The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fuji Finepix X100 Show Report

Well, I'd call it less a point and shoot, and more an updated Konica Hexar AF. Hopefully the lens will be up to Hexar standards, and they'll follow up with an interchangeable lens version as Konica did with the Hexar RF.
Yes, the Hexar AF is another good comparison except it didn't have a full manual mode that the X100 will. Let's call the X100 the digital offspring of the Hexar AF and the Contax G2...
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Godfrey

Magpie Syndrome wins again! ]'-)
Absolutely . . . although I do clean out the unused / unwanted cameras. Currently I have 3 cameras too many (out of 6 :) - it's time for another ebay trip soon!


All I have to do is go to an exhibition of John Isaac's wildlife photos, printed to 20x26", made with an Olympus E-1 (5 Mpixel, one of the heaviest antialiasing filters in the business) to know this is silliness.
I'm sure that they're splendid - and I have some good 24" prints made with the E1 as well (at least I think they're good, and they don't have technical issues!) . . . . . . but birds are just one subject, and different subjects have different requirements of sensors - Landscape in particular often needs more resolution - of course, one could go medium format, but actually, an 18mp file with no AA filter will do a detailed foliage image at that kind of size that you can eyeball from a foot. 5mp with an AA filter won't . . . and nor will 12mp with an aa filter. Whether you need that kind of thing is, of course, your own call.

BTW: Why would you say that the X100's lens is a "cheap lens"? I bet the lens is half the manufacturing cost of the camera. That's not cheap, unless you only consider expensive those things that carry a red dot price level.
I meant 'relatively' cheap . . . the whole camera is about the price of Leica's cheapest 35mm lens (and around half the price of their 35 f2 summicron). So yes, I was considering prices in comparison with Leica prices, but that's the market this camera is aiming at (isn't it?)
 

tom in mpls

Active member
I meant 'relatively' cheap . . . the whole camera is about the price of Leica's cheapest 35mm lens (and around half the price of their 35 f2 summicron). So yes, I was considering prices in comparison with Leica prices, but that's the market this camera is aiming at (isn't it?)
Ah...you mean inexpensive, not poor quality. I took the wrong meaning also.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
John Isaac's wildlife photos... I'm sure that they're splendid - and I have some good 24" prints made with the E1 as well (at least I think they're good, and they don't have technical issues!) . . . . . . but birds are just one subject ...
Why did you pick birds? And, ironically, right there you have one of the hardest subjects that requires tremendous detail resolution to capture well. Moreso than landscape in my opinion.

... I meant 'relatively' cheap . . . the whole camera is about the price of Leica's cheapest 35mm lens (and around half the price of their 35 f2 summicron). So yes, I was considering prices in comparison with Leica prices, but that's the market this camera is aiming at (isn't it?)
This camera is aiming at the market of people who might like to have a Leica M design camera but either cannot afford or cannot rationalize the cost of buying one. If I may interpret the market thrust, it is a camera designed to allow one to buy a Leica M type design and user interface, and Leica M type quality, at a fraction the price. What is given up to achieve the price is the red dot itself and interchangeable lenses, not quality. At least that's what I hope Fuji's achieved. ;-)

"Cheap" is the wrong word, it connotes poor quality. As Tom suggested, you meant "inexpensive". Of course, hopefully!, people spending three times the cost of the X100 on a Leica lens ought to expect that lens to perform better. But it's difficult to say whether that is true or not, given that all we have to work with are samples that someone else made.

(I'm ahead of you on jettisoning the unused cameras at this point. Aside from the box or three of older film camera stuff, all I have are the E-5 and E-1 at this point, and a couple of lenses I'd bought for the G1 that I haven't put on the market yet. I'm using both the E-5 and E-1 all the time ... My interest in the X100 is that it fits a situation like this morning, where something compact, minimal, with just a fast wide lens would have been a nicer thing to carry.)
 

Terry

New member
This camera is aiming at the market of people who might like to have a Leica M design camera but either cannot afford or cannot rationalize the cost of buying one. If I may interpret the market thrust, it is a camera designed to allow one to buy a Leica M type design and user interface, and Leica M type quality, at a fraction the price. What is given up to achieve the price is the red dot itself and interchangeable lenses, not quality. At least that's what I hope Fuji's achieved. ;-)
But isn't that exactly what Jono said?
 

jonoslack

Active member
"Cheap" is the wrong word, it connotes poor quality.
Well - here I beg to differ - I meant it to indicate a cheaper price, I think I was quite explicit about that:

a relatively cheap lens (good though it may be)
I don't see how you can understand that I was trying to suggest poor quality?

Why did you pick birds? And, ironically, right there you have one of the hardest subjects that requires tremendous detail resolution to capture well. Moreso than landscape in my opinion.
I stand corrected Godfrey :) - I understand that anything over 5mp is just silliness.

Perhaps it is what he meant and could be interpreted as such, but it wasn't what he said. I think I was significantly more specific.
ditto, as above :)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Well - here I beg to differ - I meant it to indicate a cheaper price, I think I was quite explicit about that ...
After your initial statement, yes.

...I understand that anything over 5mp is just silliness. ...
Don't be ridiculous. The context was a statement about 18 Mpixel regards 12 Mpixels, a linear resolution difference, all else being equal, of less than 15%. In hard numbers, that means that if the 18Mpixel camera could resolve 25 LP@mm, the 12 Mpixel camera can resolve about 21-22 LP@mm ... this is hardly a huge difference.

The intent of my statement is to say that putting hard Megapixel numbers as the base criteria for what can make a beautiful, large print is a vapid, meaningless exercise in techno babble. Obviously there are times when more resolution is important — just as obviously most of the time we don't make A2 sized prints. When a huge print is the target AND you need the utmost in resolution to make the subject sing, pick the equipment you need to do that job best, which likely will not be either a Fuji X100 or a Leica M9 although either can likely make photographs that can be printed very large with excellent quality.
 

jonoslack

Active member
The intent of my statement is to say that putting hard Megapixel numbers as the base criteria for what can make a beautiful, large print is a vapid, meaningless exercise in techno babble.
Thank you Godfrey - I think I said something about AA filters as well, but perhaps that got lost in my techno babble.:)
 
Last edited:

TechIV

New member
I just pulled the trigger (although I imagine it will take a while).

I was looking at the GXR as I love the results I have been seeing, but still worry about AF speed, plus I'd need to buy the viewfinder. (Ricoh: 917+257=1174 ---that price difference is negligible).

I see this as a digital Hexar AF... though the bokeh looked nicer on the hexar :-/ The X100 is good looking for a digital, but not near as attractive as the Contax G2 which I find to be one of the top 2 prettiest cameras (along with the Leica MP). I'd love to have a Contax T3 equiv, but unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.

On a another note, I don't even look at the DPReview forums if I can help it... it's like a bunch of whiny children over there. Fred Miranda is decent, but this form is easily one of the best on the web.
 
...:-/ The X100 is good looking for a digital, but not near as attractive as the Contax G2 which I find to be one of the top 2 prettiest cameras (along with the Leica MP). I'd love to have a Contax T3 equiv, but unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Amen to the digital T3!

And I fully agree that the G2 is one of the finest looking cameras ever made. I understand Fuji's decision to go with the retro look but I would have preferred a more modern take on the rangefinder, something more akin to the G2!
 

tom in mpls

Active member
I would have preferred a more modern take on the rangefinder...
I have been surprised by the conservatism of digital camera design. Since digital cameras are no longer constrained by the film camera's film-spool->image frame->takeup-spool linear arrangement, the rectangular shape is not required. Perhaps it remains the best way to grip with both hands, but I would like to see some radical new ideas.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I have been surprised by the conservatism of digital camera design. Since digital cameras are no longer constrained by the film camera's film-spool->image frame->takeup-spool linear arrangement, the rectangular shape is not required. Perhaps it remains the best way to grip with both hands, but I would like to see some radical new ideas.
Every time someone tries a radical new idea in camera body design, it either doesn't work or it doesn't sell. Usually both, which one comes first is a toss up.

I think the basic shapes of the Leica M for small-format viewfinder cameras and Olympus E-1 for small-format SLR cameras simply work better than the more avante garde design attempts. Form follows function – these cameras are beautiful to my eye because they work well for making photographs.
 

tom in mpls

Active member
So it seems it was a happy coincidence that the best ergonomic shape was also perfect for the requirements of film rolls.
 
Top