Roger Hicks
Veteran
By the simple expedient of omitting a few irrelevant features such as the rangefinder and interchangeable lenses, let alone fast lenses.
Where's your '30 years' coming from, that matter? Ah, that would be the 1962 Rollei 35, 30 years after the Leica II. Nothing like the Retina II of 1936, then.
Cheers,
R.
hausen
Well-known
Price point sensor sweet spots mean very little to me. I love the look of this new Fuji offering, I love it size compared to my recently sold Mamiya 6 or Leica M6 and have very rarely if ever have put a camera in my pocket. The price is the price you have to pay to play, and I agree with my fellow Kiwi above it will pay for itself in less than a year for me in film, chemicals and scanning costs and will give me more time to be out using it. Don't see it as pro-digital or anti-film, it just is what it is. Will be my 3rd Fuji and have loved all of it's predecessors and if I don't I will sell it. A no brainer.
bgb
Well-known
Price in NZ confirmed by Greg at Photo and Video $1695 with 50 coming to this country, they are taking orders , I'm waiting to see the reviews but I'm keen as!
It's less that the cost of film and chemicals for one year I would imagine 1695 frames the first week ... yeah really
l
It's less that the cost of film and chemicals for one year I would imagine 1695 frames the first week ... yeah really
l
NickTrop
Veteran
Uggh... you're all hopeless... Hopeless!
Oh - and take a look at the gallery here at RFF. Do note the level of image sophistication, and take a look at what they were shot with... You will find very few 4/3rds stuff... some APSC, some FF. Most are film, and the most sophisticated are shot with film, and you will find the most sophisticated among them shot with medium format film if you're still not getting where I'm coming from...
Oh - and take a look at the gallery here at RFF. Do note the level of image sophistication, and take a look at what they were shot with...
You will find very few 4/3rds stuff... some APSC, some FF. Most are film, and the most sophisticated are shot with film, and you will find the most sophisticated among them shot with medium format film if you're still not getting where I'm coming from...
Last edited:
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
And lets not forget ISO and white balance on the fly! Maybe the b&w-only users here don't care much about that, but for someone that sees color as a very important aspect of the world these things are incredibly useful. Being able to do that without lugging a giant, ill-shaped DSLR is heaven.
For those here that think there's some 'obsessing' going on, the fault is with Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Olympus, Ricoh, and all the rest. Where's there an equivalent even close to what the Fuji brings to the table with respect to a small compact rangefinder-ish camera? Leica? Yeah, for $$$$. But otherwise? Nada. Obsession? Nope... just relieved and happy. And now lets see if this thing pushes the others to compete!
For those here that think there's some 'obsessing' going on, the fault is with Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Olympus, Ricoh, and all the rest. Where's there an equivalent even close to what the Fuji brings to the table with respect to a small compact rangefinder-ish camera? Leica? Yeah, for $$$$. But otherwise? Nada. Obsession? Nope... just relieved and happy. And now lets see if this thing pushes the others to compete!
daveisbest
Established
Exactly. I use 35mm film exclusively right now, and 70% of my work is done with fixed lens cameras. I love film, and don't find it too expensive. However I hate the tedium of scanning negatives onto my computer. I have some negatives which have been sitting beside my computer desk for more than a year waiting to be scanned. Don't get me started on dust or scratch removal.
If I'm shooting an assignment the client wants the digital files in a day or two, not in a week. I hate using cameras which don't have an OVF or have manual controls that are hidden in some stupid menu. Thus the X100 is the first affordable digital camera I would feel comfortable using, assuming it lives up to the hype(if that's even possible).
GSNfan
Well-known
A sophisticated image is created by a sophisticated photographer. gear has nothing to do with it.
Give the best gear to a yahoo and all you'll get would be yahoo-like unsophisticated images.
Give the best gear to a yahoo and all you'll get would be yahoo-like unsophisticated images.
Arjay
Time Traveller
Nick - you're offending the audience (as per Peter Handke).
All you do is postulate a self-imposed attribute, your 'sophistication', just like some marketing geek that is in dire need of some dreamt-up new buzzword to make the competition look inadequate. By doing this, you declare the rest of the readership here as uneducated and ignorant. I think your statements say more about you than about your audience.
You are right that the larger the sensor / film format, the more DOF control and 3D separation will the user get. But that's rather trivial - nothing we didn't know before.
Apart from that, all your remaining assumptions are unfounded:
The user does indeed have a lot of freedom in controlling and managing DOF, even when using smaller sensor / film formats: He just has to get close to his subject and see to it that the background is far away.
Digital image files per se do not inherently have a specifically 'harsh' look - that all depends on the person who does the post-processing. Rich tonality can be achieved from digital files just as well - just as with darkroom competence, digital files require a specific light room experience. If such files are treated competently, they can be up to par with 'wet' processing.
Lastly, the assumption that digital cameras are less stable, durable or reliable than their mechanical ancestors is a stubborn myth that has survived in the minds of those who suffered from the first generations of (admittedly crappy) digital cameras. Technology has come a long way (I can assure you I know what I am talking about, as I started my career in semiconductor manufacturing QC). Vibration resistance and temperature stability have come up to a level that electronics today performs equally well as mechanics. And when eleectronics fail, so will mechanics when it gets too hot or too cold.
Next comes the battery myth: Power consumption in modern cameras has improved by several orders of magnitude, to a degree that it is'nt a serious problem any more. Carrying one or two spare rechargeable batteries really isn't an issue with a camera that doesn't need voluminous film cartridges.
So, if there's no sophistication in a photographers images, it's not the camera's fault.
All you do is postulate a self-imposed attribute, your 'sophistication', just like some marketing geek that is in dire need of some dreamt-up new buzzword to make the competition look inadequate. By doing this, you declare the rest of the readership here as uneducated and ignorant. I think your statements say more about you than about your audience.
You are right that the larger the sensor / film format, the more DOF control and 3D separation will the user get. But that's rather trivial - nothing we didn't know before.
Apart from that, all your remaining assumptions are unfounded:
The user does indeed have a lot of freedom in controlling and managing DOF, even when using smaller sensor / film formats: He just has to get close to his subject and see to it that the background is far away.
Digital image files per se do not inherently have a specifically 'harsh' look - that all depends on the person who does the post-processing. Rich tonality can be achieved from digital files just as well - just as with darkroom competence, digital files require a specific light room experience. If such files are treated competently, they can be up to par with 'wet' processing.
Lastly, the assumption that digital cameras are less stable, durable or reliable than their mechanical ancestors is a stubborn myth that has survived in the minds of those who suffered from the first generations of (admittedly crappy) digital cameras. Technology has come a long way (I can assure you I know what I am talking about, as I started my career in semiconductor manufacturing QC). Vibration resistance and temperature stability have come up to a level that electronics today performs equally well as mechanics. And when eleectronics fail, so will mechanics when it gets too hot or too cold.
Next comes the battery myth: Power consumption in modern cameras has improved by several orders of magnitude, to a degree that it is'nt a serious problem any more. Carrying one or two spare rechargeable batteries really isn't an issue with a camera that doesn't need voluminous film cartridges.
So, if there's no sophistication in a photographers images, it's not the camera's fault.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
I'd have a gf1 with 20mm f1.7 over an olympus XA for 'travel' and every day shooting anyday. Reason - versatility, low comparative ongoing cost, gf1/gf2 significantly more reliable, 20mm f1.7 is a significantly better lens than the XA 35mm, similar size, gf AF's WAY faster than I can MF the XA, 20mm is significantly faster, GF is manual capable and has better external controls.
If you load an XA with 400 speed film, you're pretty limited in what light you can shoot. It's shutter only goes to 1/500th, so you're not going to get any subject separation in any kind of bright light anyway, and as soon as it gets just a little bit dark you have to get an 800 or 1600 speed film in there due to the slow lens.
I'd love the X100 to be full frame, but the aps-c sensor will be just fine. As for film comparisons, last overseas trip I shot 15-20 rolls of film and it was a nightmare to get it all processed and finished, was quite frustrating and expensive really. By the end my digital shots from the 5d were significantly better in quality than the film shots using the same lenses and a 1n.
If you load an XA with 400 speed film, you're pretty limited in what light you can shoot. It's shutter only goes to 1/500th, so you're not going to get any subject separation in any kind of bright light anyway, and as soon as it gets just a little bit dark you have to get an 800 or 1600 speed film in there due to the slow lens.
I'd love the X100 to be full frame, but the aps-c sensor will be just fine. As for film comparisons, last overseas trip I shot 15-20 rolls of film and it was a nightmare to get it all processed and finished, was quite frustrating and expensive really. By the end my digital shots from the 5d were significantly better in quality than the film shots using the same lenses and a 1n.
NickTrop
Veteran
Fair enough... I might add, I carry a camera with me at all times. It was my new years resolution and it's the first one I've ever kept. I carry a small sensor digital camera for precisely the reasons you've mentioned... I can't keep up with the film costs, processing etc. so the little digicam augments film - or it might be the other way around.
However, your comments somewhat are aligned with my point. Although the Fuji certaily is capable of APSC-level image sophistication, the size of the Fuji precludes its use as an "always have on you" camera. Additionally, its inflated price knocks it out of the APSC "sweet spot".
The only cameras that truly offer full frame image sophistication that are durable enough and small enough to comfortably carry with you all the time are a handful of cameras that were designed in the later part of the modern film era - such as the XA line, the 35Ti, and some fixed lens point-n-shoot models, like the Minota AF-C.
Significantly less expensivethan the X100 to offset film consumable costs, more durable than the X100, significantly larger imaging plane offering more "image sophistication" than the X100...
The are all-around more pragmatic and sensible choice, it seems to me, all things considered.
NickTrop
Veteran
How do I account for that? 1. You are a good photographer who is able to overcome the handicap of the tool you have chosen to use... 2. You are the exception that proves the rule.
NickTrop
Veteran
Correct. This in conjunction (implicit) with the photographer's ability equates to "image sophistication"(c).
cooltouch
Established
When I first saw photos of the X100, my first impulse was "I want one!" But after reading on a bit further about its specs -- and then its price -- my feelings of excitement were dimmed somewhat. But I definitely have to give props to Fuji for coming up with a design that causes folks like me to have this sort of gut-level, knee-jerk reaction.
As to this ongoing debate, in which at least some attempt is being made at restricting the "film vs. digital" discussion to "rangefinders," I think we should stop dancing around the obvious and just admit it. If you're an old graybeard like me, who cut his (or her) teeth on manual focus, manual exposure gear, then -- in spite of all digital's obvious advantages -- we are gonna have a soft spot for film, and will attempt whenever possible to come to its defense. Just admit it. Sophistication be damned.
And as for you yabbos who have never run a roll of film through anything besides a disposable camera, show some respect for your elders. Cuz when you're our age, you'll likely be waxing poetic over the early pioneering days of digital, and looking askance at the latest technology that all the younger set is using in that future time. Just remember this: if you're fortunate, you'll be old too someday, and you'll have to put up with all the yahoos around who are absolutely convinced they already know everything there is to know about a subject that will be two hundred years old by then -- without having bothered to learn any of its history, of course, because "who needs it?"
As to this ongoing debate, in which at least some attempt is being made at restricting the "film vs. digital" discussion to "rangefinders," I think we should stop dancing around the obvious and just admit it. If you're an old graybeard like me, who cut his (or her) teeth on manual focus, manual exposure gear, then -- in spite of all digital's obvious advantages -- we are gonna have a soft spot for film, and will attempt whenever possible to come to its defense. Just admit it. Sophistication be damned.
And as for you yabbos who have never run a roll of film through anything besides a disposable camera, show some respect for your elders. Cuz when you're our age, you'll likely be waxing poetic over the early pioneering days of digital, and looking askance at the latest technology that all the younger set is using in that future time. Just remember this: if you're fortunate, you'll be old too someday, and you'll have to put up with all the yahoos around who are absolutely convinced they already know everything there is to know about a subject that will be two hundred years old by then -- without having bothered to learn any of its history, of course, because "who needs it?"
Chris101
summicronia
I love that term - image sophistication! It's much better than the oft abbreviated Image Quality. So much more RFF, if you know what I mean.
And I know that you do!
And I know that you do!
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Can we please have a new Forum on "Image Sophistication"?
_larky
Well-known
I think the term Image Sophistication belongs tied to a pole in front of a firing squad. What a load of crap.
Use what you wanna use, shoot what you wanna shoot, and ignore all the idiots who say otherwise.
Use what you wanna use, shoot what you wanna shoot, and ignore all the idiots who say otherwise.
btgc
Veteran
IS and IQ belong to vocabulary of photographer.
NickTrop
Veteran
Yes - Image Sophistication(c) should definitely be in the lexicon. It is far more encompassing than mere "image quality". I agree in full. The term that should be "in front of the firing squad" is "digital negative".
GSNfan
Well-known
The sad thing about fixed lens RFs are that due to their cheap selling rate, most clean and functioning ones are horded by second tier collectors who keep them for some sort of absurd pleasure of keeping things and thus making it hard to find clean and working condition quality fixed lens RFs.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Members are right about Nick having his tone: we all have our own tone.
Members are right about the X100 can be a good tool if it is well used.
But Nick is very right about the reduced ability the X100 has for OOF rendering at any given f-stop: no matter if a photographer takes care of distance between foreground and background while using the X100, it's a tool that's inferior there, and the same careful photographer can go further in isolating subjects if as Nick says, uses the real thing... It's as simple as that: its attractive f/2 35mm equivalent lens can't produce the kind of images a film 35mm f/2 has always produced because it's not a real f/2 35mm. The X100 as other small digital cameras just can't do it no matter the photographer's skills: it can do it to a lower degree only. Who cares about it and when, is another story, but as tools, they just can't do the same for any image if the same conditions are used. In the other hand, the X100 is superior than most film cameras for producing near free photographs, or for seeing an image on a screen, or for AF. But in general Nick (to me) is right, and it's an important observation in a public forum because lots of people don't know it and just think 23mm is equivalent to 35mm so let's find images in the net from 35mm lenses at f/2 to see the bokeh I'll be able to get with my X100...
Cheers,
Juan
Members are right about the X100 can be a good tool if it is well used.
But Nick is very right about the reduced ability the X100 has for OOF rendering at any given f-stop: no matter if a photographer takes care of distance between foreground and background while using the X100, it's a tool that's inferior there, and the same careful photographer can go further in isolating subjects if as Nick says, uses the real thing... It's as simple as that: its attractive f/2 35mm equivalent lens can't produce the kind of images a film 35mm f/2 has always produced because it's not a real f/2 35mm. The X100 as other small digital cameras just can't do it no matter the photographer's skills: it can do it to a lower degree only. Who cares about it and when, is another story, but as tools, they just can't do the same for any image if the same conditions are used. In the other hand, the X100 is superior than most film cameras for producing near free photographs, or for seeing an image on a screen, or for AF. But in general Nick (to me) is right, and it's an important observation in a public forum because lots of people don't know it and just think 23mm is equivalent to 35mm so let's find images in the net from 35mm lenses at f/2 to see the bokeh I'll be able to get with my X100...
Cheers,
Juan