andrew00
Established
I don't see why some people get so defensive about film/rangefinders when talking about the X100.
Surely if the X100 should be lauded as it shares the same type of camera design as a rangefinder?
I mean, Fuji could've made a DSLR body but are making something that takes a step in the right direction towards compact, rangefinder style bodies. Maybe this camera therefore isn't perfect, but it's a great start, no?
Surely if the X100 should be lauded as it shares the same type of camera design as a rangefinder?
I mean, Fuji could've made a DSLR body but are making something that takes a step in the right direction towards compact, rangefinder style bodies. Maybe this camera therefore isn't perfect, but it's a great start, no?
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
_larky
Well-known
RFF has always, as long as I've been here (I'm on my second username, this one is very new, so no flaming saying I'm a noob), has been a place where people rant about gear. It's always, every time, revolved around that bloody red dot.
DougFord
on the good foot
Hopefully Fuji has sent mr. Gilden an X100 to review. That would cause a riot.
...and in what can only be described as marketing genius, Leica has entered into some sort of agreement with magnum to use Leica cameras for both evaluation and product development purposes. (the beachhead)
The very last nail in the coffin for Leica, and that which can never be, is the sight of magnum photographers walking around using the x100.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Finally, a camera that people love to hate as much as a Leica. It must be pretty good then?
Bob
Bob
antiquark
Derek Ross
When people actually get the X100 in their hands, and realize that their photographs don't magically improve... the X100 will have a "fall from grace" that rivals the story of that dude who chewed on the wrong apple.
_larky
Well-known
My photos cant get any worse so it'll never fall from grace for me
Arjay
Time Traveller
Umm - what actually was this thread about? Pls help me, I forgot - other than making me think about getting a bag of crackers and a six-pack ...
Last edited:
When people actually get the X100 in their hands, and realize that their photographs don't magically improve... the X100 will have a "fall from grace" that rivals the story of that dude who chewed on the wrong apple.
Why do people think that we expect our photography to improve once we get the X100? I don't for sure. I simply like the tool and want to use it. What is wrong with that?
_larky
Well-known
You can't say that! You have a Leica picture as your avatar! That's like crossing the streams, you never cross the streams.
NickTrop
Veteran
+1. It's a nice black and white but indistinguishable to my eye from any recent APSC sensor-ed camera. It will produce fine output, have a fine lens... it's a Fuji, they're not new to the camera-makin' business.
The only difference between this camera and any recent APS-C camera is that:
1. It looks like a classic rangefinder
2. No interchangeable lens capability/fixed lens
3. About $500.
You can't say that! You have a Leica picture as your avatar! That's like crossing the streams, you never cross the streams.
I like many cameras... leicas are nice, but they aren't the game in town!
_larky
Well-known
I like many cameras... leicas are nice, but they aren't the game in town!
Oh boy, you'll get banned for saying that.
andrew00
Established
I'd argue against that by saying that just like a Leica M9, whilst it's always going to be a sizable purchase, to someone who wants exactly what the Leica gives, especially versus the alternatives, it's a cost you pay, if not gladly, at least with acceptance.
For me my 'perfect' camera is a digital Contax G2 - full frame, interchangeable lenses and smallish body with auto-focus as I've got thick glasses/weak contacts to build my eyes up or neither in, so either way I can't rely on my own eyes to focus manually and quickly.
The X100 isn't perfect, but for me it's a big step in the direction I want my camera purchase to be as it provides a large sensor, not full frame but large enough for HQ images with dof/creative control. It also gives me a viewfinder which is another big plus and it gives a separate hot shoe as I like to use a flash a lot.
I've tried all the alternatives currently out and none of them worked for me.
The NEX-5 was good quality but I couldn't use a flash except the awful sony one and the lens selection was poor. I had a Voigtlander lens on it but again manual focus isn't my thing at this stage.
I tried Sigma DP2S which took beautiful pictures but was awful to use and couldn't focus well so I sold it and bought a 20 quid Mji II heh.
I tried but didn't buy a M4/3 but felt the IQ wasn't quite good enough and I didn't like the fact you could only get an EVF and so I couldn't use my flash.
Put simply, none of the X100's competitors (and I know the X1 is also there but I couldn't afford it) could stand up to what I wanted and I found flaws with them all sufficient that I didn't buy the camera or sold it as I'd find myself reaching for me GRD3 more than any of the others, mostly because the Ricoh is fast/snappy and lots of fun to shoot with.
The X100 for me gets the closest to what I want because it gives me quality, a viewfinder and a seperate hot shoe. For me it ticks more boxes than any other 'professional' camera currently announced.
The fact it's in a cool body is a nice touch but mostly the fact it's not a DSLR is a plus also b/c I come from a music video background where due to small budgets I've found myself basically doing everything these days which not only stresses me but keeps me away from talking to the band, which kinda defeats the point.
So photography wise I'm all about small, minimal gear that lets me connect with people, regardless of that's at the expense of tech/gear. In that sense, a smaller non-dslr camera will help my connect more than a big beast of a camera imo.
Basically the X100 is not perfect, but it ticks more of my boxes than anything else out there and so although I don't want to pay a lot of money (currently in the UK £899 is the amazon price), it's value considering the alternatives and what I want from the camera.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Image quality is practically unjudgeable on the web, IMO. We all have seen what look like nice b&w images taken with Leicas, fixed-lens RFs, folders,... whatever. They all look great on the web. The only real test is PRINTS ON THE WALL... IMO of course.
Now camera features... that's something I think CAN be judged on the web. And that's why I'm excited about the X100. Image quality? That's yet to be seen... on my wall.
Now camera features... that's something I think CAN be judged on the web. And that's why I'm excited about the X100. Image quality? That's yet to be seen... on my wall.
gavinlg
Veteran
Why don't you take a visit to my blog and note the balance of film and digital photographs. You'll find there's more film work on there than digital work. I've shot and developed enough black and white film to be able to make my own valid comparison between the two, thankyou very much. And I'm not saying YOU should prefer digital, only that I prefer digital.
For every cat or bookshelf photo that you can find in my blog I'll buy you an x100.
Last edited: