lol x100s walks into a bar

[splitimageview]

As has been pointed out, RAW is now a non-issue. And the JPEGs kill. 🙂 IQ is in fact the primary reason for their popularity. Retro styling got the initial attention, but IQ and superior lenses are the strongest features. There are quirks, of course, but they are overwhelmed by the positives for the vast majority of users. And the S has eliminated the quirks compared to the original. As far as handling, I'm surprised. Most people coming from film like going back to the familiar layout.

The lenses are simply superb, especially the 35. Nothing else in mirrorless comes close unless the budget is in Leica territory.

 

[Lss]

As has been pointed out, RAW is now a non-issue

Except for us Aperture users.

Back to thread topic: While I am interested in the X100s, I do not wish for my camera to walk into a bar by itself.

 

[jsrockit]

I think was irritates me most about the Fuji-fandom is that Fuji's done a good job of making a decent little camera, albeit with a weird and hard to process correctly sensor data format, and everyone ogles the fact that they styled it to look like a classic camera and thinks it must be the best thing since sliced bread.

Yes, the only reason I use it is because I'm a fool who got tricked. 😱

We get it, you are not a fan! 🙂 It's funny. I find the original X100 files very easy to work with. AND I've used the X1, X2, and GXR. They are all easy to work with.

 

[splitimageview]

Except for us Aperture users.

AccuRAW. 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

As has been pointed out, RAW is now a non-issue. And the JPEGs kill. 🙂 IQ is in fact the primary reason for their popularity. Retro styling got the initial attention, but IQ and superior lenses are the strongest features. There are quirks, of course, but they are overwhelmed by the positives for the vast majority of users. And the S has eliminated the quirks compared to the original. As far as handling, I'm surprised. Most people coming from film like going back to the familiar layout.

The lenses are simply superb, especially the 35. Nothing else in mirrorless comes close unless the budget is in Leica territory.

I prefer Olympus JPEGs, little tho I use them, and Olympus lenses are much sweeter rendering to my eye than Fuji, which tend to look harsh.

We won't agree on this. 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

AccuRAW. 🙂

Again, you want someone to change their workflow and tools. I see no compelling reason to do that.

G

 

[splitimageview]

I don't 'want' anyone to do anything. Just pointing out things that might not otherwise be known.

 

[splitimageview]

I prefer Olympus JPEGs, little tho I use them, and Olympus lenses are much sweeter rendering to my eye than Fuji, which tend to look harsh.

We won't agree on this. 🙂

I've shot with both. Olympus is excellent but... 🙂

 

[willie_901]

LOL ... likely too much, not too little. ;-)

I think was irritates me most about the Fuji-fandom is that Fuji's done a good job of making a decent little camera, albeit with a weird and hard to process correctly sensor data format, and everyone ogles the fact that they styled it to look like a classic camera and thinks it must be the best thing since sliced bread.

.......

G

To claim everyone embraces the Fujis because of their styling is inaccurate and to some extent insulting. Taken literally, your paragraph states everyone who buys Fujis are shallow and naieve because they only care about the cameras' style. The fact is, Fuji's used Leica's classic style as part a successful marketing strategy. If this annoys or, in your view, reflects badly on Fuji that is fair and accurate criticism. Perhaps Fuji just paid attention to the successful retro marketing strategies other companies use for automobiles, watches, fashion, interior design and even athletic shoes.

Of course different people will have different feelings about the user experience. How could they not? Unlike you, I find us using the Fujis to be pleasant, natural and efficient. The finders, user experience, I Q, efficient weight and size, and lens performance are why Fuji gets my money.

 

[splitimageview]

Yeah but you're a biased Fuji fanboy, so your viewpoints are invalid. 🙂 JUST KIDDING.

For the record, I don't own a Fuji.

 

[back alley]

ok folks, let's not get all bitter and twisted here...

 

[porktaco]

meanwhile, in the living room...

 

[user237428934]

I think was irritates me most about the Fuji-fandom is that Fuji's done a good job of making a decent little camera, albeit with a weird and hard to process correctly sensor data format, and everyone ogles the fact that they styled it to look like a classic camera and thinks it must be the best thing since sliced bread.

I'm guilty. Bought the X100 as soon as it came out here. The classic control layout, size and design just looked too good and Fuji marketing made a very good job in hyping it. A few weeks later I had a terrible hangover because it couldn't deliver all I expected.

 

[daveleo]

@ porktaco

you are too funny 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

To claim everyone embraces the Fujis because of their styling is inaccurate and to some extent insulting. Taken literally ...

I didn't explicitly claim that everyone who owns a Fuji is a victim of marketing chum, but if it seemed that way my apologies. I rarely write literally when it comes to voicing an opinion. ;-)

I was thinking more of the fanboyism evidenced by people who don't even own one stridently saying how wonderful they are, based on marketeering reviewers raving about them and a few pretty pictures on the 'net.

I bought, tried, and disposed of three. I know them well, and they are simply not my cup of tea. I like other Fuji cameras ... the Voigtländer Bessa III aka Fuji GF670 is a lovely piece that I drug out the $2500 to buy ... but to date their digital compacts and the X system leave me cold. Every time I pick one up, I want to like it, and I find it annoys me no end and I don't get the image quality that all the raves promise. It's even annoying to me that I don't find it wonderful, it is such a pretty thing. Perhaps that's part of why the fanboyism is so irritating to me.

