Went back to X100 after 6 days with the X100T

[taemo]

I impulsively bought a X100T 2 weeks ago and it was finally in my hands last Monday.
I've played with the X100T at The Camera Store a couple of times but to judge a camera you need to spend some time shooting with it.

I have to admit that the silver finish on the X100T is a lot nicer than the X100, looks cleaner and more sleek, the focus ring feels more tactile, however I dislike the 1/3 stop aperture ring.
My favorite F-stops with any cameras are f/2, f/5.6 and f/8, I very rarely (can count the times with one hand) have to adjust the aperture by 1/3 of stops.
The new button layout was also disappointing. I thought the DPAD would be a great but I actually ended up not touching it very often.
The new View Mode is awful, there was one setting too many, the VF only + Eye sensor. This 4th setting is confusing and doesn't add anything useful, actually made me miss some shots because I didn't know what View mode was I at.
My reasoning is 95% of the time I shoot VF only, when I need to make changes on the menu or review some shots, I press View mode 1x LCD Menu or 2x Eye Sensor, then afterwards I go back to VF only again.

I customized the interface with the following:
Fn1 - ISO
Fn6 - ND Filter
Fn7 - Macro
D-Pad for Autofocus points

16 functions on the Q menu was too overwhelming so I reduced it to the ones I would actually use
-Photometry
-AF Single/Multi
-Flash mode
-Self Timer
-WB
-Film Simulation
-Image Size
-Conversion lens
-EVF Brightness

Weekend came and I was finally ready to test the X100T so the wife and I went to Moraine Lake for a hike.
I first decided to take some comparison shots between the T and the original, I have experience with X-Trans file having owned a X100S and X-Pro1 in the past so I was mostly curious to see how the JPEG between the 2 fared.
I've played with the Classic Chrome and while it looks unique and cool, I'm not a fan of the low saturated look, when I'm shooting colors I like them vibrant or bold, so it's either Provia or Velvia for me and to my disappointment, the Velvia looks unnatural on the X100T

X100 Velvia

X100T Velvia

X100

X100T

Later in the evening we went to the Calgary Stampede, perfect time to test the AF accuracy and speed which once again, after spending 3 hours shooting felt under whelming, it felt a half second faster and more accurate and decisive but I still missed some shots that I thought was in focus.
To be fair, if you also shoot with the Wide and Tele converter, the X100T will be alot better than the X100.

After thinking through the night, the next morning I was set and sure to sell the X100T.
For some, the X100T might be the perfect camera and everything that they ever wanted but to me the X100 already is.
Reason being I love the simplicity of the X100, it's such a simple camera with a simple interface and less buttons than the X100S and T.
JPEGs from the X100 looks great, I shot Velvia earlier today at lunch and loved the vibrance of some of the images.
12MP is more than enough for my need and can confidently print up to 24x36.
ISO is where the X100T trumps the X100 as 1600 is the max I could confidently shoot the X100 but I don't shoot at high ISO very often either
I shoot the X100 at 35mm 99% of the time, only use the Tele when really needed and for wider I have my Iphone 6+ 😛

The X100 was a love at first sight for me, although I didn't own one until 2013 when Fuji released FW 1.3, since then I sold my DSLR and haven't gone back

 

[Dante_Stella]

I don't agree. The X100T does have the view mode nit, and the fact that it takes forever to process X-Trans II files in LR, but in every way that matters to me, the X100T is more solid, faster, and sharper. That last part is not a change in the lens but the fact that the AF can find faces and lock on - and track focus between shots. The focus-and-recompose (or always awkward change-the-focusing-zone - and often recomcompose) is not much fun wide-open as a system that can find a face and focus on it.

Dante

 

[KM-25]

I used the X100 series professionally without fail in the first two models, it basically killed any desire I had for a digital M.

Then I got the T and during the first hour of ownership went to bring the menu up on the rear screen and genuinely thought my camera was defective when it did not show up. When I realized what they had done in this regard I was truly baffled, what a total F_up!

I tried my best to get along with the menu / view mode button dance but once the first firmware update failed to address this obnoxious change in workflow, I knew I was done with the X100 series.

I thought about getting another X100S but something told me to just move on entirely. So I sold it, found a nice clean used M240 and I am back in business, best move I have made in a long time.

Too bad they stuck a pipe wrench in the spokes of the spinning wheel called workflow, I would have kept the camera had they fixed it.

 

[Nelson Tan]

I played briefly with the X100T and was pretty impressed with the visibly faster autofocus, even when compared to my X100 with the latest firmware. But like the OP, I still prefer the colours of the X100 instead of the X-Tran sensor. I had a XE-1 after my X100, which I sold due to the same reason. Colour is a very personal thing, so to each his own.

 

[willie_901]

When using in-camera JPEGs as the final output, one is at the mercy of changes in rendering firmware when products change. The same holds for raw files, but to a significantly lower degree.

The X100 Bayer, XTrans I and XTrans II JPEG outputs are different. The XTans I and XTrans II raw renderings are very similar. Of course the Bayer rendering is different.

I would never own an X100 again because above ISO 800 my example had color-banding in shadow regions . The XTrans sensor has superior dynamic range and signal-to-noise. performance. Every so often I think about picking up a X100T. But at the moment it would be redundant (for my purposes) to my X-Pro 1 with the 27 mm pancake Fujinon.

 

[taemo]

I don't agree. The X100T does have the view mode nit, and the fact that it takes forever to process X-Trans II files in LR, but in every way that matters to me, the X100T is more solid, faster, and sharper. That last part is not a change in the lens but the fact that the AF can find faces and lock on - and track focus between shots. The focus-and-recompose (or always awkward change-the-focusing-zone - and often recomcompose) is not much fun wide-open as a system that can find a face and focus on it.

Dante

not disagreeing with you and like I said, for some and probably most the X100T is what they've always wanted the X100 series to be.
I have to agree that the AF face lock is quite handy for those that will use this for events and portraits.
Low light performance is alot better too on the S and T but since I rarely go 1600 and over, the original is just perfect.

BTW as I was going through my X100 and X100T pictures, I honestly wanted to punch the screen on how LR6 was slow on rendering X100T files, I'm talking 3-5 seconds versus 0.25 seconds.

All in all, I think the reason why I like the X100 is it's simplicity, from the design to the interface to the features.
I've put the extra cash to fund a M240.

 

[bigshot]

The colors using Classic Chrome are AMAZING... like no digital camera I've ever owned. I would buy a T just for that.

 

[btgc]

Decision to stay wit older models in just 6 days...means you for sure know what you like better.

 

[rbelyell]

no, obviously you know what he likes better.

 

[bigshot]

The film simulation modes are adjustable... there is no reason why Classic Chrome has to be low saturation. I use it for all my color work, and I have saturation set to +1. I agree that Velvia looks unnatural, but that is the way almost all digital cameras are. They make skies that electric cobalt blue. Classic Chrome creates much more sophisticated gradients of warmer and cooler blues in the skies. Knock up the saturation a bit and it's perfect.

Also, the X100 shots above look a tad overexposed. I always find that it's better to slightly underexpose in digital to ensure that the highlights don't blow out.

 

[rbelyell]

yes, i agree about the exposure. i typically have exposure compensation set to minus 1/3-2/3

 

[MCTuomey]

OT but not completely: I can't believe how slow LR6 processes x-trans files versus LR5, what a major step backward.

 

[bigshot]

I use Aperture, and I don't see any difference between the X100T raws and my Nikon D7000 raws. Perhaps Lightroom will issue a software update that corrects it.

 

[bhop73]

I went from an original X100 (bought new when it was first released) to a T, and for me, there's no looking back. I do admit, I liked the color tones of the X100 files a little better, and there is that pesky thing where the menu doesn't show on the lcd when you push the button, like KM-25 mentioned above, but almost everything else in the T is miles ahead of the original IMO. Focus speed and accuracy, I definitely miss less shots than I did with the original, without a doubt. Manual focus is 100% useable now, even with the optical finder thanks to the little focus window. High iso is better. It's just a better camera overall, for me anyway..

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

X100T is the first digital camera I've ever had on which I prefer to shoot jpegs. And yes, face detect is ace. I guess the view mode change is kind of annoying, but it seems like an awfully inconsequential reason to swear off an entire camera manufacturer for all eternity.