porktaco
Well-known
first off, i'm a 50 guy with a leica. i kind of hover just outside of what seems to be the personal-space bubble, which here in the us seems to be right about where a 50 gets you for street photos. i like the look, the FoV and the separation with background shooting wide open with a fast 50. one of the reasons i put off buying the original x100 was due to it not having a 50mm equivalent FoV.
however
i'm coming around very quickly to seeing the benefits of a 35mm equiv FoV, and i'm changing some thoughts on personal space.
second, this little camera is a marvel. it's outrageously discreet - quiet and very fast on AF, even in near darkness, and, with the focus peaking, i can get manual focus if the AF isn't doing its job - and it doesn't seem to intimidate or engage the subject in ways that even the leicas do. i guess people think it's a P&S and so they tune me out when i use it. which is PERFECT. and i adore the optical VF, particularly for night work. plus, for night work, i can shoot at 3200 or 6400 pretty much fearlessly. all the firedancing shots i posted last week were at 6400. i think they look fine. these are all at 3200.
point. shoot. color. this was taken in line waiting for a bar. one handed, quick, easy. i don't even know that my date saw me take the photo. this is really too close for a 50, and i'm learning to see a little more than just the one person i would have been looking for with a 50. background, foreground-cans frame...
still too close for a 50, and i probably would have missed the shot with a leica. it's still a little blurry due to me not getting really settled; i could have gone up to 6400 without loss of quality.
one of the things i'm consistently surprised about is how often i don't crop or only crop minimally. i was sure that with a wider lens, i'd be cropping like crazy, but maybe i'm getting closer, maybe i'm just seeing different things... this one is uncropped and, not to sound like a broken record, but this would have stunk with a 50.
minimal crop. would have been totally different with a 50. i still cut off people's feet, and i need to put the little focus box down lower when i push the shutter button...
i really like how this camera renders b&w. i'm using the VSCO film packs as presets - and if you're not aware of these, you should be, they're great.
this was right next to me. with the leica, i would have had two hands working vigorously to hold and focus and i might have had a different engagement with the subject. yes their backs were to me, but there were people all around, and no one really paid much attention to this teeny little camera. also, as much as i like the M9, it's bloody loud. the x100s is really, really quiet.
i'd gotten a series of pretty blurry photos right here, so AF wasn't working like i wanted it to. switch to EVF, focus peak on what you want, that's a bingo. again, she was really close and remained pretty unguarded in a way that i don't think she would have with a leica or, god forbid, a DLSR. she's clearly mugging for me, but it's not serious, it's playful and open.
look, i didn't cut off their feet!
so, there we have it. my friday night out. for what it does, it's a fantastic little camera. for what it doesn't do, i have other cameras...
however
i'm coming around very quickly to seeing the benefits of a 35mm equiv FoV, and i'm changing some thoughts on personal space.
second, this little camera is a marvel. it's outrageously discreet - quiet and very fast on AF, even in near darkness, and, with the focus peaking, i can get manual focus if the AF isn't doing its job - and it doesn't seem to intimidate or engage the subject in ways that even the leicas do. i guess people think it's a P&S and so they tune me out when i use it. which is PERFECT. and i adore the optical VF, particularly for night work. plus, for night work, i can shoot at 3200 or 6400 pretty much fearlessly. all the firedancing shots i posted last week were at 6400. i think they look fine. these are all at 3200.
point. shoot. color. this was taken in line waiting for a bar. one handed, quick, easy. i don't even know that my date saw me take the photo. this is really too close for a 50, and i'm learning to see a little more than just the one person i would have been looking for with a 50. background, foreground-cans frame...
still too close for a 50, and i probably would have missed the shot with a leica. it's still a little blurry due to me not getting really settled; i could have gone up to 6400 without loss of quality.
one of the things i'm consistently surprised about is how often i don't crop or only crop minimally. i was sure that with a wider lens, i'd be cropping like crazy, but maybe i'm getting closer, maybe i'm just seeing different things... this one is uncropped and, not to sound like a broken record, but this would have stunk with a 50.
minimal crop. would have been totally different with a 50. i still cut off people's feet, and i need to put the little focus box down lower when i push the shutter button...
