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

[panda88888]

Or you could just print it. 😉

ps, how ya doin, and welcome!

Hi Chris101,

I just got my first 2 roll developed and scanned back from Costco. I'll know how I did when I get home later today. Shooting film is definitely a different experience than digital--I find that I slow down and think much more, because each shot actually costs money 😱😀

 

[PCStudio]

Re Dante Stella
5. With most 35mm fixed-lens RFs, you get result that rarely exceeds 6 megapixels
...is this correct ? 🙂

 

[former member]

A lens that resolves 50LP/mm on black and white film would require an 8.6MPixel monochrome array, 3600x2400. Color arrays without anti-aliasing filters also work for most tests.

50LP/mm* 2pixels/line* 24mm* 36mm. 8.64 Million Pixels.


That's probably about right for a consumer grade fixed-lens RF stopped down to F4~F5.6.

 

[atlcruiser]

From all the talk and hype the x100 better walk on water. Maybe it is just me but I really seem to be missing the overall point.

Film is great...I love it and use it.

Digital is great....I love it and use it

I saved my money and bought an M8.....

I am saving for an M9; eventually.


I am sure the x100 will be a great camera for the price but I dont see it as groundbreaking as all the hype seems to suggest.

 

[_larky]

Nothing is ever as groundbreaking as the hype suggests.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Sssh Brian - don't dispel the myth that any 35mm rangefinder camera, no matter how cheap, can resolve 20-24Mp.

I didn't do it mathematically but observed the marginal effect of adding more resolution to scans and seeing no additional detail coming out. I tried this both on an LS-8000 and a Pakon Rank-style line scanner. The Pakon does 2000dpi native; the LS-8000 does 4000dpi native.

Rarely would any real-world 35mm picture, no matter how expensive the camera, get any great benefit over 2000dpi (6mp). Compacts never seemed to get any; expensive ones would have better detail at 4000 dpi - but not as much as you would expect given the equipment cost and resulting file sizes. But whatever the equipment used to shoot the pictures, you would get nice, sharp grain.

Dante

A lens that resolves 50LP/mm on black and white film would require an 8.6MPixel monochrome array, 3600x2400. Color arrays without anti-aliasing filters also work for most tests.

50LP/mm* 2pixels/line* 24mm* 36mm. 8.64 Million Pixels.


That's probably about right for a consumer grade fixed-lens RF stopped down to F4~F5.6.

 

[PCStudio]

Film is Analog media .
Scan of 35 mm film is Digital . Film vs Digital means SCANNER vs DSLR


---------------

 

[kylebarrow]

An unabashed X100 owner

An unabashed X100 owner

Like many members here, I suffered plenty of GAS attacks over the years and what started at Bessa moved to a Hexar AF / RF and ended with Leica but I also found it increasingly difficult to get the time to work with film (kids 😉).

The M9 is a little out of my reach at the moment so I was excited when Fuji announced the X100 as I thought it would be an ideal digital replacement to the Hexar AF. It is.

 

[PCStudio]

Re: Kylebarrow
What about pixel density on Fuji x100 ?

 

[kylebarrow]

Re: Kylebarrow
What about pixel density on Fuji x100 ?

The rear LCD is crisp but I hardly ever use it. The EVF is also not bad but again, rarely use unless close up with too much parallax in the OVF.

 

[PCStudio]

Sorry - sensor pixel density

 

[kylebarrow]

X100 has an APS-C (23.6 x 15.8 mm) sized sensor with 12.3 megapixels.

According to the Fuji rep, they employed a similar hexagonal photocell design to the famed F31fd which is probably why it has such excellent high ISO performance versus other APS-C sensors.