Looking at the X100 image threads...

[ElectroWNED]

This thing produces images that look like just another digital point and shoot...

Should I have gotten swept up in the hype? Maybe digital just doesn't do it for me? To me, it seems any of these images could have been captured by a $100 point and shoot off the shelves of Walmart-- okay, maybe the images have a little bit more bokeh than a $100 P&S... but doesn't film still do it better, for cheaper?

Please explain why I'm wrong.

 

[Rob-F]

Of course, the computer screen can be a great equalizer to some extent. Can you see the difference between an M8 or M9, vs. a good P&S? Or an M8 vs. a D300 (etc)? Sometimes I feel I can. I haven't formed any opinions about the X100, though.

 

[splitimageview]

Heh. Try shooting ISO 6400 with a $100 P&S. 😉

Rob-F is correct, need to look at the full size images.

Also, RAW development is not *really* out yet...but I hear it might be very soon.

 

[Keith]

This thing produces images that look like just another digital point and shoot...

Should I have gotten swept up in the hype? Maybe digital just doesn't do it for me? To me, it seems any of these images could have been captured by a $100 point and shoot off the shelves of Walmart-- okay, maybe the images have a little bit more bokeh than a $100 P&S... but doesn't film still do it better, for cheaper?

Please explain why I'm wrong.

I was prepared to listen to your argument until we got to this bit!

 

[willie_901]

Is it the "thing" or the people using the "thing"?

Would you please publish a link to some photos you consider to be good?

 

[back alley]

i could not agree less...some of the images i have seen, on the net, are remarkable in sharpness, tone etc.

after deciding not to get one i am very tempted now...

 

[goffer]

This set is pretty amazing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookio/sets/72157626239350831/

 

[gekopaca]

You're wrong because you're asking a question to mask another question that seems to worry you a lot.
We must stop this tiresome and futile opposition between film and digital, it is a false problem, everybody cares!
Just try to think the picture of a philosophical, aesthetic, social, semiotic, point of view and not simply as the result of a chemical or digital process!
Do not confuse the pleasure of making and viewing pictures, with the questioning of each on his own melancholy, his refusal of the modern world or adulthood, his refusal to grow old or whatnot.

If the pictures made with the X100 you have seen are ugly, uninteresting or just common, it is because the majority of those who produce and share images on the web are unable to produce good pictures, it is not because the tool is valid or invalid.
Do not confuse the means of production and the production itself!
I know @ RFF we are all manic-depressive, inveterate collectors, fetishists and lens geeks, but please do not be superficial and let's talk about the questions of photography frankly.

 

[efirmage]

It would be a ridiculously fun camera to own, even if the images weren't outstanding. I'd need to see an original at many different f/stops to try and determine that, so I won't guess.

As far as point and shoots go, I just picked up an S95, and I'm absolutely blown away at the quality of images I can get out of that little camera. Many of them I truly couldn't get if I were using any other. That's really what it comes down to - the right tool for the job.

 

[retnull]

This set is pretty amazing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mookio/sets/72157626239350831/

I like these images a lot too.
But...a lot of blown highlights, it seems...

 

[filmtwit]

BTW - what's the minimum focus on this lens?

 

[goffer]

BTW - what's the minimum focus on this lens?

Non macro mode is 80cm
macro mode is 10cm

 

[Pickett Wilson]

The photos from most cameras made today look great on the Internet as low resolution jpegs. And I doubt many photos made with the X100 will actually be printed. So if it looks good at 900 pixels wide on the Internet, that's the only criteria that matters. And the X100 looks fine from the stuff I've seen posted.

I rarely hear discussion on forums of how photos from various cameras look in print.

 

[_larky]

I just got some A2 shots delivered taken on the X100, this camera can deliver the goods not only on the screen.

To the OP, it's the shooter, not the camera. For instance, look at my Photostream and you'll see no matter what I use, they are all crap 😀

 

[sleepyhead]

I just got some A2 shots delivered taken on the X100, this camera can deliver the goods not only on the screen.

To the OP, it's the shooter, not the camera. For instance, look at my Photostream and you'll see no matter what I use, they are all crap 😀

Actually, I like your iPhone pictures alot

😉

 

[j j]

I like these images a lot too.
But...a lot of blown highlights, it seems...

Looks intentional to me. Not blown highlights, high-key. Exposure choice not camera failing.

 

[jto555]

Also, RAW development is not *really* out yet...but I hear it might be very soon.

Adobe has just updated Camera Raw and the update includes support for the X100.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

If I buy this really nice pen that costs $1,000...will it make my writing jump to the top of the New York Times Best Seller list? At that price, I'm ready to blame the pen if otherwise.

 

[ZeissFan]

I think the promise of every new camera is that it will transform us into great photographers when -- in reality -- we still suck.

 

[jsrockit]

Jeez, this film versus digital crap is getting so damn annoying. They are just tools. Both are capable of great photos. A film throw-away camera can look just as good as a decent film SLR under the right conditions.