I'm getting more fun, satisfaction, and interesting photos out of the cheap, used Olympus E-PL1 body I picked up for a hundred bux than I did out of any of the Fujis that I paid 6 to 10 times as much for. And I don't even like the E-PL1 all that much for itself... it's no paragon of brilliant styling, design or luscious construction materials, the GXR beats it hands down there. It's just a good body that happens to work well. That says it all to me.

G

 

[Godfrey]

meanwhile, in the living room...

LOVE IT! I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING! OH MY RIBS!

 

[L Collins]

To me, the larger issue with digital photography is "When is enough enough?"

On first read, the review made me want to sell my x100 for the new model. But then I walked the dog and thought about it for a bit: does my x100 produce nice files? Undoubtedly. Does the camera have its frustrations? Yes, the very ones Godfrey notes (the damn buttons everywhere). Do I really "Need" something better? No. I don't. If I think about it, I get results that please me from a Contax G with a 45 Planar and a roll of HP5 pushed to 800. The X100 blows that away.

Anything more than an APC size sensor and 8 mpx is, in the end, marketing hype serving the needs of a consumer economy that is driven by the neccesity of planned obsolescence and continually accelerating demand.

And that's why I love my black M4, or my Contax with those smoking good G lenses.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Adam, thanks for providing the link to Zach's fun review. Refreshing bit of writing!

After reading many of the posts in this thread, I'm again drawn into reminding the Fuji naysayers about a few things. Especially those of us that come from the world of color film photography.

When we only had film, there was no such thing as RAW. If you ever tried printing your own color prints from film negatives, you know that there was very little wiggle room in adjusting color, contrast, or exposure in the darkroom. And to get a print really dialed in (assuming you chose the correct color temperature film and filter and exposed correctly in the first place) it could take you hours.

Now, with Fuji's Xtrans sensor output you get superb, accurate color right out of the camera... jpegs! And Fuji's metering is excellent in my experience. I'm almost to the point where I just set the camera in "P" mode and let it do its thing.

And regarding any notion of 'fiddly-ness' of buttons: All digital cameras have their quirks and learning curves. I can understand that if you're used to one kind of button lay-out, then a new scheme is going to throw you off for a time until you re-train yourself. HOWEVER, I find with the Fuji's (I've had the X100 and now have the X-Pro1), that the more I treat them like an old film rangefinder camera the more I enjoy them and the better results I get. I always go with auto white balance (unless I'm in some super obvious lighting when I try setting WB... and even then the results don't seem much different), and either Aperture Priority or Manual for aperture and shutter. I like to set specific ISO number... just a throwback to my old film days. And that's it! No fiddly-ness at all. And no more messing around with RAW files. Thank you, FUJI!!

 

[Godfrey]

..And regarding any notion of 'fiddly-ness' of buttons: All digital cameras have their quirks and learning curves. ...

Same thing can be said of film cameras. Even after a half dozen rolls of film, I still find myself going back to the instruction manual with several of my film cameras as I forget the loading instructions, or the use of some feature or another, etc.

And just like with digital cameras, some of them I simply like more than others. I had a complete Contax G2 system with five lenses. It made great photos. But it drove me nutty to use, could not get used to it. I sold it, bought another "old fashioned" Leica.

G

Addendum
Hmm. Just read Steve Huff's latest comments on the M 240, Noctilux, and B&W. This showed up towards the end:

...X100s vs M

Finally, for those who have been asking me about the X100s, no it is not better than the M in any way, shape, or form and that is a fact no matter what anyone else will tell you. Well, that is a lie. The X100s is superior to the M and RX1 when it comes to high ISO . The X100s is the high ISO champ, no doubt. But that is where the comparisons end.

The M files are much richer, hardier, have more depth while the X100s files are more digital and flat when you compare them side by side. It can be very sharp but IMO it has lost some of the soul of the old X100 output. The X100s body is in no way equal in build to the M and the lens can not match any Leica lens, period.

It's an interesting read, in SH' inimitable style:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/03/24/more-thoughts-on-the-leica-m-noctilux-0-95-black-white/

 

[28mm]

^ Let's keep in mind the Fuji comes at a fraction of the cost of the M240 system. Heck, the Fuji costs less than a 35mm Summicron. I can buy a Fuji x100s, and still have money to buy a nice vintage car or motorcycle.

I know you're probably playing devil's advocate because people are calling Fuji the Leica-killer. And while it may not be the most accurate label in terms of technical performance (we're still comparing full-frame to APS-C anyway), business-wise Fuji is undoubtedly eating into Leica's marketshare as many photographers are unable to afford such a luxurious pricetag.

Leica sees himself as a younger man in this Fuji kid. Back before he opened his stupid boutique stores and started a line of t-shirts and baseball caps. (Leica should have never listened to his old friend Ferrari.)

This is Leica's strategy now--be as out of reach as possible. It may keep Leica afloat, but a lot of good shooters will be migrating to other platforms and in turn, those brands will become richer while Leica gathers cobwebs.