i really like how this camera renders b&w. i'm using the VSCO film packs as presets - and if you're not aware of these, you should be, they're great.
this was right next to me. with the leica, i would have had two hands working vigorously to hold and focus and i might have had a different engagement with the subject. yes their backs were to me, but there were people all around, and no one really paid much attention to this teeny little camera. also, as much as i like the M9, it's bloody loud. the x100s is really, really quiet.
i'd gotten a series of pretty blurry photos right here, so AF wasn't working like i wanted it to. switch to EVF, focus peak on what you want, that's a bingo. again, she was really close and remained pretty unguarded in a way that i don't think she would have with a leica or, god forbid, a DLSR. she's clearly mugging for me, but it's not serious, it's playful and open.
look, i didn't cut off their feet!
so, there we have it. my friday night out. for what it does, it's a fantastic little camera. for what it doesn't do, i have other cameras...
Dana B.
Well-known
Adam,
Glad you like your X100s. Me, I'll likely sell mine. Like most people, I love the look and feel of the camera, despite its too many digital bells and whistles. And I think 35mm is the perfect equivalant for the street. However, I find the camera falls down when you need it most: clear sharp pictures in low light. Many of mine are blurry (and some of yours, too, I may add). The automatic focus is not up to par, the manual focus is too confusing and hard to switch over.
Just too many blown shots with this camera, in my opinion. I've seen cell phones that take better pictures in low light. It's too bad, because I had waited long after the original X100, and was very deliberate in my purchase.
Here's just one example of the camera's inability to focus in low light (shot wide open on AV, with ISO auto set for 6400):
Glad you like your X100s. Me, I'll likely sell mine. Like most people, I love the look and feel of the camera, despite its too many digital bells and whistles. And I think 35mm is the perfect equivalant for the street. However, I find the camera falls down when you need it most: clear sharp pictures in low light. Many of mine are blurry (and some of yours, too, I may add). The automatic focus is not up to par, the manual focus is too confusing and hard to switch over.
Just too many blown shots with this camera, in my opinion. I've seen cell phones that take better pictures in low light. It's too bad, because I had waited long after the original X100, and was very deliberate in my purchase.
Here's just one example of the camera's inability to focus in low light (shot wide open on AV, with ISO auto set for 6400):
f16sunshine
Moderator
Nice review Adam.
I see your works on Flickr. The x100s looks the bomb!
I look forward to adding one myself.
I'm sure as time goes on you will become even more adept at getting the most out of it.
With my x100 (classic). I find that setting to AFC actually gives more accurate focus than AFS when shooting in low light. It's faster too. Problem is it's always hunting so it's hard to just leave the camera on without having concern for the battery.
Also I use the MF setting with the AEL/AFL button to "snap focus".
I'm betting the improved focus system with the x100s makes both of these methods even better.
Cheers!
I see your works on Flickr. The x100s looks the bomb!
I look forward to adding one myself.
I'm sure as time goes on you will become even more adept at getting the most out of it.
With my x100 (classic). I find that setting to AFC actually gives more accurate focus than AFS when shooting in low light. It's faster too. Problem is it's always hunting so it's hard to just leave the camera on without having concern for the battery.
Also I use the MF setting with the AEL/AFL button to "snap focus".
I'm betting the improved focus system with the x100s makes both of these methods even better.
Cheers!
KenR
Well-known
It doesn't have face recognition - so your shot looks like the focus on the right shoulder is perfect, certainly not the eyes or the face.
back alley
IMAGES
pics are too big!
Dana B.
Well-known
If you're referring to my pic, the focus square was in the center, the subject's face was in the center, but the point of focus was off-center. I could post a dozen similar frames that were out of focus, but don't care to hijack Adam's thread. My point is that, when auto focusing during "decisive moments," the X100s is less certainly than decisive.
porktaco
Well-known
@dana, i have had to learn to focus it in low light. i often flick it into manual, which i don't find confusing, but i could see how others might. it has a much harder time AF at 6400 than at 1600 or even 3200
@andy, thanks! glad you look at flickr. so much more there, but the gallery here does get me to focus my selections...
@joe, MONITOR IS TOO SMALL (lol)
@andy, thanks! glad you look at flickr. so much more there, but the gallery here does get me to focus my selections...
@joe, MONITOR IS TOO SMALL (lol)
gavinlg
Veteran
If you are shooting with the optical viewfinder, what you are getting is focussing parallax error. Turn corrected AF frame ON in the menu, and learn how to use the guide boxes, and you will never have a focussing error again.
willie_901
Veteran
I agree... sometimes it pays to use the EVF and sometimes the OVF has real advantages. The parallax correction is key.
Focus peaking should make a difference too.
Dana B.
Well-known
Thanks for the advice. I'll take it all to heart. I've also been told by someone who has had success with the X100s to toggle focus assist, and to set minimum ISO to 1/125th of a second.
At the moment, though, it's like being mad at my dog: I don't want to look at her after she's chewed up my shoes; I don't want to take her for a walk; and I certainly don't want to mess with her mess.
To make the X100s perform in low light, you certainly must know more than what's in the !@!@#@!! manual to make it work.
At the moment, though, it's like being mad at my dog: I don't want to look at her after she's chewed up my shoes; I don't want to take her for a walk; and I certainly don't want to mess with her mess.
To make the X100s perform in low light, you certainly must know more than what's in the !@!@#@!! manual to make it work.
gavinlg
Veteran
I did have a laugh at those analogies
But in all seriousness, its not the cameras fault. Turn that AF correction option on and never turn it off again. The picture below shows how your OVF should look. The box on the lower right in the middle shows where the AF point is at minimum focussing distance. The box toward to the top left of the middle shows where the focussing point is at infinity. When the camera achieves AF lock, it will place a green confirmation box somewhere between the two, and you can judge where focus has been placed from this. Simple and ingenious, and should be turned on by default from the factory.Dana B.
Well-known
Gavin,
This is great, thanks. I can't believe no one thought to include "AF correction" into automatic. The default setting is like sticking a governor into my automatic .50-caliber machine gun.
This is great, thanks. I can't believe no one thought to include "AF correction" into automatic. The default setting is like sticking a governor into my automatic .50-caliber machine gun.
brbo
Well-known
All this won't help in Dana's shot. With AF correction option turned on, it would just show the user that focus was acquired at close distance. Which it was (on person's shoulder). It would show exactly the same if it correctly focused on person's face.
My guess is that this error is the result of a too big of an focusing area. You should choose the smallest possible. At least when in AF-S mode.
My guess is that this error is the result of a too big of an focusing area. You should choose the smallest possible. At least when in AF-S mode.
gavinlg
Veteran
Im not going to lie, I dont agree. I have never had a problem with focussing box size in OVF mode (you cant change the size anyway in OVF), and that is with an x-pro1 and 35/1.4 which should be far more finicky with DOF. It was definitely just the af parallax.
brbo
Well-known
Dana said that focusing patch was in dead center and that person's head was in center. Now, explain to me how would parallax lead to focus being (wrongly) acquired on the LEFT side of the target? If this was parallax error, image would be back focused not front focused, imho*.
* but I'm basing that on the assumption that the focus indeed is on the person's right shoulder (as per KenR's observation), I'm too lazy to decode the flickr static link to see if there is a bigger version of the shot
* but I'm basing that on the assumption that the focus indeed is on the person's right shoulder (as per KenR's observation), I'm too lazy to decode the flickr static link to see if there is a bigger version of the shot
gavinlg
Veteran
He could have been facing the camera with both shoulders, and she caught him half turned around. Or she might have focused somewhere else. Regardless, she said that there have been many occasions where she focuses on something on center and the actual focus is off center, which is textbook parallax error. In that photo posted the AF box would be about 3/4 the size of that guys forehead - not big enough for that much of an error.
Sorry to highjack your thread Op.
willie_901
Veteran
This is certainly true and worth the effort because you can make it perform in low light.
raid
Dad Photographer
I think that there are many camera systems that we have available, and no system is perfect. It is a good competitive process that hopefully will encourage the creation of better modes with more useful features. I am still trying to learn how to better do post processing. This seems to be more important that deciding which camera system to use.
I have not used the Fuji X100 or similar model.
I have not used the Fuji X100 or similar model.