Interesting how the hysteria has died down

Roger Hicks said:
As others have said, sure, not much remains to be said until we see a working camera. My point was more along the lines of wondering why so much was said in the first place.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty simple and obvious... there seems to be a lot of pent up demand for a camera with the X100 specifications. As you know, the typical RFF member is an outlier - someone who dedicates enormous amounts of time to a rangefinder camera forum - a subset of which will obsess over which bag to carry their cameras in, which version of a lens is sharpers vs has more character, etc... . Does it really surprise you that a large subset of us would respond so strongly to a compact, APS-C sensor sized, rangefinder styled digital camera with hybrid/optical viewfinder?

Wasn't there similar hysterics over the announcement of the first 'consumer' FF dSLR on a 'Cankon' forum or the M8/M8.2/M9?
 
I fear that 'hysteria' may be one of those words with stronger connotations in common American usage than in common English usage. Colloquially, it is quite widely used to mean 'more excitement or reaction than might be expected from a reasonable person'. Yes, it's a rude word in English, but it is not, apparently, as common (and relatively little regarded) in America as it is in some circles in English.

EDIT: I've just checked with Frances, who of course grew up speaking American instead of English, and she is very much of the opinion that it has far more negative connotations in American than in English. Remember Wilde: "Two nations, separated by a common language".

Apologies to those who were offended: I just didn't mean what you thought I meant!

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You'll see the talk flare back up when more info comes out, like a hands-on preview, or website update. There's just nothing more to go over right now.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Check the X100 forum. Moribund. Have people decided to do the sensible thing and wait for real news? Or has everyone already projected every fantasy they wanted onto the camera?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

The whole dicussion was moribund (thank goodness) until someone had to go and drag it out of the shadows...

😕
 
hell, i am still excited about this, irrational or not.

i want a camera i can have with me always that suits my needs -- for times when the Leica isn't coming along, as i feel naked with out one... for the moment, i have a GRD and am trying to enjoy the positives of having a small sensor camera.

the negatives will get to me again, i'm sure... one of the reasons i bought the DP1 -- until its miserable operation beat me to a pulp... the X100 has what i'm looking for, on paper and in the hands... in reality? we'll see.

this is a camera that would be almost perfect for me, Roger, whereas i can't imagine you ever being interested...

i don't feel i've ever been hysterical about the camera but, i suppose, it's open to interpretation... i also don't care if they come up with other focal lengths, m-mount, make it in black, or any of the other nonsense.

i have very simple desires for this camera and i truly hope it lives up to the promise. the actual camera, i mean, not where it will lead.

if that makes me full of hysteria, so be it.

EDIT: i see you spoke with Frances... yes, in America it is something fairly offensive.
 
Its argued that hysteria was brought on by extreme sexual repression of the Victorian age... An age which Roger I'm sure knows a lot about, because he writes like a Victorian. 🙂
 
I read the available details (until there was nothing new circulating).

Mentally set aside $1200 for *possibly* buying an X100.

Held off on buying another 35mm focal length for the M's (though if someone has a clean Summar 35/2.8 for sale...).

Call me hysterical, but seems like a pretty rational approach...
 
ebino said:
Its argued that hysteria was brought on by extreme sexual repression of the Victorian age... An age which Roger I'm sure knows a lot about, because he writes like a Victorian. 🙂
Click to expand...

Oh, dear, my standards must be slipping. I take as a model the writers of the late 18th century -- Dr. Johnson is one of my heroes -- with more than a nod at the late 16th and early 17th, the other great period of English letters. Early Dickens was good (Sketches by Boz) but later it became distressingly apparent that he was being paid by the yard.

'Hysteria' and 'hysterics' go back well into the 17th century, and even before the accession of our dear late Queen Victoria in 1837 it had been suggested (in Good's Study Med.) that men could suffer from such afflictions as well as women.

Cheers,

R.
 
On a different track, would the X100 have generated such, umm, enthusiasm if it looked, say, like an old T90? How important are its looks?
 
Popped out to see Elena the other morning and she was in hysterics. I really needed autofocus in this situation, and thought it would be nice to have an X100! 😛
1062958742_tXh7X-M.jpg


She likes to read RFf, and had learned a neighbor wanted to do her grave harm, and was keeping an ear out..

1062958809_yw9Fr-M.jpg


Told her it was a joke, and she didn't need to worry, as people were much more busy beating dead horses. She cracked a small smile and we both had a laugh... 😉

1062958884_Hubgq-L.jpg


ps - no goats were harmed in the making of this post, and all images were shot with an RF.
 
wgerrard said:
On a different track, would the X100 have generated such, umm, enthusiasm if it looked, say, like an old T90? How important are its looks?
Click to expand...

I think it's a combination of things: the large sensor size (for DoF), the small camera size, and the unique optical viewfinder "head up display" scheme.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
On an RF focused forum, I guess looking kinda like an RF rather than a T90 is important! 🙂
Click to expand...

True. I'm just curious how many people might avoid a camera that offered the X100's capabilities but had a different look. After all, within limits a camera can look anyway the designers want it to look.

Better yet, what would happen if that mythical $2000 full-frame digital RF happened to look like a T90?
 
wgerrard said:
True. I'm just curious how many people might avoid a camera that offered the X100's capabilities but had a different look. After all, within limits a camera can look anyway the designers want it to look.

Better yet, what would happen if that mythical $2000 full-frame digital RF happened to look like a T90?
Click to expand...
i *think* i know wtf a T90 is (after googling) but i'm not 100% positive.

i can say, for me, that it would make a huge difference if a T90 is what i think -- a bulky SLR (or a russian tank).

this has much more to do with feel than with looks. i need the shutter button where it is on most RF's -- i have an issue with my arm/elbow/finger coordination. and those big bulky grips cause me no end of pain!

whilst i admit i'm drawn to a certain look, it isn't the be all and end all for me... for instance, i still find the R-D1 much sexier in operation than the M8/M9.

so function above form, definitely... but it always helps if it's something you can fondle as well 😛
 
I find it interesting that I have seen no threads (did miss some) that the wonderful company bringing the "fantastic" X100 to market is the same diabolical company who is abandoning film users by stopping production of Neopan 1600 and 120 Neopan 400 and concentrating on digital markets.
 
"A neurotic condition marked by emotional instability, which may be converted into physical symptoms such as paralysis of an arm or leg."


Well, at least one of the accepted definitions of "hysteria" offer the chance that someone will drop their M9 into my net.
 
wgerrard said:
On a different track, would the X100 have generated such, umm, enthusiasm if it looked, say, like an old T90? How important are its looks?
Click to expand...

What's wrong with Russian tanks? People still love Kievs... (Ducks and awaits sh*t-storm). Seriously, I'm sure you're right: the retro styling was some way from irrelevant.

Cheers,

R.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I find it interesting that I have seen no threads (did miss some) that the wonderful company bringing the "fantastic" X100 to market is the same diabolical company who is abandoning film users by stopping production of Neopan 1600 and 120 Neopan 400 and concentrating on digital markets.
Click to expand...

Well the diabolical company has only acted diabolically because the even more diabolical photographers whining about the diabolical company haven't been buying enough of it to make it profitable for the diabolical company to keep it in production. The diabolical photographers should consider that before shooting their mouths off about it and spend more time and money shooting film instead. 😀
 
Last edited:
tlitody said:
Well the diabolical company has only acted diabolically because the even more diabolical photographers whining about the diabolical company haven't been buying enough of it to make it profitable for the diabolical company to keep it in production. The diabolical photographers should consider that before shooting their mouths off about it and spend more time and money shooting film instead.
Click to expand...

Presumably the devil forced you to make this analysis, though God Himself might equally have inspired the clarity of thought.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom