Frankie
Speaking Frankly
There are two German products that defy logic: Porsche 911 and Leica M.
The rear engine Porsche 911 design was contrary to laws of physics [as was the VW Beetle by the spiritual founding professor], but 4+ decades of dogged development efforts created a cult following. However, you will still read [disguised] negative remarks from journalists and critics.
The Leica M VF [M3] was originally conceived for use with a 50mm lens. 90 and 135mm framelines was easy to add, so put it on. Wide-angles was a whole different matter; macro...forget it. Decades of weird lenses Monty Python style, goggles, dual-range... later, a cult following was also established.
There was nothing classic or retro about the M body, compound curves and non-boxy designs were beyond machining operations of the day...CNC was invented much later. The M body design was just "old".
The X100 was never touted to be anything but itself...RFF opinions notwithstanding.
A common and simplistic description about the X100 design was "retro". I would rather call it "true" Japanese style. You will understand what I mean if you had spend time in Japan. I am glad the Japanese people are no longer shy in expressing themselves...instead of hiding behind the "establishment" facade.
I had spent more time than many on the X100 because of a lust for information. I immediately wanted one at first sight because it was "my idea"...a perfect walk-about camera that will not need film/processing support.
I had long believed that it will have modern firmware, but also manual control where matters.
Have SD/XC, will travel.
Last edited:
GSNfan
Well-known
Imo Nikon is the epitome of Japanese design and design aesthetic. While Leica has the M series to be proud of, Nikon has so many cameras that its hard to know them all.
The X100 is no doubt the camera that a lot of us wanted, but one of those reasons was that it was not a Leica. What happened was once Fuji saw the enthusiasm, it begun to push X100 like a Leica type camera. Engraving and other purely cosmetic nonsense are a perfect example.
X100 is a pioneering camera, which finally made it clear to camera makers how important is form factor and viewfinder in digital compacts. But then again X100 would be forgotten by next year this time, trust me on that. There is no such a thing as a classic digital camera, there are only old and outdated digital cameras.
The X100 is no doubt the camera that a lot of us wanted, but one of those reasons was that it was not a Leica. What happened was once Fuji saw the enthusiasm, it begun to push X100 like a Leica type camera. Engraving and other purely cosmetic nonsense are a perfect example.
X100 is a pioneering camera, which finally made it clear to camera makers how important is form factor and viewfinder in digital compacts. But then again X100 would be forgotten by next year this time, trust me on that. There is no such a thing as a classic digital camera, there are only old and outdated digital cameras.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
So you're saying the X100 will give total consciousness? That's nice.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Actually, the top plate engraving and "Made In Japan" markings were on the Photokina camera...day 1.
Last edited:
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
This is growing less and less true at a measurable rate as sensor technology peaks, which is why mainstream manufacturers are moving so drastically towards gimmick over the past couple years (not that they didn't before). The big players built their digital camera economy around disposable and obsolete cameras, but the technology has grown to the point where yesterday's camera is still good enough for today and they need some other way of pushing today's designs out the door. Samsung has chosen putting an LCD screen on the front of their cameras. Fujifilm has chosen pushing camera design forward.
...not that the industry won't find new ways of making their cameras outdated: new card formats, new connector types, RAW converters protected by copyright and DRM, but I get the feeling you will still see 5D2s in heavy use a decade from now, and that might very well make it a "classic digital camera". Am I wrong?
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Tapesonthefloor is correct.
APS-C or larger sensors achieved 6u pixel size in late '08 [first Kodak], Dalsa was not far behind, nor Sony and others. The Nikon D3X started the new era...
The next smaller pixel would be 5.2u, perhaps soon.
Whether Leica or Nikon likes it or not, FF [or ~43mm image circle] at 6u is 24MP. No one wants to start a new lens array with larger image circle. [Leica of course will promote S2...]
I described all that as "FF truce" long ago, and manufacturers will have to find new ways to entice customers. Touting "my sensor has more pixel than yours" won't cut it anymore.
We all know firmware can be upgraded, and SD/HC and SD/XC are already on the market, what else can a manufacturer now promote?
APS-C or larger sensors achieved 6u pixel size in late '08 [first Kodak], Dalsa was not far behind, nor Sony and others. The Nikon D3X started the new era...
The next smaller pixel would be 5.2u, perhaps soon.
Whether Leica or Nikon likes it or not, FF [or ~43mm image circle] at 6u is 24MP. No one wants to start a new lens array with larger image circle. [Leica of course will promote S2...]
I described all that as "FF truce" long ago, and manufacturers will have to find new ways to entice customers. Touting "my sensor has more pixel than yours" won't cut it anymore.
We all know firmware can be upgraded, and SD/HC and SD/XC are already on the market, what else can a manufacturer now promote?
Last edited:
v_roma
Well-known
Agreed. My main digital camera is a Canon 350D, released almost 5 years ago. I wish it was stronger here and there but it certainly does not feel obsolete.
bmasonoh
Established
No
For many the RF experience is rooted in film. For others it is developing and dare I say wet printing.
A digital rangefinder will not satiate those with these urges (myself included).
Having said that, it might make a nice complement to the arsenal. But it will never be a replacement of the analogue.
For many the RF experience is rooted in film. For others it is developing and dare I say wet printing.
A digital rangefinder will not satiate those with these urges (myself included).
Having said that, it might make a nice complement to the arsenal. But it will never be a replacement of the analogue.
videogamemaker
Well-known
I would argue the original 5D is a "classic". I am still using one to make 90x120cm massive prints, and I have no complaints.
I think we have hit the spot tech wise within the past several years that as long as the body works for you, you can keep it and use it till it falls apart. I certainly plan to keep using my 5D for another 5, 10, 20 years. If it breaks I will buy another 5D original to replace it.
I have wanted a 2nd camera for a while, and told myself I would when one with the right aspects comes along, and the x100 is looking like it fits for me. With the same-ish resolution as my 5D which makes prints of all sizes I am happy with, I see no reason why it can't become a "classic" that I use for decades to come.
I think we have hit the spot tech wise within the past several years that as long as the body works for you, you can keep it and use it till it falls apart. I certainly plan to keep using my 5D for another 5, 10, 20 years. If it breaks I will buy another 5D original to replace it.
I have wanted a 2nd camera for a while, and told myself I would when one with the right aspects comes along, and the x100 is looking like it fits for me. With the same-ish resolution as my 5D which makes prints of all sizes I am happy with, I see no reason why it can't become a "classic" that I use for decades to come.
They never added anything cosmetic since they announced it.
GSNfan
Well-known
Sensor technology is in its infancy, we still haven't got FF sensors for the mass market yet. Secondly digital technology does not peak, ever, it might stagnate due to market necessities but it never actually peaks, the CPU technology is a good indication. When they could not increase the processing power on a single chip, multi core became the new trend etc...
Camera makers are more interested in market share and their bottom end, helping us with new technology in not top of their priorities. They will only introduce a new technology when they're sure it will give them an edge over the competition.
5D is going for $1000 in the used market, despite being a FF digital camera with a great reputation. This is at a time when FF cameras are still above $3000 for Nikon/Canon and $2000 for Sony... Is that mark of a classic camera? Not really, for one a discontinued old digital camera has no way of being fixed, secondly in 10 years there would be at least 50 more FF used camera in the market, because every manufacturer have to release a FF camera every second year if they wish to stay on top.
Every time someone has made a prediction about digital technology peaking, it has become a great joke, so I would not even conceive of the notion that digital camera technology would peak one day. in fact it might even accelerate now that Sony is going all guns blazing and trying to dominate the market.
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
I wasn't clear enough about what I meant when I used the word "peak". What I meant was: sensors are finally getting good enough, in the same way that Windows XP is good enough, and that people will still be using it in ten years unless the practice is outlawed (for better or worse).
The first digital camera sensor I was even halfway satisfied with was the 6mp CCD in the Nikon D40, but I still found its noise unbearable in all but the sunniest settings. I haven't fiddled much with anything newer because most digital camera interfaces make me vomit a little bit in my mouth, but based on what I know I can predict that sensors one and two generations beyond the D40's will probably be good enough for me. And by good enough, I mean good enough for now, good enough for five years from now, and good enough for ten years from now. Good enough. I call that a peak.
The Fujifilm ex-hundred is being developed with the knowledge that camera disposability is levelling off. Fujifilm seems to be engineering a camera that will continue to be good enough in its interface and sensor for perhaps up to a decade. At least, I hope that's true.
So, that's what I mean by peaking. I don't care nearly as much about the industry and its innovations as some people. I care about what it can do for me, my processes, and my art. Digital cameras are finally—hopefully!—good enough for me, and this ex-hundred symbolizes the start of that brave new world.
Also, FYI: full-frame is obsolete unless you need to use old glass, or unless you have fringe DOF needs. Make no mistake: the sensor in the Fujifilm ex-hundred is, by all metrics except metric, "full-frame" for that camera.
Last edited:
I'll side with GSNfan on sensors. There will always be improvements (just as film always had "Improvements") and sensors are not good enough yet to the point of levelling off. We certainly need more dynamic range for one thing. I'm not saying that we don't have good sensors right now. I'm just saying that there is a lot of room for improvement and innovations beyond film.
videogamemaker
Well-known
I agree with the last part, but not with the first. I do tons of post work, and I find my 5D sensor almost always up to the task, both in dynamic range and resolution, for all my print needs. If the X100 is indeed the d90 sensor, I see it being perfect for all the work I do. Would I love it if it had 3x the dynamic range? Sure, of course, and that's the part I agree with you with, that sensor's have room for improvement over what film could offer us, but I think once we get a camera that makes files of the quality necessary for our individual work, the improvements do indeed become irrelevant until years if not decades later when our current cameras break.
I was fully ready to keep using my 5D for another 5 years, a full decade, or even longer in the future. The mark II, the D3x, are both nicer, but when I can print, composite, color grade, or adjust curves to my hearts content without the files my current camera makes breaking, what's the point? The only reason the X100 tugs my heart strings is that it's so much smaller and lighter while still maintaining a real viewfinder. (I'm also hoping it syncs above 1/160 with an elinchrome skyport, but that's neither announced, nor important to most other photographers)
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
In my way of thinking, it meets all the important criteria that define a rangefinder camera for me. No mirror slap, viewfinder with room around the framelines, small compact body. Just because focusing is 'by wire' doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for the huge advances the x100 represents.
VGM... all I'm trying to say is whenever anyone thinks we have enough or that things have levelled off, technology moves on and proves us wrong. It doesn't mean that the current cameras suck, but that future cameras will improve in ways we cannot imagine. The Canon 5D is great. However, years from now something will come out making that seem antiquated.
I mean, 640K ought to be enough for anybody.
I mean, 640K ought to be enough for anybody.
videogamemaker
Well-known
lol, I love that quote.
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
Great quote, but I've been able to compute at a high level using the same hardware (and same amount of RAM, depending on which box we're discussing) I bought in 1999. Technology may be marching forward in "ways I cannot imagine", but if new technology is unable to satisfy my needs (don't read into that) more efficiently than old/current technology, I consider that a "levelling off", of a sort.
...and this is rff.com: don't expect my photographic needs to be all that complicated. I just souped a couple old rolls of b&w while sitting cross-legged in my bathroom. I'm pretty sure my developing tank had cat hair in it. I got back my 1800x1200 scans an hour ago. I'm in heaven. I'm telling you: what technology can do is going to far outpace what I'll ever actually need.
(Full disclosure: I'm in IT/application design. My skillset has to stay on the very cutting edge of digital information management or I fall behind. I'm aware of "progress". When I get home most nights, though, I simply couldn't care less.)
Last edited:
GSNfan
Well-known
Art by its very definition is a unique creation that cannot be repeated. With digital you can take the same raw file and how you process it into art can be repeated infinitely. This is the biggest limitation with digital photography because software post-processing is a linear process, preprogrammed and can be repeated exactly the same way many times over. That in itself kills the notion of the artistic value of the photos - in my humble opinion.
That's another decision entirely...and one that the general RFF member can appreciate. I could care less about many technological advancements for my needs as well. I generally like things simple. However, I still believe sensors will move forward in leaps and bounds with or without us.