Is the X100 style the future?

[Snacks]

In light of the troubles of Kodak,a venerated film-based company, I find that Fuji's decision to create a digital camera that harks back to old film cameras all the more poignant. I bought my own X100 out of a love of the Zorki C (though if I had a Leica III I', sure I'd love that too).
I can't quite believe that the X100 and the new interchangeable lens version are created solely for rangefinder fans though; surely their classical appearance is meant to target a broader audience. So, should we expect similar offerings from other companies? A digital OM is expected, but will it look like a modern DSLR or will it be clad in chrome and a leatherette?

P.S. I've no complaints against moving this thread, I just put it here because it is X100-inspired.

P.P.S. Bloody title error.

 

[btgc]

If marketing people will figure out how to sell hight amount of bakelite digital cameras, companies will start to make them.

Digital Pens, digital OM and other attempts to revive what once were popular isn't anything valuable. It's wise to buy camera which satisfies one's needs not because it resembles or wears name one used to have in his youth.

In this regard I like Ricoh - yes, they make digital version of GR, but that thing also matches function. Ricoh haven't tried to earn some money on reincarnating Five-One-Nine or 500G or XR-series SLR's. Because they know what they are doing - they are making cameras people can use to take pictures not to try feeling like they did somewhere sometimes.

 

[Richard G]

I think the new X-Pro 1 Fuji is a modern design. Ultimately the logic of the X-100 controls will survive on their usability. The layout of the current Nikon DSLRs is much praised and is not retro. Hopefully there will be an 'X 150', a 50mm 135 equivalent, and it could leave out the pseudo-vulcanite and perhaps have the more modern rubberized surface. It will be interesting to see the new digital OM. Retro styling features alone are unlikely to be all that it's about.

 

[gavinlg]

'retro' is a word that's thrown around way too much. I really sort of fail to see how actual control dials and an aperture ring is retro - it's just good solid ergonomics really. I've never used a digital point and shoot or small camera that is as good in use as the x100. Even the much praised GRD that I own isn't as good to use - unless you like spinning tiny little slippery dials that stick 2mm out of the camera body with no markings on them whatsoever to change aperture and shutter speed - no thanks, I prefer marked mechanical dials and a viewfinder.

It's coming back in because everyone has been asking for it since digitals inception. It's still around because it works the best on a small camera. That's it. Modern controls on small cameras. are crap. Nex-7 for instance. Couldn't even figure out how to control it when I tried one. Tri-Navi control dials swapped functions when mode was changed (and I don't even know how I did that), and the menu was just a mess.

 

[rxmd]

I really sort of fail to see how actual control dials and an aperture ring is retro - it's just good solid ergonomics really.

I think we've had this discussion before, but IMHO those two things don't exclude each other at all.

Retro design simply means design that quotes the past. Whether the result then looks good, or whether it has good ergonomics is another question. Like with any design style, you see a lot of phenomenally bad retro design and some good examples. Retro design is quite popular nowadays and the fact that some of those designs work well (X100) doesn't make them any less retro IMHO.

 

[jsrockit]

'retro' is a word that's thrown around way too much. I really sort of fail to see how actual control dials and an aperture ring is retro - it's just good solid ergonomics really.

Well, when the mainstream camera manufactuers left them off of cameras for many many years, and now they are starting to re-appear, they are retro controls.

I'm glad it is happening and retro is not a dirty word to me.

 

[shadowfox]

Digital Pens, digital OM and other attempts to revive what once were popular isn't anything valuable. It's wise to buy camera which satisfies one's needs not because it resembles or wears name one used to have in his youth.

What??
Digital Pens are not valuable? says who?

 

[celluloidprop]

If the X100 didn't have silver accenting, would it get a retro label?

I'm with gavinlg - I want direct wheel access to shutter, aperture and exposure compensation, which is surprisingly rare on the mirrorless bodies. I've not tried a NEX-7, so maybe I could get along just as easily with its ultra-modern look and Tri-Navi setup as I do the X100.

 

[Pablito]

There is a lot to be said for simplicity - easy access to shutter speed, aperture, ISO, WB, etc. As someone who shoots 99% of the time in M mode, I appreciate a quick and intuitive way to control those functions. But , IMO at least, imposing a "retro" look and interface on a modern digital camera does not necessarily lead to the most intuitive or user friendly device. I agree with the poster above that ricoh has a very thoughtful interface... and I look forward to the NEX 7.

 

[gavinlg]

If driving manual transmissions suddenly becomes more popular, would buying a manual car be considered retro?

 

[KoNickon]

I'm sure this has been discussed here ad nauseum already, but much as I love having things like real dedicated mechanical controls and viewfinders, the people who started photography with digital point and shoots (or cell phone cameras), and are used to clicking through menus, have no such preconceptions of what a camera should "look like" or how it should work. And unlike the majority of us, those folks want their "capture devices" to do video. So I think the retro look is indeed a phase. The X100 looks to me (and no doubt most of us here) like a "real" camera, so we're attracted to it. I'd be curious to hear what those who don't have long histories with film rangefinders think about it.

 

[gavinlg]

I'm sure this has been discussed here ad nauseum already, but much as I love having things like real dedicated mechanical controls and viewfinders, the people who started photography with digital point and shoots (or cell phone cameras), and are used to clicking through menus, have no such preconceptions of what a camera should "look like" or how it should work. And unlike the majority of us, those folks want their "capture devices" to do video. So I think the retro look is indeed a phase. The X100 looks to me (and no doubt most of us here) like a "real" camera, so we're attracted to it. I'd be curious to hear what those who don't have long histories with film rangefinders think about it.

Functionally good design is universally appreciated. My x100 gets more direct compliments when I'm out than any other camera I own.
Also, fuji film sold more than twice as many x100s as they thought they would...

 

[Pablito]

The X100 looks to me (and no doubt most of us here) like a "real" camera, so we're attracted to it. I'd be curious to hear what those who don't have long histories with film rangefinders think about it.

Well, it looks to me like a "fake" camera, and I have a LONG history with Leica and Nikon RF cameras...

 

[Pablito]

My x100 gets more direct compliments when I'm out than any other camera I own.

All the more reason to avoid it!
No one ever notices or comments on my cameras, thank goodness.

EDIT:
Wow...they are going for under a grand now, new! I'm tempted despite the looks of it!

 

[Darthfeeble]

How well do you think that a "retro" camera will sell if the image quality was crappy? The X100 takes fine pictures. That is pushing the sales as much as the "cool" looks. S

 

[celluloidprop]

I'm sure this has been discussed here ad nauseum already, but much as I love having things like real dedicated mechanical controls and viewfinders, the people who started photography with digital point and shoots (or cell phone cameras), and are used to clicking through menus, have no such preconceptions of what a camera should "look like" or how it should work. And unlike the majority of us, those folks want their "capture devices" to do video. So I think the retro look is indeed a phase. The X100 looks to me (and no doubt most of us here) like a "real" camera, so we're attracted to it. I'd be curious to hear what those who don't have long histories with film rangefinders think about it.

I think you're right and not-right. Young people who've grown up with computers and smartphones and such aren't as fearful of or bothered by deep menus as people who didn't grow up with them.

But at the same time, solid design is solid design - no one likes devices to be more complicated than necessary (major reason why Apple could now purchase, in cash, a number of nation-states). Easily identified and used controls - even without rangefinder styling (and I don't think the XP1 is particularly retro or RF-esque) - will always be a selling point.

 

[rxmd]

If driving manual transmissions suddenly becomes more popular, would buying a manual car be considered retro?

It might, if that had anything to do with design.

Tailfins might be a better example.

 

[gavinlg]

I'm curious, what exactly makes the x100 retro?

The only thing I can really think of is that it's silver and has mechanical shutterspeed/exposure comp and aperture dials, and an optical viewfinder. All of these things are functional - nothing like a tail fin on a car which was an aesthetic feature.

There's been heaps of silver digital cameras made, so it can't be that...
The only thing I can think of is the leatherette and the cable release screw in the shutter button, but the leatherette isn't that different to the one on my 5d, and the shutter button cable release is simply good design...

I get that it looks like an old 60s film rangefinder, but so do the leica M's, and they never stopped making them. Same with the r-d1. So if the leica M has always been around, how has it 'come back'?

 

[gavinlg]

Were shoelaces considered retro when velcro straps on shoes were popular. Alternatively would it be retro if I bought and used shoes with velcro straps?

 

[pvdhaar]

There seems to be a sentiment that retro style equals sub-standard ergonomics..

But I just can't believe the designers of the first Leica-M sat together and discussed how they could dumb down the camera's handling and layout so that later generations of designers could 'do it better'.

Stronger still; there is a logic to the layout of the RF cameras of 50 years ago, they're great to hold and use. If anything at all, later cameras did away with that logic in order to be able to cut costs by replacing dials with buttons and to be able to use cheaper plastic materials instead of metal to build cameras from.

The first decade of digital point and shoots is now behind us, and it's refreshing to see that Fuji has decided to have function determine form again. That they decided to make it look beautiful in the same go, well, all the better I'd say..