noimmunity
scratch my niche
The price however is, for me, not simple.
hausen
Well-known
Why does this camera still fire everyone up? Keith did you get yours? Haven't looked at X100 threads since I traded mine in on a M9. Didn't think X100 was expensive and in my opinion anything is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Doesn't appear to be many of them on shelves round the world so Fuji must have picked a good price point.
I understand this completely... I said other people, not me. I'm ordering a M9 today after using the M8/M8.2 for a year or two. My point is that some people want no menus, no LCD, etc. Are they being silly? Probably. But that's their decision.
Well, that's the magical word right there... digital. I'm comfortable with it. Some are not. I think some will not be satisfied until we have an all mechanical camera with a sensor. lol. Well, the you can certainly use lenses with aperture rings on even the newest Nikon... and while the shutter speed dial is not dedicated, it is a shutter speed dial. That's where I draw the line though... I hate DSLRs.
Spyro
Well-known
Personally I'd be happy with a digital camera that has been designed for manual focus. Think about it, other than Leica M there is none. All DSLR, m4:3, p&s, even medium format are designed for AF. And then if it fits and if it isnt too much trouble or cost, they may or may not offer a half ass manual focus option. With crappy focusing rings, small/dark viewfinders, attachable televisions etc.
That's true Spyro...good point. That's what is missing for many too. I don't mind AF, but there is nothing like using a Leica...even a digital one. MF is just fun for me.
I love the M9.
The DCS200 is a bit more simple to operate. It is bigger. Makes you wonder what Digital cameras will be like in 20 years. Speaking from experience, I will be happy with the M9 or something just like it in 20 years.
On the X100: this camera has a lot of potential. From what I am reading from users, the first firmware release is not making full use of the hardware. I look forward to reading about improved manual focus on the X100, and new firmware to really make use of the Hybrid viewfinder concept.
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
I think the consumer has always been fickle. And add into this the nature of the digital products in which we're encouraged to buy the latest and greatest.
Plus, the fact that (I'm guessing here) most of the people who bought this camera based their decision on 1) Internet conversation and hype, 2) photos of the camera, and 3) technical specs created misconceptions. How many people said, "This is the perfect camera -- the one I've been waiting for"? Answer: A lot. How can you say it's the perfect camera before you've actually touched it, especially with a new product?
It's like buying a new and different pair of shoes online. They might look good in that photo, but until you get them on your feet, you won't know.
Same with the camera. For me (maybe others), it's all about how a camera feels when you hold it and use it.
It's sort of a shame really. In the "old days," you would go to a camera store, see a camera that you might like, handle it a bit and see how it felt. Today, you jump online, look at a couple of photos and press "Buy now." Sometimes, it works out. Sometimes, it doesn't.
Plus, the fact that (I'm guessing here) most of the people who bought this camera based their decision on 1) Internet conversation and hype, 2) photos of the camera, and 3) technical specs created misconceptions. How many people said, "This is the perfect camera -- the one I've been waiting for"? Answer: A lot. How can you say it's the perfect camera before you've actually touched it, especially with a new product?
It's like buying a new and different pair of shoes online. They might look good in that photo, but until you get them on your feet, you won't know.
Same with the camera. For me (maybe others), it's all about how a camera feels when you hold it and use it.
It's sort of a shame really. In the "old days," you would go to a camera store, see a camera that you might like, handle it a bit and see how it felt. Today, you jump online, look at a couple of photos and press "Buy now." Sometimes, it works out. Sometimes, it doesn't.
Spyro
Well-known
JSU, I hear ya. I have a 5D with focusing screen (and magnifier) and I use it exclusively with legacy lenses with adapters, mostly Zeiss for the Contax/Yashica mount and zuiko.
But (and this is big but) I dont AF, ever. And this is what you and I gave up by buying these DSLRs exclusively for manual focusing:
- AF SLRs have half-silvered mirrors, because the AF sensor is behind the mirror and it needs light to operate. This means that the mirror reflects only half the light to the pentaprism, which means that any way you slice it, no matter how many wonders of engineering they implement in that prism, it will never be as bright as it could have been. Because the camera is designed for AF.
