And guess what? It's all in the box.
damien.murphy
Damien
Not too worried about image quality myself, even if it is only average (by current standards), dslr quality images are excellent.
It would be nice if the camera could produce great quality at iso 3200/ 6400, but this is not too realistic in my opinion. Good iso 1600 seems to be the limit of APS-size sensors, and with a lens that is f2 should be enough.
One of the options I would really like to see actually is in-body stabilisation. I've been away from dslr's for a while, and have been very impressed experiencing VR in one of my recently acquired Nikon lenses.
Anyhow, not too worried about IQ as I mentioned already. The X100 for me will be the camera to GET the shot. If it can do this, I will be more than happy with it's IQ.
It would be nice if the camera could produce great quality at iso 3200/ 6400, but this is not too realistic in my opinion. Good iso 1600 seems to be the limit of APS-size sensors, and with a lens that is f2 should be enough.
One of the options I would really like to see actually is in-body stabilisation. I've been away from dslr's for a while, and have been very impressed experiencing VR in one of my recently acquired Nikon lenses.
Anyhow, not too worried about IQ as I mentioned already. The X100 for me will be the camera to GET the shot. If it can do this, I will be more than happy with it's IQ.
kuzano
Veteran
Interesting comment that... on the IS....
Interesting comment that... on the IS....
I find it interesting that the response from Fuji re: the absence of Image Stabilization is due to the fixed lens aspect of the camera.
I find it hard to link that response to the need for IS to be related to interchangeable lenses, or for that matter, my own ability to handhold a camera steady enough to not need stabilization because the lens is fixed to the camera.
Hmmmm??
There seem to be a lot of inconsistent logic in all the hype related to this camera? But it truly is a wait and see. I don't hear anything from any one that convinces me nay or yay on this camera.
I do find it also interesting that the leicaphile's continue to harp on any lens makers ability to make a lens that competes with Leica Glass.
If anyone has the wherewithall to match Leica lens quality (and many have), I would be willing to bank on Fuji to compete favorable there.
Interesting comment that... on the IS....
I find it interesting that the response from Fuji re: the absence of Image Stabilization is due to the fixed lens aspect of the camera.
I find it hard to link that response to the need for IS to be related to interchangeable lenses, or for that matter, my own ability to handhold a camera steady enough to not need stabilization because the lens is fixed to the camera.
Hmmmm??
There seem to be a lot of inconsistent logic in all the hype related to this camera? But it truly is a wait and see. I don't hear anything from any one that convinces me nay or yay on this camera.
I do find it also interesting that the leicaphile's continue to harp on any lens makers ability to make a lens that competes with Leica Glass.
If anyone has the wherewithall to match Leica lens quality (and many have), I would be willing to bank on Fuji to compete favorable there.
Last edited:
tom in mpls
Member
More likely they are referring to the fact that the fixed lens FL is very wide and IS would be less important than it would be at long FL's.I find it interesting that the response from Fuji re: the absence of Image Stabilization is due to the fixed lens aspect of the camera.
I find it hard to link that response to the need for IS to be related to interchangeable lenses, or for that matter, my own ability to handhold a camera steady enough to not need stabilization because the lens is fixed to the camera.
Hmmmm??
DNG
Film Friendly
Here are a couple shots I did basic post to.. NO WB
200% Crop
I think it will meet some needs for IQ
200% Crop
I think it will meet some needs for IQ
andredossantos
Well-known
Has Leica EVER responded to competitors by lowering their prices? Seriously, has that ever happened? Im seriously asking as Im not a Leica historian and I find the OP's prediction that Leica would be forced to lower prices in response to the X100 very unrealistic.
As I see it, and perhaps Im off-base, buying Leica has always been about having to pay a huge premium above and beyond all the other camera's out there on the market. Its worked for them for almost a century and I just find it hard to believe that they will start now.
And just because there has been a lot of controversy in these x100 threads, let me be hyper-sensitive and add a couple caveats so that there are no misunderstandings: A) I don't intend to imply Leica charges a premium that isn't warranted (their products are handmade and of impeccable quality, etc etc and one is not simply paying for a brand name) and B) that I think its possible that the X100 could be a revolutionary camera in that it may open some eyes in the sense that there is a larger than expected market for a RF style camera in the digital age...
As I see it, and perhaps Im off-base, buying Leica has always been about having to pay a huge premium above and beyond all the other camera's out there on the market. Its worked for them for almost a century and I just find it hard to believe that they will start now.
And just because there has been a lot of controversy in these x100 threads, let me be hyper-sensitive and add a couple caveats so that there are no misunderstandings: A) I don't intend to imply Leica charges a premium that isn't warranted (their products are handmade and of impeccable quality, etc etc and one is not simply paying for a brand name) and B) that I think its possible that the X100 could be a revolutionary camera in that it may open some eyes in the sense that there is a larger than expected market for a RF style camera in the digital age...
Last edited:
ChrisN
Striving
That's an interesting question. I think Leica has managed first because of their (perceived) superb quality and reputation, and second because they largely stayed in a niche market - rangefinder camera. I think the X-100 is something sincerely new - a camera that people can use in the same they they might use a traditional rangefinder, but with the convenience of digital output, autofocus and a bunch of other attractive trinkets. The image quality might not exceed that of an M9 with a good Leica lens (some people's measure for the viability of the X-100) but it will certainly be good enough for a lot of people. These characteristics will attract a certain number of people who already use rangefinders, and may also attract new users. Whether any of this will impact on Leica, and their pricing policy, is unknowable. Does anyone here really want Leica to fail and fold? Who loses out if they do?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Today's entry level DSLRs are actually pretty decent.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
All of this is great news for thos of us who use rangefinder cameras and have collections of valued lenses for our cameras.[/QUOTE]
The X100 does absolutely nothing for your collection of lenses.
The M-mount and full frame versions that people like you are dreaming up are just wishful thinking on your part.