Michael Reichmann's X100 Test Report..he is buying one

[bwcolor]

Luminous Landscape X100 Test Report


"The good news though is that if Fuji's engineers would simply spend a few days on some basic firmware engineering the camera would be rendered immeasurably more pleasant and efficient to use. No hardware changes are needed. Here is what I would ask for if I was the Finepix Product Manager...

• make menu items sticky, or create a My Menu style system for rapid access to common items
• make Custom Settings include all important camera functions, not just JPG settings
• make the RAW button programmable as a second selectable User Function button
• put Auto ISO on the ISO setting menu rather than as a separate item buried within the menu system

Otherwise it's hard not to be excited about the X100. For serious photographers who value high image quality in combination with eye-level non-reflex viewing, this is a camera to cherish. The excellent build quality also helps to justify the relatively high price of the X100. I doubt that anyone with the wherewithal to purchase this camera and the interest in what it has to offer, will ever regret its purchase.
In summary – this is a terrific, even a landmark camera, likely to be an instant classic. In my opinion it is kept from being truly exceptional by some easily fixed user interface issues. Hopefully a firmware update, which could correct all of them, is not too far off.
Oh yes. Notwithstanding my complaints, I'm buying one. It's that good."

 

[willie_901]

well... I'm confused (but not about the X100)

 

[GSNfan]

I'd rather be Michael Reichmann than making 'good photos'.

I'd be more famous than some of the top photographers, I'll have a website which generates constant ad revenue, I'll have camera companies going out of their way to send me their cameras for testing. I'll spend most of my time traveling and writing about cameras for an audience which most probably will agree with everything I say... What else would I want?

Still photography is no longer about 'good photos', its about websites, Michael Reichmann's, Thom Hogans, even Ken and many other "bloggers"...

Still photography is now simply about cameras that need to be upgraded every year and "firmware" updates... 'Good photos' are not something to that you talk about because its impolite and might turn off the hordes of camera-carrying amateurs who think they make good photos from 'upgrading'.

Judging photos as good or bad is terrible for the business of selling cameras, lets just talk about cameras and devices as a source of fun onto themselves and keep hush about everything that might rock the boat.

 

[jsrockit]

I actually like the ladder and wall photo. I think his photos are just for review purposes n0?

 

[Frank Petronio]

No I read his site too, I think his tech reviews are usually spot-on. But I don't go there for the pictures or "composition" advice from his buddy. They get the technology right but actual images are like 1950s camera club - 4H Fair quality.

He made money elsewhere and the website seems like a nice retirement business, at least that is my take on it.

Anyway, back to the X100.... his comments are good and I hope Fuji acts on them.

 

[bwcolor]

What do folks think about his firmware suggestions? It sounds like Fuji might want to borrow some Ricoh firmware engineers.

 

[Glenn2]

I think his review is quite accurate. Picked up an X100 yesterday and used it to shoot a political event last night. Took the X100 for wide shots and an M4 with 90mm TE for longer stuff.

Image quality is VERY good at f/2 and this camera is so quiet with the beeps turned off that at times I wasn't sure if the shot had been taken. It's a ninja stealth camera for sure, now where did I put that can of matte black paint to cover the chrome?

Glenn

 

[Keith]

I think his review is very accurate and I don't even have one yet ... but I know that this is how the internet works! 😀

 

[tstermitz]

I like Reichmann's writing and his photographs. But he seems to have turned over most of the serious, day-to-day stuff to his friends or colleagues, none of whom write as well as he does, and none of them present photos that really move me.

While some don't, I do like Ken R, for his humor, enthusiasm, opinionated commentary and snarks. His latest recommendation, The Art of Photography, is definitely a good suggestion, and I'm only on the first chapter.

 

[dfoo]

A great review. Almost makes me want to get one (but how do I print the images with my enlarger?) As to the images... I think they are really quite good!

 

[gavinlg]

I'd rather be Michael Reichmann than making 'good photos'.

I'd be more famous than some of the top photographers, I'll have a website which generates constant ad revenue, I'll have camera companies going out of their way to send me their cameras for testing. I'll spend most of my time traveling and writing about cameras for an audience which most probably will agree with everything I say... What else would I want?

Still photography is no longer about 'good photos', its about websites, Michael Reichmann's, Thom Hogans, even Ken and many other "bloggers"...

Still photography is now simply about cameras that need to be upgraded every year and "firmware" updates... 'Good photos' are not something to that you talk about because its impolite and might turn off the hordes of camera-carrying amateurs who think they make good photos from 'upgrading'.

Judging photos as good or bad is terrible for the business of selling cameras, lets just talk about cameras and devices as a source of fun onto themselves and keep hush about everything that might rock the boat.

 

[gavinlg]

I'd like to see a gallery of all the shots he missed because the stupid thing didn't focus in time or otherwise get its thing happening quickly enough. When I reviewed it in 2009 is was almost indescribably slow.

Marty

You reviewed it in 2009?





Are you a wizard?

 

[Doug]

Marty, could it be that the AF function was improved since you reviewed it? Reichmann: "Autofocus uses contrast detection, is quite fast and seems very accurate."

 

[gavinlg]

Marty, could it be that the AF function was improved since you reviewed it? Reichmann: "Autofocus uses contrast detection, is quite fast and seems very accurate."

I think Marty is mixing the leica x1 up with the fujifilm x100. The x100 was only announced september 2010.

 

[Freakscene]

I think Marty is mixing the leica x1 up with the fujifilm x100. The x100 was only announced september 2010.

Yes. For some reason my computer doesn't like opening links at the moment and the first review i found was of Michael's x1 review . . .

Error enorme . . .

M

 

[jan normandale]

I don't think Fuji is stopping with the X100.... but I've been wrong before. Still for $1,200 +/- it's a serious option for those who are financially challenged by an M9 and it's got an "alternative" cachet to it that the M9 can't ever achieve because it's in a "best in class" camera.

Fuji may have locked up the "underdog" slot with this camera.

 

[bwcolor]

I was in line to buy the M9 and the X1 when the rumors were flying, but slow processing and poor higher ISO got me out of the M9 and I just bought film equipment .. probably would have saved some money buying the M9.. and the X1 just never got me interested in that I wanted great manual focusing or faster autofocus. So, I don't really think that the X100 is a camera that I would be considering should I want an M9, or an X1. Given that Fujifilm recently introduced another film camera, I suspect that they aren't done with the 'X' series, which is yet to get off the ground. In other words, it isn't a runner up choice.

 

[viramati]

Hi review pretty much mirrors my feelings. I really think they must have rushed the menus just to get it out. After the M9 (all be it a much simpler camera) the menus and options are confusing and badly placed. I wholeheartedly endorse his list of firmware mods and would encourage owners to let fuji know about these

 

[peripatetic]

I like MR's writing and his site, and I value his reviews.

He's not going to change the world with his photography, and there are many better, but he's not terrible either. I'm actually less keen on his landscape photography than his urban/travel stuff. His time as a photojournalist gave him a good eye for that stuff I think.

Ken Rockwell on the other hand is very entertaining, mad as a hatter, and far less talented as a photographer.

 

[tom in mpls]

Does a person need to be a talented photographer in order to write an accurate and insightful gear review? I don't know if MIchael is a good or bad photographer. I do know that he's a good gear reviewer.