- We gave up a bit of $ that could have been invested somewhere else on the camera. We paid that $ because the camera has motors and sensors and batteries for an AF system that we dont use.
- We missed the option of having a smaller camera that looks like an Olympus OM or a Nikon FM. Because of the batteries, motors etc
- The camera has to have a plastic cell, otherwise with this size and extra batteries etc it would weigh a ton.
- Lastly (and I dont know why) it seems that MF SLRs on average have bigger viewfinders that DSLRs. I suspect it is because of the AF, not sure, but I know that no DSLR has come anywhere near the VF size of the Olympus OM1 for example.
These are the things that, from a design perspective, we could potentially gain back if we simply did away with AF entirely. Maybe not important things to many people, but to me they are.
By the way, a viewfinder size comparison, just to see where the D3 stands compared to a film SLR:
But (and this is big but) I dont AF, ever. And this is what you and I gave up by buying these DSLRs exclusively for manual focusing:
- AF SLRs have half-silvered mirrors, because the AF sensor is behind the mirror and it needs light to operate. This means that the mirror reflects only half the light to the pentaprism, which means that any way you slice it, no matter how many wonders of engineering they implement in that prism, it will never be as bright as it could have been. Because the camera is designed for AF.
- We gave up a bit of $ that could have been invested somewhere else on the camera. We paid that $ because the camera has motors and sensors and batteries for an AF system that we dont use.
- We missed the option of having a smaller camera that looks like an Olympus OM or a Nikon FM. Because of the batteries, motors etc
- The camera has to have a plastic cell, otherwise with this size and extra batteries etc it would weigh a ton.
- Lastly (and I dont know why) it seems that MF SLRs on average have bigger viewfinders that DSLRs. I suspect it is because of the AF, not sure, but I know that no DSLR has come anywhere near the VF size of the Olympus OM1 for example.
These are the things that, from a design perspective, we could potentially gain back if we simply did away with AF entirely. Maybe not important things to many people, but to me they are.
By the way, a viewfinder size comparison, just to see where the D3 stands compared to a film SLR:
Last edited:
Conversely though, now you can go online and sell it for a lot more than the camera store would give you in a trade in. Also, buying used online, you don't even need to lose money if you don't like it...you can sell it for the same price. The camera stores jack you when trading in a camera.
ferider
Veteran
Are you sure that's also true for the Olys with a second sensor (used for liveview) ?
The Semi-Slivered portion of most AF SLR's is only partial, over the spots that can be used for AF. It is not like the Canon Pellix, which has a stationary mirror.
Spyro
Well-known
actually no
Not very familiar with Oly DSLRs sorry, I thought they operate the same way as the rest of them?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The OM-1 has a huge appearing finder image because of high magnification. The cost of that higher magnification is very short eye relief. But the OM-1 can get away with the magnification because it displays very little info in the finder. Modern cameras display a lot of finder information, and to keep it outside the picture area in the finder, you have to have less magnification. Thus a smaller finder image.
And the greater eye relief of the less magnified image is a boon for those of us who wear glasses. I can easily see the frame lines and info in my 5D finder wearing glasses, but have to move my eye around to see the entire frame in my OM-1 finder.
And the greater eye relief of the less magnified image is a boon for those of us who wear glasses. I can easily see the frame lines and info in my 5D finder wearing glasses, but have to move my eye around to see the entire frame in my OM-1 finder.
Spyro
Well-known
aaahh so thats the culprit... finder information. Thanks Pickett, I was always looking for an answer to that
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Setting up the X100 to function like the M3 takes one turn of the mode dial to "M". Done. To set it up to function like the Zeiss Ikon ZM, set the dial to "A". Done. Its a GREAT camera that can be simple or complex to operate... that's what's so great about it - you can choose. And the optical viewfinder is OUTSTANDING. I wear glasses and was never able to be comfortable with the 35mm framelines on the M4, M6, or the Canon P. The X100's framelines are sitting there in a very bright viewfinder window with a ton of space around them... beautiful.
