OK - So what do we think of the DPReview Review?

[Paul T.]

It's good that they gave the camera a good kicking, on the firmware side.

Of course there are workarounds, but it will be a good reminder to companies that a great concept needs excellence in the details, too. The more criticism they get - and losing a "recommended" rating for an innovative product such as this must be a blow - the more likely they are to update the firmware. We only need look at their peers - Leica, Olympus - to see examples of people responding to criticism with new firmware.

 

[willie_901]

...

@Willie_901

I have mine set up and use as you do and it just works. I took off the cheap UV filter I had on the lens and what a difference. I was getting lots of flare and strange lighting effects when shooting with the sun high and on the edge of the frame but after removing the filter, problem gone. I spent quite a bit of time tweaking the camera last night and experimenting and I'm now much happier with it - was on the verge of ditching it the other day. I think its a camera you have to work at and I'm going to work at it some more.

Gid,

One does have to invest some effort to understand how to make the X100 work for them. Early on I also had serious doubts for about half a day. Then I set some time aside to figure out how to make the X100 do what I needed it to do. Ever since I've been happy.

 

[GSNfan]

I got to try one for a bit the other day and combine that with seeing the image quality and lens quality, I'm sold. But, not right now, maybe after I have shed some of the DSLR gear that unfortunately no one is buying.

 

[jsrockit]

The more criticism they get - and losing a "recommended" rating for an innovative product such as this must be a blow - the more likely they are to update the firmware.

I wonder if Fuji Japan knows that dpreview even exists.

 

[j6ppc]

Fuji has no track record of major firmware changes.

They are obviously bad at firmware.

Then there's the pride factor. A major firmware revision would be embarrassing to the senior executives responsible for firmware.

Well this on Twitter suggests there might be a firmware upgrade in the works:

Jonathanjk@fujiguys After reading the DP review, I hope Fuji is listening with regard to the firmware and are working on it.

The Fuji Guys @Jonathanjk the review will actually help get our point across for a real update. There will be a #Fuji meeting in NY this Thursday

--Lets hope so although the camera is pretty nice to use as is once one takes ---the time to get to know it

 

[dougi]

Yes it certainly takes time to learn, and you will end up having to use it 'it's way' rather than perhaps the way you would like. eg the focus parallax issue (which DPReview described as a minor issue but IMO is far from it) will result in more reliance on the EVF for those using AF.

I like it, but it was almost a relief when the shutter button developed a problem and I had to post it off to Fuji. Despite the poor high ISO, going back to the M8 at least meant you could use the OVF all the time.

 

[jsrockit]

eg the focus parallax issue (which DPReview described as a minor issue but IMO is far from it) will result in more reliance on the EVF for those using AF.

Focus paralax issue? Can you explain?

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Perhaps if Fuji had spent as much time and money on producing a camera without such quirks and shortcomings, as they spent on all the hype about the camera, which they themselves generated, we would have a much better camera.

 

[jsrockit]

we would have a much better camera.

Do you own one or have you just read the reviews? True, it could be better... but it is still pretty great as is.

 

[rxmd]

Focus paralax issue? Can you explain?

It's the issue described in page 6. There is parallax between the OVF and the lens, simply because the OVF is not on the lens axis. The OVF, however, displays the autofocus rectangle always in the same place. For close-up subject this means that the OVF shows the autofocus rectangle in a different place than what the autofocus is actually looking at. This can lead to misfocused images.

There is basically no easy workaround for this. The only way to compensate for parallax is if you know how far away something is. However, in the absence of a rangefinder, the only way for the camera to find out about distances is the autofocus. In this case this is not very useful, because at close distance it may autofocus somewhere else than indicated in the OVF, precisely because of the parallax it's supposed to compensate for.

The EVF doesn't have this problem because it always shows an accurate through-the-lens image without parallax.

 

[rxmd]

I looked at the camera last week in Berlin.

What put me off was the sluggish operation, in particular RAW write times. I have a Sigma DP1 and sometimes lost a fair number of shots because of the slow RAW write times (5-6 seconds). Looking at the blinking red LED on an otherwise useless camera in a rapidly-changing situation was a real putoff. From a 1000 EUR camera I expect more (the DP1 was under 150 EUR).

While it's otherwise a fine camera, I probably won't consider it again until they get RAW write times down into the 1 second range, or at least implement a sensibly-sized buffer for a couple of images. I agree with the reviewer that they probably crammed some compact camera processor into this one that doesn't deal well with large files. Unlike things like menu placements and button assignments, this would be a real hardware modification that we're unlikely to see until the next model.

 

[DavidX]

It's the issue described in page 6. There is parallax between the OVF and the lens, simply because the OVF is not on the lens axis. The OVF, however, displays the autofocus rectangle always in the same place. For close-up subject this means that the OVF shows the autofocus rectangle in a different place than what the autofocus is actually looking at. This can lead to misfocused images.

There is basically no easy workaround for this. The only way to compensate for parallax is if you know how far away something is. However, in the absence of a rangefinder, the only way for the camera to find out about distances is the autofocus. In this case this is not very useful, because at close distance it may autofocus somewhere else than indicated in the OVF, precisely because of the parallax it's supposed to compensate for.

The EVF doesn't have this problem because it always shows an accurate through-the-lens image without parallax.

^^ Yes, that's well explained; and for me this is no biggie, because it HAS to be this way. That's probably one reason too why you can't make the focussing recatangle as small in MF as you can in AF - which refuses to work too close with the OVF and forces EVF (too many acronyms there)
But as rxmd says - there is no way the OFV can know how close you are (and hence how much to shift the posn of the focus rectangle) until you've focussed.
I think they've gone the right way with this, because what's the alternative? I certainly do not want the OFV forbidden me at close distances; I'd much rather be expected to be able to work out the best situations for OVF, EVF etc myself.

Many times I am finding things odd, and then on further consideration thinking "Ah, yes, so that's why it's like that."

DPR does make many valid points, but there are so many new things with the camera that I really am very impressed with how much Fuji has managed to get correct right rom the start.

 

[jsrockit]

It's the issue described in page 6. There is parallax between the OVF and the lens, simply because the OVF is not on the lens axis. The OVF, however, displays the autofocus rectangle always in the same place. For close-up subject this means that the OVF shows the autofocus rectangle in a different place than what the autofocus is actually looking at. This can lead to misfocused images.

There is basically no easy workaround for this. The only way to compensate for parallax is if you know how far away something is. However, in the absence of a rangefinder, the only way for the camera to find out about distances is the autofocus. In this case this is not very useful, because at close distance it may autofocus somewhere else than indicated in the OVF, precisely because of the parallax it's supposed to compensate for.

The EVF doesn't have this problem because it always shows an accurate through-the-lens image without parallax.

Yes, but this is only at very close-up distances... which is the same reason we don't do close-up with rangefinders. So yes, the EVF comes in handy for close-up work. However, if you are using this camera for close-up work only, I think its the wrong camera.

When using the OVF, the way I do it is the to press down half way to focus on the thing I want in focus and then reframe... seems to work for me i.e. the frames adjust for parallax at that point and my photos are in focus. I'm used to working this way with AF cameras.

Again, reviews are good and all... but using the camera is actually a better indication of how it really works. So many of the things I see in reviews are no big deal and / or easy to get around.

 

[rxmd]

Yes, but this is only at very close-up distances... which is the same reason we don't do close-up with rangefinders.

Actually with a rangefinder we don't have this problem - the focusing is manual, so the camera can compensate for parallax. The X100 could do the same for manual focus, but then you don't need a focus rectangle to begin with.

The problem here is autofocus. Off-axis viewfinders, autofocus and closeups indeed don't go well together.

I agree that this is a relatively specialized kind of flaw that matters only to people who want the OVF to take closeups of flowers, tree branches and the like.

 

[jsrockit]

Actually with a rangefinder we don't have this problem - the focusing is manual, so the camera can compensate for parallax. The X100 could do the same for manual focus, but then you don't need a focus rectangle to begin with.

The problem here is autofocus. Off-axis viewfinders, autofocus and closeups indeed don't go well together.

I agree that this is a relatively specialized kind of flaw that matters only to people who want the OVF to take closeups of flowers, tree branches and the like.

My point is that this comes into play at around .7 meters or less on the Fuji... the exact spot where many MF rangefinders stop focusing. Should Fuji have just left off the EVF instead and let the camera only focus to .7 meters like a Leica?

 

[DavidX]

Yes, but this is only at very close-up distances... which is the same reason we don't do close-up with rangefinders. So yes, the EVF comes in handy for close-up work. However, if you are using this camera for close-up work only, I think its the wrong camera.

Yes, for sure - but for me at least this is the camera we can have with us when we don't have the whole kit. I keep coming back to the sort of work I'm familiar with, but suppose for example I had a gig doing a food and wine shot in a restaurant under natural light and then a potrait of the chef. By choice I'd have a bag of gear.
BUT - I could do the job with the X100 if I had to, and provide what by my reckoning are really high quality files. I think that's really important and to me makes the camera so valuable.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Do you own one or have you just read the reviews? True, it could be better... but it is still pretty great as is.

I have a friend who got his about two weeks ago. I spent a day shooting with him and used the camera for several hours, as well as playing around with the camera at his house, afterwards. My first impressions were positive, especially after I saw the images on his computer. But, it has some weird quirks, the long write time being one of them that I found annoying. Don't get me wrong, I liked the camera overall, but I would not buy one, especially at the current price. Now, my friend absolutely loves his. I suppose it just comes down to shooting preferences for each individual photographer.

When this camera was first announced, I was as excited as everyone else and could not wait until it appeared. But then, the Fuji hype machine kicked in which I found completely idiotic. That is when I started having my doubts. I understand marketing, but I found the Fuji campaign pretentious and overbearing.

 

[willie_901]

Well this on Twitter suggests there might be a firmware upgrade in the works:

Too bad the X100 group in Tokyo for post-production firmware development doesn't report to the FujiGuys .

Too bad the FujiGuys can't unilaterally increase the budget of the X100 firmware group in case the changes to address the DPReview appendix require a budget increase.

 

[willie_901]

...

There is basically no easy workaround for this. The only way to compensate for parallax is if you know how far away something is.

...

The EVF doesn't have this problem because it always shows an accurate through-the-lens image without parallax.

Bing! Compose/meter in OVF.

Bing! Switch to EVF focus, then lock focus.

Bing! Switch back to OVF, compose (if needed) and record photograph.

Bing! Problem solved in about the same time it took to focus my ZI M film body.

And yes, I wish the RAW write time was quicker too.

 

[RayPA]

I looked at the camera last week in Berlin.

What put me off was the sluggish operation, in particular RAW write times. I have a Sigma DP1 and sometimes lost a fair number of shots because of the slow RAW write times (5-6 seconds). Looking at the blinking red LED on an otherwise useless camera in a rapidly-changing situation was a real putoff. From a 1000 EUR camera I expect more (the DP1 was under 150 EUR).

The first spec I looked at in the (DP) review was the write times. I was disappointed. Not being able to anticipate the write-time performance was the one thing that kept me from being an early adopter of the camera (same with the DP series), and now it looks like it's going to be the issue that keeps me from buying one. 😡

I'm very pleased that the IQ is getting high marks. I could deal with all the other idiosyncrasies listed in the review, because, my intended usage of this camera (street/candids/quick shooting) would require a pretty simple setup. I'm sure I could find a way to make the camera work for me. However, I find slow write times to be unacceptable (check that: unbearable) exactly for the reasons stated above. I've been shooting mostly L/F JPEG, but I've been waiting for the right camera to move to RAW. The X100 doesn't appear to be that camera. Based on everything else in the the review--except for the write times--I like this camera. However, I'm not sure I want a $1200 JPEG-maker. 😕



/