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

[NickTrop]

Recently, I've gotten back into film. Love my DSLR, has its place. But there are certain things film is simply better at, and others digital excels at - and it ain't "megapixes" (so "20th" century...) Digital's optimal point - if you were to graph cost/quality, is at the APS-C level. Here you have near-35mm film quality, excellent low-light performance - now better than film, reasonable cameras sizes and great cameras at prices compatible to SLR system cameras when they were new, taking inflation into account. No film, and no film processing, the ability to shoot away w/o the consumable cost consideration of film makes these cameras bargains at their current price points... esp. refubed or used.

Digital excels in the compact zoom with IS category. It's silly to buy an expensive zoom for an SLR when you can get one of these at less cost that has image stabilization... Also a small-sensor "digicam" has true portability, are capable of very "clean" technically sound images - but with a drop-off in image "sophistication" that often "makes" an image...

What I mean by "sophistication" is the subtle softer focus of foreground objects and background objects that turns up many/most pictures taken with 35mm film cameras. (Some call it "bokeh" but when I think "bokeh" I think of unintelligible swirls of color in portraits.) It's this subtle out of focus foreground - in focus area of interest - out of focus background that imbues a photo with a sense of depth and distinguishes them from being "run of the mill" uninteresting and unsophisticated "captures". Missing this in digital compact cameras, I got me a great sample of a "full frame" Olympus XA (thanks to a RFF member) as my new "take everywhere" camera. It's full frame that slips into my pocket.

Digital has yet to produce - and may never produce, a full-frame equivalent camera at a reasonable cost that you can slip into your pocket like an XA, XA 2 (etc..), Nikon 35Ti, Contaxt T2/T3 or even the line of tiny 80's-90's thrift store point-n-shooters that can be had for a few bucks, literally.

All of these cameras are "full frame" by nature and give you "full frame image sophistication". You lose variable ISO, you have to pay for film and get it processed... Nothing is perfect. But the price differential between these cameras - lots of junk, but plenty of gems also... pays for scads of film and film processing...

Isn't what Fuji X100 "wanters" really after something digital can't give you? Isn't there a compomise even in sensor size to achieve small size? Isn't a "full frame" camera like an "XA" - or similar higher end rangefinder (Oly RC, Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII, etc...) or even one of the better fixed lens point-n-shooters that can be had at truly a tiny fraction of the cost of an X100 simply a better option all things considered? Heck - they're even more durable! Is an $1200 camera with sensitive electronics really a practical consideration to throw in a briefcase, clipped to your belt, or something you will want to always walk around with on the street?

Is it really worth it? Or did Fuji just give you GAS? - You have an XA or a smaller fixed lens film RF, and you're tired of that "toy", and like "Andy's Toys" have thrown them in a box, forgotten in a closet... uh, oh, here comes "Buzz Lightyear..." with his digital sound effects and blinking LEDs.

 

[jsrockit]

Digital has yet to produce - and may never produce, a full-frame equivalent camera at a reasonable cost that you can slip into your pocket like an XA, XA 2 (etc..), Nikon 35Ti, Contaxt T2/T3 or even the line of tiny 80's-90's thrift store point-n-shooters that can be had for a few bucks, literally.

Well, it took Rollei 30 something years to minimize what Leica had created down to the Rollei 35. I think you have to give digital the same time frame to mature before making this proclamation. Not to mention the 35ti and T2/T3 were very expensive in their prime.

Isn't what Fuji X100 "wanters" really after something digital can't give you? Isn't there a compomise even in sensor size to achieve small size? Isn't a "full frame" camera like an "XA" - or similar higher end rangefinder (Oly RC, Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII, etc...) or even one of the better fixed lens point-n-shooters that can be had at truly a tiny fraction of the cost of an X100 simply a better option all things considered? Heck - they're even more durable! Is an $1200 camera with sensitive electronics really a practical consideration to throw in a briefcase, clipped to your belt, or something you will want to always walk around with on the street?

Why does everyone, who has discovered film, never left film, or rediscovered film assume that the rest of us really want to use film and are just fooling ourselves with digital toys? It's nonsense. I actually like and prefer digital these days and do not feel my images suffer from it. I've used film in all formats and I still like the digital workflow better.

A $50 rangefinder like the XA can turn into $1200 camera after approximately having 76 rolls of film processed and scanned (NY lab prices). This bit about sensitive electronics sounds a lot like the argument against digital watches back 30-40 years ago. Electronics are not always frail, plastic is not always bad, and the future is not the enemy.

 

[venchka]

The Fuji Klasse & Natura lines and the Konica Hexar AF come to mind in the upscale spectrum.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I agree with Nick about the difference in OOF results because of smaller size... If AF is considered, small sensor digital compacts can't do it the way film cameras can... It's not the most important factor for some images and situations, but a very important one for others, and the difference is there and is noticeable... If digital is the need, an M9 does it, but without AF... A few years ago I thought by now we would have a few FF AF RFs with a fix 35, but looks like it's not been easy for manufacturers...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[f16sunshine]

I'm witch-oooh Nick. The Fuji is not really a 35mm lens camera (35mm film equivelent). But it's a step in the right direction. If it is a success than maybe we will see what you and I and likely hords of others want. For many the cropped view of a 23mm lens will be a boone and most welcome in this small package. I don't think Film will be the answer for every one of the rest of us but, some. My feeling is that there will be many folks who purchase this Fuji expecting the rendering a 35mm f2 lens would give them on full frame. Disappointment will follow. Will film P+S cameras follow the disappointment.... doubt it .

 

[kshapero]

Nice rant, Nick. How about an M2 and 35 Cron?

 

[Jamie Pillers]

All excellent points, Nick.
I'm one of those that has pre-paid for the X100. Here's why.
1) When I have a small, inexpensive, carry-everywhere film camera with me, I burn up a LOT of film. In the last few years of carrying these cameras around with me, I exposed roughly 500 rolls of color film. Cost of film plus processing (no prints, just CDs from Costco) was between Five and Six THOUSAND dollars!!
2) I love color photography. To print color from film requires even more $$ for Costco... and that would leave me with... Costco prints!!
3) The sophistication you speak of seems equally present in pictures I've made from film and digital. Possibly if I did some wide-open close-up portraits, maybe I'd see the character you're referring to. But for my street photographs, I can't see any difference.
4) The control over printing I now have using the computer with RAW files is WAY beyond what I was skilled enough to do in the color darkroom.
Cheers,
Jamie

 

[btgc]

One can buy cheap cameras from time to time and at same time argue "digital gear giving same functionality, controls and IQ would cost me arm and leg" while money spent on those cheap cameras approaches, well, good DSLR with good lens and even flash. Same with film - hundreds and thousands are spent without deep impact on budget like it could be in case of good digital. 2+2=5, sometimes 🙂

 

[Paul T.]

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

What if we've already got a real fixed lens RF, love it, but need something digital, thanks to deadlines, processing costs, and the fact work is increasingly online?

It's true, of course, that the excitement that the X100 might be nearly as good as the elderly KOnica Hexar is an indictment of today's digital offerings.

 

[ferider]

Good point, Nick.

All this "Sturm" on the X100 has led me to, is to get another Hexar AF; and more film. I'll pick the Hexar up on Wed.

Roland.

 

[dave lackey]

Amen, Roland.

With the M3 and possibly another $700 RF body, I will never have to spend a dime on another camera for the rest of my life. Let's see, even 20 years at tossing a perfectly good $7000 DSLR every two years, that's $50,000. Oh, and the new computers and software will double that easily, so, $100,000. And there are always those $$$ expensive Nikon lenses that are bazookas, and then there are all the digital files that have to be transferred over the years to different formats, and...😱

Gosh, those Leica lenses and such are pretty darned cheap.😛

EDIT: I almost forgot, film cameras never caused nerve damage in my arm or cost me surgery or two years loss of use of my left arm. Or the lingering pain that I still have to tolerate while nerve generation will never be complete.

And before the digi nuts go nuts, I shoot 50% digital.

 

[Paul T.]

Good point, Nick.

All this "Sturm" on the X100 has led me to, is to get another Hexar AF; and more film. I'll pick the Hexar up on Wed.

Roland.

Same here, or rather the HExar will be coming with me for a shoot THursday - I've getting fed up of looking at the files from my GF1. Even reproduced small, there's no comparison.

 

[hausen]

Can't see why it is an either or situation. Does owning one preclude you from having the other?

 

[_goodtimez]

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.
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.

 

[shadowfox]

Nick,
The Fuji wanters (I like that incorrect word, by the way) do not want film. Some of them are bitter film users who are so "over" film. The others never even touch a single roll of film, let alone "get it." So...

All they want is a digital camera that looks like a film camera, operates like one, and produces images that they can tweak to look like those we get from film. 🙂

 

[Paul T.]

Nick,
The Fuji wanters (I like that incorrect word, by the way) do not want film. Some of them are bitter film users who are so "over" film. The others never even touch a single roll of film, let alone "get it." So...

All they want is a digital camera that looks like a film camera, operates like one, and produces images that they can tweak to look like those we get from film. 🙂

Should there be a (10) after that?

I would suggest most people enthusing over the X100 are exactly the people who most like film cameras. The X100 might come close.

I think denigrating people who express enthusiasm for the camera (and I'm not about to buy one) is against the spirit of rff and threatens to reawake those tired film vs digital wars.

 

[sevo]

What if we've already got a real fixed lens RF, love it, but need something digital, thanks to deadlines, processing costs,

So far the only fixed lens camera I ever needed to meet a deadline shot 6x17. And even there processing costs were entirely irrelevant...

 

[_larky]

The X100 is worth it to me purely because film costs £5 a roll, then another £2.50 in stuff an an hour or so to process. So film is expensive. The X100 will give me the form factor, and instant access to my images.

Let's please not start another war about film vs digital. Who cares what other people want to use, really, get over it.

 

[igi]

Can I view my photos on an LCD screen with those "real" cameras?

No.

 

[NickTrop]

Here's what I'm saying. Both film and digital have their places - but it has nothing to do with "image quality". All are capable of good image quality - film and digital. What I'm talking about is "image sophistication" for lack of a better term - and this has to do with film/sensor-plane size...

1. Large format - film only, can't even get this in digital. Produces the most sophisticated image...
2. Medium Format - film "almost" only. Produces very sophisticated images... There are digital sensor but are prohibitively expensive

Now we get to full frame 135-size

3. Full Frame - produce very sophisticated images - both film and digital, but a noticable step down from medium and large format. The key to this size was portability over larger format, the trade off is image sophistication. Digital camera bodies cost thousands, film bodies costs range dramatically but $100 will get you a nicely equiped camera. I won't recap the digital images advantage in low-light. However, there are not many FF digital choices and all are BIG pro cameras with BIG honking lenses... None of these choices are pocketable.

4. APS-C - reasonable image sophistication. digital's sweet-spot Where average camera cost, size, and IQ and "sophistication" all come together if a camera body is in the average 5-700 dollar range. Digital produces much better images than film APS-C. However, digital cameras are still somewhat "largish". Most compacts are easy to carry but not small enough to slip into a pocket. Film cameras have "meh" quality at this size and offerings (afaik) weren't all that terrific.

5. 4/3 - same as above but even more of a trade-off in "image sophistication" in return for a somewhat smaller but still not pocketable size.

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.

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...

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...