Obsessing Over the New Fuji X100? Why Not Just Get a "Real" Fixed Lens RF

[gns]

It seems like all you are talking about is shallow depth of field. Why assign a term like "Image Sophistication" to that? If you mean, longer lenses have shallower DoF, then just say that. Pictures with shallow D0F are not inherently better (more Sophisticated) than other pictures, are they?

Cheers,
Gary

 

[NickTrop]

@gns... Image Sophistication is the subtle graduation of focus from foreground to background objects... Also, the nice way bright areas are handled. But these are just a couple aspects. You can pick off a medium format picture and usually easily. I call this "image sophistication"(tm). Ansel Adams and people who excel at large format make more sophisticated images by virtue of format (and their mastery thereof...) over an iPhone "capture". What makes a person sophisticated? The culmination of a number of personality traits. How do you define a "sophisticated person"? It's hard to do - but you know a sophisticated person when you meet one. The same applies to photographs. Depth of field is only one aspect - but a critically important one, as is intelligence to sophistication in a person, but it's not only intelligence. This is a nuanced concept... film makes more sophisticated images... Cinematic = sophisticated... Soap Opera video = unsophisticated, though technically they are both very good if your only standard is resolution, sharpness, and color saturation and accuracy. It's more than just depth of field, though that is a component.

 

[jsrockit]

I'm having much more fun in using good old gear like Leica, Nikon F, but also Minolta Hi-matic and stuff like that. The good point: their value seems to never decrease unlike digital gear.

Uh, right, these items never went down in price... Nikon F is like $125 these days.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I think I get what Nick is saying. As the size of the sensor increases, so does the depth (not to be confused with depth-of-field), tonality, and the "3D" effect of the image. These are all in my own words, but I think the 35mm negative is just big enough (compared to APS digital) that you can see a noticeable difference in all of those things I mention, especially when comparing a 35mm lens on full frame versus a 35mm equivalent lens on APS.

My $.02

 

[jsrockit]

6. Digital P&S... Film takes over here. Both film and digital produce good IQ. However, digital point and shoot cameras offer little to no "image sophistication". Sharp photos, good color but absolutely no depth or selective focus capability.

I agree.

For this level film cameras win hands down. Very low cost with true full frame with full-frame image sophistication. A high-end point and shoot or mini rangefinder will blow away the Fuji XA in terms of image sophistication over the APS-C Fuji... will be truly pocketable, and far more affordable. An option like a $30 mint XA2 can be slipped into a pocket... the Fuji can't. And cameras of this type are true full frame...

The XA is a 35mm f/2.8 lens... not exactly the best for selective focus or depth either. The XA2, f/3.5 i.e. even worse. I would argue that the XA and X100 are equal here. Also, like I said, give digital 40-50 years and I bet we'll see a smaller APS-C cameras (or whatever we call them then).

In addition to it not being full frame, not very durable (compared to a film camera), not pocketable... the Fuji's $1200 price-point - well above APS-C average, takes it out of the APS-C "sweet-spot"... The real choice here is to ditch the Fuji and get a $200 "full frame" Contax T2 or some such - or an XA or one of the better early-autofocus fixed lens cameras at a thrift shop for $10...

Full frame is not everything... you'll get similar seperation at f/2 with the Fuji as you would at f/2.8 with the XA.

Nick, have you even held the Fuji or are you assuming it isn't durable because it has electronics?

Also, why are you comparing film point and shoots that don't have full manual capabilities to the Fuji X100 that does?

Also, pocketable is over-rated. If I want to photograph, I am prepared to bring a full size camera.

 

[NickTrop]

I think I get what Nick is saying. As the size of the sensor increases, so does the depth (not to be confused with depth-of-field), tonality, and the "3D" effect of the image. These are all in my own words, but I think the 35mm negative is just big enough (compared to APS digital) that you can see a noticeable difference in all of those things I mention, especially when comparing a 35mm lens on full frame versus a 35mm equivalent lens on APS.

My $.02

Yes. The cumulative effect is what I call "Image Sophistication". APS-C has it, and that appears to be the minimum "image plane" size to achieve it... FF digital and film have it. Point and shoot pockatable micro-sensor digital does not (at any price-point, which is why it's simply silly to blow wads of cash on tiny-sensor pns digitals) though they are capable of making technically good images.

What the photographic community really yearns for is a camera capable of making sophisticated images that is also pocketable. This is beyond the current state of digital technology miniaturization - and always will be if we're talking about CCD/CMOS sensor technology. As the cameras miniaturize, so does the sensor, and with it image sophistication.

The solution? It's been right under your nose for decades... Cameras like the Oly XA family, Minoxes, 35Ti - even some of the better point-n-shooters etc.

For this reason, once the novelty wears off, the Fuji X100 will disappoint... It will eventually add to the list of the camera wander's shelf queens...

 

[semilog]

I second Nick's opinion and that was my personal feeling from the day i heard about the X100.
To me, that kind of camera has just become the same as the last "Tablet" computer or smart phone, but in the camera area. Almost everyone will feel a need for it, play with it a couple months and sell it for a quarter of the price.
Unfortunatly nowdays it seems to be the trend for just everything, including cars.

:bang:

Yeah, it's so much more wasteful to decommission a camera after say 5 years than to use hundreds of rolls of film and to discard the associated packaging and discharge the processing chemistry into the local estuary.

Look, I shoot 90% film with an M6 or a Nikon because I like the workflow, but anyone who shoots a decent amount of film (with a Leica or anything else) and pretends that they're being thrifty compared to those who shoot digital is being extraordinarily disingenuous.

Shoot what you like. Do the work you want to do. The merit of your choices is not increased by deprecating the choices of others.

 

[bgb]

I think Fuji has done an excellent job of creating a desire for the X100 in photographers who shoot film cameras most of the time. I fit into that category and while having a fixed lens is not the best 35mm is ok.
The X100 is likely to cost up to $1800 here in NZ after all the tax duties and currency exchange is done with
However film is getting harder to find and less convenient to process unless you do black and white at home
A roll of Fuji Reala 36 exposure is $12.00 getting it printed is between $15 and $30 depending on where you go! So about $1.00 a frame.
At a $1.00 a frame it won't take long to get to $1800 so it ends up being simple economics.

 

[DougFord]

the image sophistication ratings of many of your favorite cameras can be easily determined.
just tap the camera to be tested with your iphone. learn a camera's 'image sophistication' score before purchase!
save time, money and embarrassment.😛

 

[igi]

Darn it, I didn't understand NickTrop's post at first😀😀😀

But I think you've said it yourself Nick. APS-C is the sweet spot. That IQ balances with cost and size. Take note that IQ balances with non-IQ qualities.

I think most buyers of the X100 are either film users or former film users. Some probably still use fixed lens RF's to this day. It's just that the X100 is digital, it's a whole new kind and a whole new experience and offers something different without much compromises from 35mm which is likely the reasonable reason to buy it.

 

[gns]

Nick/Hipster,

I certainly wouldn't disagree that different formats and materials have different looks.
The term "Image Sophistication" seems pretty vague as do some of your explanations ("The nice way bright areas are handled". "3D effect"?). It also injects a value connotation. Aren't smaller formats/cameras more "Sophisticated" in their ability to handle moving subjects?

Yes these small sensor digitals are different and that is a good thing isn't it as it gives us more choices?

Gary

 

[emraphoto]

so, if I have this all figured...

I can purchase sophistication? Via the capture medium?

 

[NickTrop]

Bottom line - then I'm out, work and alla dat.

A restatement of thesis...

Photographers serious amateurs/pro seek a camera that provides optimal image sophistication, which is a function of both well-designed optics working in symbiosis with the image capture plane size and ability to render technical quality. Image sophistication is a nuanced concept, like sophistication in a person and is a synthesis of many attributes. It diminishes in photography as the image capture plane shrinks in size.

Although the Fuji X100 will render "sophisticated images", its price-point knocks it out of the APS-C "sweet-spot" of its compact DSLR competitors. It is not as durable as film cameras as it is a sensitive electronic device. It is too large to be pocketable. It will be only marginally more portable than compact DSLR offerings and 4/3 offerings. It is not full frame.

The solution for the above is a small, pocketable, durable high-quality film rangefinder or point-n-shoot, loaded with a high-quality emulsion suitable to the lighting condition you're shooting. Not the Fuji X100 or any other current digital offering. Terry Richardson is on to something...

 

[ampguy]

With the fixed WA lens on the X100 (~24mm fl), it will cover landscapes, and travel, lots of general purpose photo op situations, but not portraits or selective focus artful type photos like this one (hexar af, 35mm, 24x36mm film size) taken of a flower wide open @f2 :

 

[NickTrop]

I'm not saying the X100 won't be capable of image sophisitication. It will be as any other APS-C sensored camera is. It, however, is not sufficiently durable as a sophisticated electronic item. It is not small enough to carry around with you comfortably and will spend most of its life on a shelf or in a box or closet, unused. It loses out to any full-frame camera - film or digital, in image sophistication to a degree by virtue of its sensor size. Its cost, about 2X that of other APS-C compact DSLR offerings, knocks it out of the APSC "sweet spot". It offers only a marginal portability advantage over them.

It sure does look cool though... Just like those coo' looking rangefinders of yesteryear, that still work, are full frame, offer better image sophisitication, and are just as much of a drag to carry around with you, which is why you don't...

 

[Platinum RF]

The key word is "digital"

 

[semilog]

Image sophistication is a nuanced concept, like sophistication in a person and is a synthesis of many attributes. It diminishes in photography as the image capture plane shrinks in size.

This is why the miniature 2.25" X 2.25" format was designed as an amateur format, will always be an amateur format, and will never catch on with professionals. We won't even talk about the sub-minature 35mm format.

 

[jsrockit]

Although the Fuji X100 will render "sophisticated images", its price-point knocks it out of the APS-C "sweet-spot" of its compact DSLR competitors. It is not as durable as film cameras as it is a sensitive electronic device. It is too large to be pocketable. It will be only marginally more portable than compact DSLR offerings and 4/3 offerings. It is not full frame.

The price works for those of us who hate the shape of DSLRs, hate the menus in DSLRs, hate the multi-use knobs of DSLRs, etc. Some of us just like rangefinder shaped cameras with old fashioned shutter speed dials and aperture rings and we'll pay extra for it.

Most of the film cameras you have mentioned have electronics as well. They are also great tools... as the X100 is sure to be as well.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

In essence, I think it all boils down to this:-
Nick doesn't like anything electronic or plastic, and has come up with an imaginative rationale to justify his choices and to try to convince us that he's right and others who make different choices are wrong. Most of us have recognised the age we're living in, made our choices and moved on.
It just doesn't matter, Nick. Enjoy your XA.

 

[jsrockit]

but not portraits or selective focus artful type photos like this one (hexar af, 35mm, 24x36mm film size) taken of a flower wide open @f2 :

You will completely be able to do this on the X100. Even small sensor P&S cameras allow for selective focus if the in focus subject is close to the camera and the out of focus background is very far away.