X100 Design

[Macmook]

Good day all,

Recently I must have read 25 reviews of the Fujifilm X100. Each and everyone of them expressed a strong opinion that "retro" looks and photographers "nostalgia" helped drive the market and that was the reason for the design.

While I agree that the X100 echoes my memories of a golden age of photography (bring back Dwight Eisehower), I would also argue that for a camera to meet the usage aspects of a specific style of shooting it must almost invariably look like the X100 (or all those nifty rangefinders from the past). It's a case of form following function. Where else would you place the aperture control? Both from a user and engineering perspective around the lense is most efficient. Where would you put the shutter speed control where a user could manipulate it while shooting? etc. etc. etc.

About the only design characteristic that is purely ornamental might be the plastic leather embossed waist and even there the texture provides a slightly improved grip.

So to end my rant, for all those pundits who believe that the X100 is just a pretty face, remember why we think it's pretty in the first place. It's an archetype.

Regards,

Alex

 

[Keith]

It's like a smaller digital version of the Hexar AF ... in fact owning an X100 has made me consider a Hexar in my future at some stage.

When I got my X100 my son refered to it as a boutique camera ... I have to disagree with that and although the styling is certainly pleasing to the eye I agree with you that it's very functional!

 

[gavinlg]

I completely agree - in fact it rather bugs me when people go on about it's 'retro looks'. It's just the way a camera with good controls SHOULD look.
There's a reason the Leica has been the same for so long - because it works superbly. there's also a reason the x100 has sold so convincingly - because it works superbly.



Besides, all the other tries at completely re-inventing the camera design have failed...

 

[DamenS]

I disagree. Even with something that you believe is as incontrovertibly correct "from a user and engineering perspective" as having the aperture dial on the lens. I love rangefinders and would PREFER the aperture on the lens - but can at least recognise I do so for purely nostalgic reasons.

In fact, from a user perspective, it would be better to use a front/rear dial in an AF camera such as the fuji X-100 (which would then open the possibility of one-handed use).

From an engineering perspective on the Fuji x-100 it makes no difference whatsoever where the "aperture selector" is placed as it is still an electronic motor which moves the diaphram, not the selector itself ... actually, I take that back, it kind of does matter ... it would be MORE EXPENSIVE for Fuji to adopt the click-stop aperture ring around the lens rather than to use one of the pre-existing dials.

I notice someone mentioned the Fuji is a digital equivalent to the Konica Hexar AF which made me laugh a little as I own that camera, and where is its aperture selector ? It's a dial on the top plate.

And this is JUST talking about aperture selection. It would take too long to go through each design decision and show to you that there is absolutely NO "invariability" about the position of controls etc. on the Fuji x-100, or any other camera for that matter. You are fooling yourself if you believe "nostalgia" was not a primary design consideration (in fact, I believe I could even find a quote from the Fuji designers STATING as much without too much trouble) !!

 

[Keith]

I disagree. Even with something that you believe is as incontrovertibly correct "from a user and engineering perspective" as having the aperture dial on the lens. I love rangefinders and would PREFER the aperture on the lens - but can at least recognise I do so for purely nostalgic reasons.

In fact, from a user perspective, it would be better to use a front/rear dial in an AF camera such as the fuji X-100 (which would then open the possibility of one-handed use).

From an engineering perspective on the Fuji x-100 it makes no difference whatsoever where the "aperture selector" is placed as it is still an electronic motor which moves the diaphram, not the selector itself ... actually, I take that back, it kind of does matter ... it would be MORE EXPENSIVE for Fuji to adopt the c

lick-stop aperture ring around the lens rather than to use one of the pre-existing dials. I notice someone mentioned the Fuji is a digital equivalent to the Konica Hexar AF which made me laugh a little as I own that camera, and where is it's aperture selector ? It's a dial on the top plate.

Having never actually touched the Hexar AF ... that disappoints me.

It's now off my list! 😀

DSLR's are an interesting conundrum then ... because depending on your lens you have a choice of actually changing aperture conventionally or with a command dial.

I like the sound of 'lick-stop aperture' ... 😛

 

[DamenS]

LOL - even better ... it's a "c lick" aperture which are known to be tastier than the "b lick" you find in some 4x5 designs.

It is unfortunate with DSLR's that so many (all Canon EF, all new Nikons) no longer give you that choice and must be selected from the camera body itself. As I said, I prefer it on the lens, but this is primarily for reasons of nostalgia and compatibility with older (non-AF) bodies.

PS - It wouldn't surprise me (but can't be bothered looking it up), if the Hexar AF is actually smaller than the Fuji x-100 rather than the other way around !

 

[koven]

x100 is my fav fashion camera.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Having never actually touched the Hexar AF ... that disappoints me.

It's now off my list! 😀

That's one of the things I like the most about my Hexar AF... That lens moves inside a strong barrel, (a tank) so its Autofocus system remains untouched forever... I thought the aperture dial on camera top (includes half-stops!) was part of the same great design decision on protecting that superb lens and its truly incredible AF system...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Spyro]

Personally I think the camera works great the way it is, but ok, so what if the design is partly or wholly decorative?

I never really understood the unwritten gear forum ethic, that purchases need to be justified in terms of need/functionality rather than desire. Is this a macho thing?
Maybe a religious thing?
Protestant?
Amish?

Maybe it's me, maybe I'm too much in touch with my feminine side 😀

 

[DamenS]

Absolutely agree. I honestly can't understand the point the OP was trying to make or the reason behind it. The Fuji is a great camera. "Nostalgia" and "Retro looks" should not be labelled, or considered, spurious claims by nasty reviewers which need to be defended against ... in fact, Fuji themselves have used these very things as selling points and well-done to them. They produced something very close to the camera so many of us have been asking for for so long, and which other companies have claimed would never sell in sufficient quantities !!

 

[Mattikk]

One of the best things about the retro looks is that in a way it's like shooting film - people react differently when you're at them with an old fashioned camera. At least to me it's relaxing and I can be more creative and sometimes take the shots I wouldn't dare with a modern camera, especially of older people.

 

[dct]

It's like a smaller digital version of the Hexar AF ... in fact owning an X100 has made me consider a Hexar in my future at some stage.

When I got my X100 my son refered to it as a boutique camera ... I have to disagree with that and although the styling is certainly pleasing to the eye I agree with you that it's very functional!

Oh, Keith, that was a masterpiece of a funny thread. Should we start over again? 😉

 

[Keith]

Oh, Keith, that was a masterpiece of a funny thread. Should we start over again? 😉

He lost all credibility with me after that remark. He's since been cut out of my will and I've requested that he no longer use our family name! 😀

 

[hxpham]

Maybe it's unfortunate from a nostalgia point of view but from a usability perspective, changing the aperture with the finger-wheel is most efficient, especially if you can see in the viewfinder what aperture you dialed in. I can live with it on my M8 but the 5D operates much better here.

I agree, I find that the "pro" level (D3, D700, 1D, 1Ds) DSLR bodies have great ergonomics that are logical and practical. I just wish they were a little smaller 🙂

 

[Spyro]

Maybe it's unfortunate from a nostalgia point of view but from a usability perspective, changing the aperture with the finger-wheel is most efficient, especially if you can see in the viewfinder what aperture you dialed in. I can live with it on my M8 but the 5D operates much better here.

Changing the aperture from the camera means the lens will be electronic and AF, which means motors, which make it bigger, noisier, plastic-er and (to keep the cost down) more likely to be generally sh!ttier construction. And eating into your battery life.

These are small things, but since photobuffs are notorious for being anal with small things I thought I'd mention them 🙂

 

[DamenS]

Changing the aperture from the camera means the lens will be electronic and AF, which means motors, which make it bigger, noisier, plastic-er and (to keep the cost down) more likely to be generally sh!ttier construction. And eating into your battery life.

These are small things, but since photobuffs are notorious for being anal with small things I thought I'd mention them 🙂

Not necessarily - electronic contacts sure, but there is no correlation between focus method and method of aperture adjustment, the motor used to adjust aperture electronically is so tiny and has such a small battery draw as to be virtually non-existent, and there is also no correlation to quality/materials used in construction: think Zeiss ZE lenses or the Voightlander lenses for Canon.

 

[jsrockit]

The Fuji does well because it is the only large sensor mirrorless camera with an optical VF that works great. If this camera came out with just the looks and no VF, it would not have been as exciting.

 

[Spyro]

Not necessarily - electronic contacts sure, but there is no correlation between focus method and method of aperture adjustment, the motor used to adjust aperture electronically is so tiny and has such a small battery draw as to be virtually non-existent, and there is also no correlation to quality/materials used in construction: think Zeiss ZE lenses or the Voightlander lenses for Canon.

No correlation - but a statistical fact: 99% of these lenses are AF.

- As for virtually non-existent details, like I said photobuffs have a specialty and great interest in those. If there is a difference they will find it, they will go to a gear forum, start a thread on it and discuss it for days 😀

 

[DamenS]

That's what I am saying - the ZE and Voight are not AF, yet their apertures are controlled from the camera and they are built like brick sh*t houses. You were saying "Changing the aperture from the camera means the lens will be electronic and AF" and also that "which means motors, which make it bigger, noisier, plastic-er and (to keep the cost down) more likely to be generally sh!ttier constructio". I am saying these correlations you made do not necessarily exist and was using these lenses as examples.

 

[Spyro]

ok true there are exceptions 🙂