KM-25
Well-known
The way I have mine set up, it is really fast and very reliable, do a search of my posts to see why...
I'm out
- Thread starter Pinphot
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 63
- Views 11K
KM-25
Well-known
After a dozen assignments and shooting over 6,000 frames in the X100, I have not only gotten used to using the AF/AF-L button to hold focus, I am actually very fast with it.
It took about a month of hard use, but I now trust my instincts with the X100 far more than I thought I would. I would love to have a black 50/2 version of it paired with the current 35/2.
I almost never use the MF with it's too large AF box now, it is a night and day difference in terms of precision...
It took about a month of hard use, but I now trust my instincts with the X100 far more than I thought I would. I would love to have a black 50/2 version of it paired with the current 35/2.
I almost never use the MF with it's too large AF box now, it is a night and day difference in terms of precision...
claacct
Well-known
It was a second coming but not in a Christian sense but more akin to Hinduism where everything is a cycle and basically nothing changes although everything appears to change - or to put it bluntly, a camera never makes people better photographers and it will never will, but then people will never accept that and if they did everything will fall apart and the Maya [illusion] will be lifted.
Pinphot
Established
I think you have summed up, (perhaps inadvertantly), where the real problem lies with the X100.
Whereas the big players in the market allow the user to customise functions to their own ways of working, (in this instance setting up the shutter release and AF parameters), the X100 is rather limited in its range of options, and the options that do exist are unintuitive and clunky, demanding conscious intervention by the user to get the camera to function in ways that otherwise come naturally on tools where the menus and options are properly thought out and implemented.
After 4 months of fighting against how Fuji thinks I should do things, I've finally admitted defeat and decided I can no longer live the Fuji way. A shame, as the camera has much to commend it otherwise.
Mark
http://markpinder.wordpress.com
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
Actually, I have summed up where the real problem lies with the X100 for you then, not everyone and certainly not me, and I mean this statement in a kindhearted way.
It really is as simple as I said in my first reply, either the odds are good, or the goods are odd, entirely up to individual needs, wants and tolerance levels.
I write this as I finish putting out 12x12 prints for a major gallery in town who is putting on a show of my work, shot entirely on an iPhone 4 in "Hipstamatic"....
jsrockit
Moderator
Seems like this is the issue. I find the X100 only makes you choose your core settings once (generally speaking) and then all you need to touch is the shutter speed dial, shutter release, and aperture ring. To many of us, it's beautiful in its simplicity (only bettered in the digital camera world by Leica and Epson). However, if you are used to having a lot of options...say from DSLRs / Micro 4/3, etc., this camera is not for you.
I'm just wondering what made you think it would be? What are you used to using?
Pinphot
Established
In nearly 30 years, everything from Leica M, Contax G, Olympus OM, Nikon F's-to F100's, Canon EOS film and dig, Panny GF1, Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Bronica, Mamiya 7, Epson Rd1, Linhof Technika, Pentax 67 etc.
I love the simplicity of the core camera, the dials, aperture and shutter speed control etc. Agreed, you only need to set many core settings once, but some of those settings, (especially where AF implementation is concerned), are very badly implemented. The X100 is an autofocus camera in a technologically mature market, where the basic implementation is sub par and lacking in fairly basic customisation performance and usage features that other manufacturers with professional pretensions seem to have no difficulty in implementing as a matter of course. You can produce work on an iphone, but, unlike the X100, the iphone does not have pretensions to being a serious camera.
Cheers,
Mark
http://markpinder.wordpress.com
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
Mark: Are you out or are you in?
Because the record is starting to skip a bit if you know what I mean. Those who are "in" and also have talent and passion will make photos that might amaze you, people are just going to get better and better with it. And there is some pretty darn good stuff in the "Post your X100 pics" thread already, they like me have already commited to getting the most of the camera and will in no way be swayed or distracted by what you or others cite as reasons for passing on the X100...........so.........after awhile, well.....get out there and shoot no matter what you want to use...;-)
Because the record is starting to skip a bit if you know what I mean. Those who are "in" and also have talent and passion will make photos that might amaze you, people are just going to get better and better with it. And there is some pretty darn good stuff in the "Post your X100 pics" thread already, they like me have already commited to getting the most of the camera and will in no way be swayed or distracted by what you or others cite as reasons for passing on the X100...........so.........after awhile, well.....get out there and shoot no matter what you want to use...;-)
Last edited:
gilpen123
Gil
Trying to fit a camera system to our ways is far too difficult, for me image quality, lowlight capabilities and handling is foremost and far outweighs the quirkiness. I always use aperture priority, auto ISO (most of the time) focus and shoot. Nothing too difficult unless I want to be able to manipulate the camera in as many ways as possible. Simple needs simple solutions end of the day take the shot and move on. But that's me ........'cheers!
back alley
IMAGES
agreed...every camera i have ever had gets the aperture priority treatment...even in the old completely manual days!
auto iso works well on the x100.
i prefer spot metering when i have a camera that has it but on the x100 it didn't work so well for me (will try again later on) so i am using the 'matrix' mode and it gives better exposures than the rd1.
i compose and shoot and so far so good.
the x100 would be best if the little lens was a sonnar 😉
LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
I understand. I've been thinking about a Ricoh GXR--or even a GRDIII--for a while but the fact that they're not even sold in Canada has been holding me back. I just can't bring myself to order something like this sight unseen. I'm only about 12 miles from the border so slipping into the States wouldn't be impossible but even then I can't find anything closer than Seattle. I worry about having to send the thing back if I don't like it or if it needs service...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Recognizing this, O nobly born, free thyself from the cycle of illusion and see the clear white light of reality (Bardo Thodol, from memory).
But then, there are those who would speculate about the colour balance of the clear white light of reality...
Cheers,
R.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Not to mention what colour bag would go best with it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Mahakala
(a Great Black One).
Maybe I should suggest this to Martin Billingham...
Tashi Delek,
R.
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
I like myX100 very much but the AF is very slow indeed. No idea how it compares to the competition though. For fast reportage work the camera is not suitable. My Leica is much better for that. For all my other needs it is as perfect as I can wish.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
jsrockit
Moderator
AF is set by one button though. Do you mean lack of AF modes?
Richard G
Veteran
Second KM-25's suggestion to look at his collected posts on this camera. I'm keeping mine. It's too good not to work at it a little. I'm not a pro and haven't taken a thousand shots yet but I'm pretty confident of getting the shot with this now. I went skiing last week with the M2 and my little C-Lux 2 and really missed the X100. No hood yet.
emraphoto
Veteran
on the contrary, i find the little bugger plents fast for reportage. i am by no means saying your assesment is wrong, just illustrating the differences in opinion.
for close up reportage work i pick a distance i want to work at and set the focus apropos via the afl/ael button. with a suitable aperture, iso combination and taking into account the inherrent DOF of the lens i can fire away with little concern.
i find the x100 to be superb when zone focusing, which makes up about 95% of what i do. when needed, the af is fast enough (with some of km25 and streetshooters advice) to suit me fine. is it a 1d mkIII? no. after a few weeks of experience though the x100, in MY opinion, has become one of the most capable reportage/documentary tools i have come across. the zoom H2 being second.
v_roma
Well-known
I own an X100 and, for me, what keeps me coming back is the image quality (plus the viewfinder), which I find simply phenomenal. The level of detail, dynamic range, and high ISO performance are just excellent. There are very few, if any, digital cameras out there than can match the IQ of the X100 at the X100's "compact" size. When you throw in the OVF and some of the other external controls, then the competition pales even further in comparison.
I'm not dogmatic about the X100 just because I own it, though. Yes, the AF could be faster (but it's still contrast detection so it will never be as fast as a phase detection SLR) but I don't find that it gets in the way of that many shots. The MF could have been much better implemented. There is still room for improvement with firmware updates but things like not having a distance scale on the lens were missed opportunities in my mind. The camera can feel slugish sometimes. But any and all quirks that the X100 has are things I can live with when I know what the results coming out of the other end are. Every camera has it's pros and cons and, as someone said above, the X100 either works for you or it doesn't.
I'm not dogmatic about the X100 just because I own it, though. Yes, the AF could be faster (but it's still contrast detection so it will never be as fast as a phase detection SLR) but I don't find that it gets in the way of that many shots. The MF could have been much better implemented. There is still room for improvement with firmware updates but things like not having a distance scale on the lens were missed opportunities in my mind. The camera can feel slugish sometimes. But any and all quirks that the X100 has are things I can live with when I know what the results coming out of the other end are. Every camera has it's pros and cons and, as someone said above, the X100 either works for you or it doesn't.
NickTrop
Veteran
kay - gonna get flamed, I guess, for commenting on a camera I don't own. But, I was initially intrigued by this camera... reading about it. But when I read owner and some reviews - and in light of the price, I was disappointed with Fuji. I still say they got it right with the lower-end APS-C compact DSLRs over the last couple years. Pentax, Canon, Nikon - whatever "so many choices, so little difference" (love that member quote...) These are mature technologies and are in a competitive market - now beating each other up over features, quality, and benefits - and the "value proposition" in general... the consumer wins here... As opposed to more "experimental" offerings, if you will.
I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of the ability of the old film rangefinders to fare better in low light, smaller size (over most SLR offerings...), and quiet leaf shutter (or cutrain variations) for discrete candid photography in natural light, a decent fast "50"... over any "form factor". The Nikon I settled on is very quiet. Much ergonomic thought went into the protruding "grip" on the left side of DSLRs... it's actually better, ergonomically - I find, than the form factor of classic rangefinders from a practical perspective... 'bout the only thing is does is mess up the lines so they're not as pretty. The size of most of the APSC offerings is not an issue; a slightly smaller camera doesn't add anything (if it's not "pocketable"); they're less expensive; have interchangeable lens capability; have mature button/menu layout; extremely fast, quiet, and accurate autofocus; extremely accurate exposure and metering... etc that you would expect with a mature technology. They're excellent in low-light - trumping classic film rangefinders now, and there are good reasonably-priced prime lens offerings. All the bases are checked. This wasn't the case 3,4,5 years ago. They're darn near perfect and a generally a good bargain. There's no reason, in my mind, for these funky offerings... other than lower production costs and higher retail prices - and therefore higher margins, for camera makers who are leveraging nostalgia among a group of old-school photographers and photographic contrariarians who need something "different".
Fuji could not have released a camera with such "quibbles" that caused the poster to sell his in the entry-level DSLR market, and no enthusiast would have considered it for a second. They would have gotten eaten alive by the photographic "press" and in reviews... let alone charge $1200 for it.
I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of the ability of the old film rangefinders to fare better in low light, smaller size (over most SLR offerings...), and quiet leaf shutter (or cutrain variations) for discrete candid photography in natural light, a decent fast "50"... over any "form factor". The Nikon I settled on is very quiet. Much ergonomic thought went into the protruding "grip" on the left side of DSLRs... it's actually better, ergonomically - I find, than the form factor of classic rangefinders from a practical perspective... 'bout the only thing is does is mess up the lines so they're not as pretty. The size of most of the APSC offerings is not an issue; a slightly smaller camera doesn't add anything (if it's not "pocketable"); they're less expensive; have interchangeable lens capability; have mature button/menu layout; extremely fast, quiet, and accurate autofocus; extremely accurate exposure and metering... etc that you would expect with a mature technology. They're excellent in low-light - trumping classic film rangefinders now, and there are good reasonably-priced prime lens offerings. All the bases are checked. This wasn't the case 3,4,5 years ago. They're darn near perfect and a generally a good bargain. There's no reason, in my mind, for these funky offerings... other than lower production costs and higher retail prices - and therefore higher margins, for camera makers who are leveraging nostalgia among a group of old-school photographers and photographic contrariarians who need something "different".
Fuji could not have released a camera with such "quibbles" that caused the poster to sell his in the entry-level DSLR market, and no enthusiast would have considered it for a second. They would have gotten eaten alive by the photographic "press" and in reviews... let alone charge $1200 for it.
Last edited:
