Obsessing Over the New Fuji X100? Why Not Just Get a "Real" Fixed Lens RF
- Thread starter NickTrop
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 91
- Views 13K
doolittle
Well-known
I think I will have to spawn a new thread: Obsessing over people Obsessing Over the New Fuji X100 🙂
nightfly
Well-known
This is the same Nick who was raving about his Nikon D5000 being the best thing since sliced bread a few months back?
I do think there is something to the argument and it's probably what's kept me shooting film for so long even though I have a highly digital lifestyle otherwise. The photos coming out of the digital cameras I've used (mostly small sensor) lack a certain quality that I value in my film negatives. After the initial fling they go in the drawer and eventually get sold at a big loss.
I've seen some nice photos come out of the Canon 5D and I've considered buying one used and a few of the Canon primes but it's just large enough to keep me from pulling the trigger.
I think everyone has an individual quality threshold. For me 35mm is just about there. I sometimes regret selling my Mamiya 6 but the negs were almost too clean and the camera just a bit too big. As I get into color though there is something about medium format color film that is really wonderful.
I do think there is something to the argument and it's probably what's kept me shooting film for so long even though I have a highly digital lifestyle otherwise. The photos coming out of the digital cameras I've used (mostly small sensor) lack a certain quality that I value in my film negatives. After the initial fling they go in the drawer and eventually get sold at a big loss.
I've seen some nice photos come out of the Canon 5D and I've considered buying one used and a few of the Canon primes but it's just large enough to keep me from pulling the trigger.
I think everyone has an individual quality threshold. For me 35mm is just about there. I sometimes regret selling my Mamiya 6 but the negs were almost too clean and the camera just a bit too big. As I get into color though there is something about medium format color film that is really wonderful.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Maybe, or maybe not. That thing is not there yet, and it would not be the first digital compact to start out with a massive hype which later proved to have some irritating property that made it a very short-lived phenomenon...
cooltouch
Established
Ooooh, do I detect a bit of elitism here? Just what, pray tell, is a "second tier collector?" Perhaps one who can't afford the best Leica and Nikon rangefinder gear, and instead goes for the Canon QL-17s and Yashica Lynxes? Might it not be argued that all collectors have a rather "absurd pleasure of keeping things" and that this is, in fact, what defines them as "collectors" as opposed to (perish the thought) investors?
Last edited:
MIkhail
Well-known
This is funny. You are trying to rationalize the decision of people in the area where decisons are based on impulse and "like vs. dislkie".
Do I need this digital camera? Of course not. Do I need camera at all? I can go to Sears photo twice a year and get "frozen smile" pictures of my kids and wife there. Hell, for the money I spend I can hire a personal pro photographer. But it's not about the money, isn't it?
Another thing: I could understand if you compare this camera with Konica Hexar AF, or similar. But XA? Please... (I have both, by the way). XA is a cute little pocket camera but nothing beyound that, IMO.
With respect.
Mikhail
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Nick,
You remind me of another matter relative to all this. I suppose its just a problem with lack of brain processing speed, but if I have both film and digital cameras, of approximately the same size and capability I go into 'brain lock'. Which to use... pixels or grain, and why? I can barely get out the door with this weighing on my little brain!
You remind me of another matter relative to all this. I suppose its just a problem with lack of brain processing speed, but if I have both film and digital cameras, of approximately the same size and capability I go into 'brain lock'. Which to use... pixels or grain, and why? I can barely get out the door with this weighing on my little brain!
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Beware, Nick. If the term "image sophistication" catches on, I guarantee you that the first revision to the definition made by the 'critique en masse' will be to argue that CONTENT plays a larger role in sophistication than anything else. 'They' will not accept the term as limited to some sort of technical measurement. 🙂
_larky
Well-known
If a sophisticated image is anything like so-called sophisticated conversation it can bugger off back to the 80's where it belongs, along with all the ****e music.
F
former member
Guest
ANDY loved BOTH Buzz and Woody, played with Both of them after the initial "new out of the box". AND Woody and Buzz became BEST Friends!
So, I think everyone can see the analogy of Buzz and Woody as the best of Digital and Film being used together. New and Old, Electronic and Mechanical.
I kept my Panda Canonet Ql17l and Minolta Hi-Matic 9. I've kept the latter out of other's hands for 42 years now.
So, I think everyone can see the analogy of Buzz and Woody as the best of Digital and Film being used together. New and Old, Electronic and Mechanical.
I kept my Panda Canonet Ql17l and Minolta Hi-Matic 9. I've kept the latter out of other's hands for 42 years now.
Last edited by a moderator:
d_ross
Registered User
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Perhaps as much as anything, Nick via the technical aspects relative to different mediums he talks of, is in a way also talking about the differing aesthetics offered by film and digital, this is not a pro or con to either medium, it is an actual physical difference. For example the way light is absorbed into film is totally different to how light is received by a digital sensor, this also goes for the difference between the way light is absorbed by light sensitive paper compared to ink landing on a coated paper. All of which results in a different type of sophistication possible from the two mediums, we need to understand both and supply the appropriately Sophisticated images to the particular type of Sophisticate they relate to.
Sophistication; see sophist . Meaning "wordly wisdom, refinement, discrimination"
Sophisticated, see ideas, tastes, or ways as the result of education worldly experience, etc
The sophistication I see, that Nick talks of, is that of one image appearance distinctly different to that of another, and as sophistication allows for personal interpretation, it is just one mans view. However, his view is supported by many who think about and understand the Sophistication he is talking about! The beauty of film and of digital is to be found firmly in their respective differences, dismissing or simply not understanding those differences or not being prepared to accept them is foolish and contrary to improving ones work.
[/FONT]
Sophistication; see sophist . Meaning "wordly wisdom, refinement, discrimination"
Sophisticated, see ideas, tastes, or ways as the result of education worldly experience, etc
The sophistication I see, that Nick talks of, is that of one image appearance distinctly different to that of another, and as sophistication allows for personal interpretation, it is just one mans view. However, his view is supported by many who think about and understand the Sophistication he is talking about! The beauty of film and of digital is to be found firmly in their respective differences, dismissing or simply not understanding those differences or not being prepared to accept them is foolish and contrary to improving ones work.
[/FONT]
DFNDRMP
Member
why?
why?
What's the point of having "image sophistication" if all you do is talk about it on the internet?
why?
What's the point of having "image sophistication" if all you do is talk about it on the internet?
NickTrop
Veteran
This is a good point in the evolution of the concept of "image sophistication". I hereby proclaim as creater of new photographic lingo there to be, indeed, two variations of image sophistication:
1. Technical Image Sophistication (TIS), which is what I am alluding to in this thread...
2. Content Image Sophistication (CIS), which emraphoto has defined here (see above) but which I shall, nonetheless, take full credit for...
Why not discuss matters of interest in a discussion forum? Note there is also a large and active RFF photo gallery. 😎
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Paul, I am not denigrating anyone.
That's why there's a smiley at the end of my sentence. Like this 🙂
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Nick -
I don't know if I like the X100, but my take is:
1. Fixed lens RFs, historically, were never positioned as serious tools nor designed to be. Consistent with their misogynistic era, they were marketed as dumbed-down cameras for women and positioned below any manufacturer's amateur SLR line. Or dumbed-down cameras for rich men. Of the cameras you mention, only the Contaxes (and the Rollei 35S, Nikon 35ti, and the Hexar AF - all of which priced at the equivalent of $1,200 in the day) are really good optically. And none of the cameras you mentioned in your original post hold film flat enough to take full advantage of the optics they do have. Compact digital cameras are positioned no differently, but they are (a) smaller; (b) built to much higher tolerances by robots and individually calibrated on computerized test fixtures; and (c) do not have film flatness to contend with. An APS-C camera with microlenses keyed to the lens focal length is keyed to a different market altogether.
2. The difference in depth of field (regardless of whether you call it by its generic name or some new trademark) is negligible between an APS-C digital camera with an f/2 lens and fixed RFs, most of which had f/2.8 lenses. An APS-C digital will, for the most part, make better use of its wide aperture because the lenses are generally made better - and because it uses closed-loop focusing that can be arbitrarily trained on any point in the frame. The X100, having an ND filter in it, can also maintain "sophistication" in a much wider variety of situations.
3. APS-C sensors already crush the low-light capabilities of film cameras. This is even filtering down to the 1/1.6" sensors. Neopan 1600 deserved to die.
4. Pictures shot in color with 35mm cameras are vulnerable to mishandling in processing - to say nothing of long-term storage or what you are going to do when minilabs have completely disappeared and competent film scanners are no longer supported by computer operating systems (that will happen far faster than TIFF, JPEG or Lightroom go away - and if you own a Nikon scanner and a Mac Pro, it's already happened with 10.6). Scanners are already discontinued for the most part.
5. With most 35mm fixed-lens RFs, you get result that rarely exceeds 6 megapixels (since virtually all minilab output is now Frontier or Noritsu). Although you might argue that you get "4000 dpi" out of fixed-lens 35mm cameras of yore by scanning, the reality is that the system performance yields at or below 12mp - and for that, your ISO is pretty much 400 or less. And you go through a lot of time and effort to get that. Query why many pro 24x36 digital cameras are still 12mp.
6. The money argument does not make a lot of sense anymore. Good film and competent C-41 negative processing (meaning test strips run every day and not done at Costco) runs about $8 per roll of 36 (or even 24). Once you shoot 150 rolls of film (5,400 exposures in 36 rolls of 3,600 in 24s), it costs more to own the fixed-lens film rangefinder (assuming that RF cost you zero).* The money argument might have had some sway when digital cameras cost $5K, but we're competing with a lower-cost digital camera and film that costs almost twice as much as it did way back when.
In all, I think your argument (though posed in the form of a question) doesn't hold much water anymore. It would have been straight out of my thinking 7 years ago, but that's the better part of a decade and a geologic age in digital cameras.
Dante
I don't know if I like the X100, but my take is:
1. Fixed lens RFs, historically, were never positioned as serious tools nor designed to be. Consistent with their misogynistic era, they were marketed as dumbed-down cameras for women and positioned below any manufacturer's amateur SLR line. Or dumbed-down cameras for rich men. Of the cameras you mention, only the Contaxes (and the Rollei 35S, Nikon 35ti, and the Hexar AF - all of which priced at the equivalent of $1,200 in the day) are really good optically. And none of the cameras you mentioned in your original post hold film flat enough to take full advantage of the optics they do have. Compact digital cameras are positioned no differently, but they are (a) smaller; (b) built to much higher tolerances by robots and individually calibrated on computerized test fixtures; and (c) do not have film flatness to contend with. An APS-C camera with microlenses keyed to the lens focal length is keyed to a different market altogether.
2. The difference in depth of field (regardless of whether you call it by its generic name or some new trademark) is negligible between an APS-C digital camera with an f/2 lens and fixed RFs, most of which had f/2.8 lenses. An APS-C digital will, for the most part, make better use of its wide aperture because the lenses are generally made better - and because it uses closed-loop focusing that can be arbitrarily trained on any point in the frame. The X100, having an ND filter in it, can also maintain "sophistication" in a much wider variety of situations.
3. APS-C sensors already crush the low-light capabilities of film cameras. This is even filtering down to the 1/1.6" sensors. Neopan 1600 deserved to die.
4. Pictures shot in color with 35mm cameras are vulnerable to mishandling in processing - to say nothing of long-term storage or what you are going to do when minilabs have completely disappeared and competent film scanners are no longer supported by computer operating systems (that will happen far faster than TIFF, JPEG or Lightroom go away - and if you own a Nikon scanner and a Mac Pro, it's already happened with 10.6). Scanners are already discontinued for the most part.
5. With most 35mm fixed-lens RFs, you get result that rarely exceeds 6 megapixels (since virtually all minilab output is now Frontier or Noritsu). Although you might argue that you get "4000 dpi" out of fixed-lens 35mm cameras of yore by scanning, the reality is that the system performance yields at or below 12mp - and for that, your ISO is pretty much 400 or less. And you go through a lot of time and effort to get that. Query why many pro 24x36 digital cameras are still 12mp.
6. The money argument does not make a lot of sense anymore. Good film and competent C-41 negative processing (meaning test strips run every day and not done at Costco) runs about $8 per roll of 36 (or even 24). Once you shoot 150 rolls of film (5,400 exposures in 36 rolls of 3,600 in 24s), it costs more to own the fixed-lens film rangefinder (assuming that RF cost you zero).* The money argument might have had some sway when digital cameras cost $5K, but we're competing with a lower-cost digital camera and film that costs almost twice as much as it did way back when.
*If you "paid" yourself even minimum wage to develop your own b/w, you are paying even more.
7. I think the discussion of "today's toy, tomorrow's trash" is amusing because fixed-lens RFs pretty much all ended up on shelves (and at thrift stores and garage sales) for decades. The only reason why they are cheap is because they were rendered obsolete by other film cameras.
In all, I think your argument (though posed in the form of a question) doesn't hold much water anymore. It would have been straight out of my thinking 7 years ago, but that's the better part of a decade and a geologic age in digital cameras.
Dante
Last edited:
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
As far as small format goes, yes. The Makina, Makina 67, Fuji G(S)W and similar cameras were professional gear and generally not even available through consumer stores.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
panda88888
Newbie
We've drifted away from the original question. Anyway, to me the attractiveness of X100 is that,
1. It's digital.
2. Dedicated manual controls.
3. Good lens and sensor
I just got my first rangefinder (Canonet QL17), and to tell the truth it is a lot more effort to work with film than digital. Developing and scanning takes time, and I still have to post process anyway--not to mention the film/development cost. Although the X100 is priced out of my range, I am hoping that it will inspire other cameras of similar design and feature in the marketplace and drive the price down.
1. It's digital.
2. Dedicated manual controls.
3. Good lens and sensor
I just got my first rangefinder (Canonet QL17), and to tell the truth it is a lot more effort to work with film than digital. Developing and scanning takes time, and I still have to post process anyway--not to mention the film/development cost. Although the X100 is priced out of my range, I am hoping that it will inspire other cameras of similar design and feature in the marketplace and drive the price down.
Chris101
summicronia
Similar threads
- Article
