the next big thing in street photography?

"Actually, I don't expect to shoot better pictures using this camera. Rather, I expect to find a faster route to image files (dig. camera instead of shooting film, spending half a night processing and then spending half an evening scanning).

I am intrigued about this camera, as it promises the usability and user interface of an analog camera, while delivering digital image files. For someone who uses a hybrid/digital workflow for his postprocessing, this isn't trivial at all. I enjoy shooting a lot more than standing in my bathroom, shaking tanks to the rhythm of a timer clock and stuffing film strips into a slow scanner that makes odd noises and seems to take forever...."

Exactly.
 
Bob Michaels said:
It appears that "the next big thing in street photography" is not about street photography at all. It is about cameras to be used for street photography.

Does anyone else find there is a difference in "photography" and "cameras"? Or, am I just in the wrong place?
Click to expand...
No, I agree with you Bob. I know this is considered a "gear forum" but surely the major focus is on how gear can be used.

I'll be out in a bit at a local street market using a Rolleicord for "street" photography and don't for one minute envisage having any problems whatsoever as compared to a small Fuji X100 or my usual Leica for that matter.

So many things are in the mind, it's not what you use but *how* you use it as you indicate. I'm not saying that smaller cameras do not carry a size benefit at times but that it's not the be all and end all that many might consider it to be.
 
They needed the silver look first to make classic Leica users (and others too) want to buy it, but I'd bet they know lots of people will fall in love with a future black version, so we might get it...

The good thing is, no matter what this camera can finally offer, it might be the starter of a new major brands race in cameras aimed to traditionally controlled compact digital cameras with superb lens/sensor matching, and that's good news to everyone. I can imagine lots of nice things coming in the next 2 years.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Bob Michaels said:
I guess I am in the wrong place as I have felt for many decades that the limits on my photography were my own talents and not those of the tools I had to work with.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying...but as someone who loves actually making photos with many cameras, I still get what the OP was getting at. It does seem like a very comfortable digital tool for traditional street photography i.e. the stereotypical Leica style. For film users, this seems ridiculous. However, for those of us who love digital, hate DSLRs, and want a fast, small, relatively low priced camera, the X100 appears to do the trick. That said, there is no reason we cannot talk about actual photography and / or gear at the same time at RFF. I truly believe they are both pieces to the same puzzle.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the AF on the X100, it's going to have to be stellar in order to outperform that of the Lumix G1 with 14-45 lens, or even the 20-1.7 pancake; with which I've spent the last two years doing street photography.

I would also say that, through my recent digital street photography experience, I really love using a well-designed EVF (like that on the G1), and am not certain if I'd ever really enjoy "going back" to an optical VF; I've learned to demand accurate framing in my images (I prefer not to crop) and any parallax error in an optical VF I find unacceptable.

So, I'm watching the X100 developments with interest, but am not ready to ditch (or supplant) u4/3 until I see the X100 offer distinct advantages, without losing the things I already like about u4/3.

~Joe
 
JoeV said:
Regarding the AF on the X100, it's going to have to be stellar in order to outperform that of the Lumix G1 with 14-45 lens, or even the 20-1.7 pancake; with which I've spent the last two years doing street photography.

I would also say that, through my recent digital street photography experience, I really love using a well-designed EVF (like that on the G1), and am not certain if I'd ever really enjoy "going back" to an optical VF; I've learned to demand accurate framing in my images (I prefer not to crop) and any parallax error in an optical VF I find unacceptable.

So, I'm watching the X100 developments with interest, but am not ready to ditch (or supplant) u4/3 until I see the X100 offer distinct advantages, without losing the things I already like about u4/3.

~Joe
Click to expand...


I do own and use the G1, and am not too happy with the IQ. Any camera with the same AF/shutter lag, and better IQ will get my money. Now if only I could change lenses on this one...:(
 
back alley said:
perhaps...it really seems like an ideal modern street camera.
Click to expand...

For those who just love 35mm focal length, and are comfortable with one-body-one-lens method, yes.
(That includes me, by the way).

But we had numerous discussions about favorite focal length here on RFF, and as usual none of us can even close to agree on one.

Don't even get me started on how polarized the 'one-lens-one-body' argument is around here.

So how come a fixed lens camera suddenly becomes "ideal" ??

PS: Joe, this is for discussion and thought, I'm not harping on you specifically :)
 
'ideal' for most of my needs...certainly would not satisfy my 'wide' wantings.

i doubt that the x100 would ever become my only camera...i'm not really a one camera/one lens guy.

but for outings with no set agenda or when wanting the discipline of carrying only one lens.

now, with all that being said...i am starting to wonder how it might be 'better' than my rd1 and favourite 40, the sonnar.
i have started to carry only that combo on my extra long gordy strap and am quite liking it.
 
JoeV said:
Regarding the AF on the X100, it's going to have to be stellar in order to outperform that of the Lumix G1 with 14-45 lens, or even the 20-1.7 pancake;
Click to expand...

Personally, I want it to be significantly better.

With the proviso that I probably notice more mis-focused shot on digital than I would on film, I'd say the GF1 is worse than my old Olympus Stylus (let alone my Hexar AF). For instance, this winter, it proved pretty much incapable of focusing on, say, frosty twigs against the snow.

I've also spent a fair bit of time recently processing a couple of friends' 5D photos.. and realised my GF1 is closer to G9 quality than the 5D.

SO i am hoping the Fuju will have good enough autofocus and good-enough IQ. I'm not expecting a panacea, though.
 
srtiwari said:
I do own and use the G1, and am not too happy with the IQ. Any camera with the same AF/shutter lag, and better IQ will get my money. Now if only I could change lenses on this one...:(
Click to expand...

I carefully compared (in LR 3.3) my ISO 200 RAW shots with a G1-20/1.7 with the full-sized X-100 jpegs. It is clear to me the X100 IQ is significantly superior to the LUMIX's. The image edges are very different. Also the X100 bokeh is rather nice. I noticed the X100's low level of longitudinal CA wide open is far superior than most of the Nikkor glass I have used. This includes the 85/1.8 AF-D, the 85/1.4 G, the 50/1.4G and other fast Nikkors. When I abused the Fill Slider in LR, the X100 shadow areas held up as well compared to what I experience in my D300 and D700 RAW images at ISO 200. This comparison is rather subjective as I'm comparing a jpeg to a RAW file and different images. Still, the X100 files did well in my qualitative and subjective over-use-of-the-Fill-Slider test, especially compared to the LUMIX G1 at ISO 200.

We'll see if these observations stand as more X100 images become available.
 
Last edited:
Sorry if this has been discussed but can anyone clarify what this means (from the X100 website):

"With manual focus selected, focusing is achieved using the focus ring around the lens barrel. A distance indication bar enables you to pre-focus if required, or you can simply use the electronic viewfinder to focus accurately. There is, however, no rangefinder focusing capability."

Does anyone know where this "distance indication bar" is located? On the lens? In the view finder? On the camera?

This is the sort of thing that actually matters to me as it's how I use my Leica most often.
 
nightfly said:
Sorry if this has been discussed but can anyone clarify what this means (from the X100 website):

"With manual focus selected, focusing is achieved using the focus ring around the lens barrel. A distance indication bar enables you to pre-focus if required, or you can simply use the electronic viewfinder to focus accurately. There is, however, no rangefinder focusing capability."

Does anyone know where this "distance indication bar" is located? On the lens? In the view finder? On the camera?

This is the sort of thing that actually matters to me as it's how I use my Leica most often.
Click to expand...

Look at the examples http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101183

Should be visible in the viewfinder and on the back-screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom