Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Thank you for the link. I can see that it would have been a bit complicated to achieve that with interchangeable lenses.Story - Chapter 1: http://www.finepix-x100.com/story
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!
Thank you for the link. I can see that it would have been a bit complicated to achieve that with interchangeable lenses.Story - Chapter 1: http://www.finepix-x100.com/story
Cost could be a factor - maybe not so much for makeing the x100 a camera with interchangable lenses but even more to develop a lens lineup.Don't forget cost.
Both ... The M9 body costs multiple times what the X100 costs, never mind the cost (and size/weight/bulk) of the lenses.Cost could be a factor - maybe not so much for makeing the x100 a camera with interchangable lenses but even more to develop a lens lineup.
Here Leica with all the old M glass was in a much better position (and still yes- the M9 costs multiple times of the x100)
... Personally I found it more attractive it it either was smaller/lighter OR if it had exchangable lenses.
the only thing I dont know is if I would call it a compact.Both ... The M9 body costs multiple times what the X100 costs, never mind the cost (and size/weight/bulk) of the lenses.
Far as I can see, it's a perfect size for my hands and I already have my system cameras. A nicely crafted, single-lens compact like this ... always presuming the responsiveness and image quality is up to snuff ... is the perfect adjunct to my SLR kit. When I need something other than what it offers, I'll just grab the SLR. I don't need every camera to be capable of doing everything.
But I'm repeating myself... Time to do some photography and continue waiting to see an X100!
My guess is that the X100 is a market feeler from Fuji. Investment for making a single camera with a fixed lens has got to be a lot smaller than for creating a system. I'm sure that Fuji execs are emboldened by all the flattery arising from the X100 design - whether that turns into a viable business plan for an interchangeable-lens system is another question.I am slowly moving away from fixed focal length cameras with the exception of the M system, because M allows at least to change the lens, which the X100 (and also Leica X1) do not. This is for me the most severe restriction in making this camera as flexible as I need.
Unfortunately it also uses a 12MP sensor, which is no longer state of the art n APSC as K5, D7000 etc show.
...
This may very well be right. But it does not answer WHY ONLY 12MP - and this today? When they bring this camera to market, the latest and really great 16MP APSC sensors will already be shipping for longer than 6 months. Time enough IMHO to build the X100 on such a sensor. Would have allowed them an even better and more efficient market research and business plan evaluation.My guess is that the X100 is a market feeler from Fuji. Investment for making a single camera with a fixed lens has got to be a lot smaller than for creating a system. I'm sure that Fuji execs are emboldened by all the flattery arising from the X100 design - whether that turns into a viable business plan for an interchangeable-lens system is another question.
Fuji has developed and delivered top notch fixed-lens medium format (the "Texas Leica" 6x7 and 6x9 RF cameras, the GA and GS 645 series, etc) and specialty cameras (like the "hasselblad" XPan) for some time. They have an excellent reputation for quality.My guess is that the X100 is a market feeler from Fuji. Investment for making a single camera with a fixed lens has got to be a lot smaller than for creating a system. I'm sure that Fuji execs are emboldened by all the flattery arising from the X100 design - whether that turns into a viable business plan for an interchangeable-lens system is another question.
Umm I wasnt referring to the survival of Fuji, but rather the decision whether to create a new camera system. Businesses tend to like product plans that have a possibility of generating positive cash flow. Track record for Fuji's earlier system cameras probably hasn't been the greatest since we're not seeing any refresh on their modified Nikon body series.Fuji has developed and delivered top notch fixed-lens medium format (the "Texas Leica" 6x7 and 6x9 RF cameras, the GA and GS 645 series, etc) and specialty cameras (like the "hasselblad" XPan) for some time. They have an excellent reputation for quality.
I doubt Fuji is worried about its survival if the X100 doesn't sell in large quantities. Their camera division is hardly a drop in the bucket with respect to the company finances.
Some people would argue that 12 MP is sufficient for most snapshooting needs, and I'd have to say I cannot completely disagree. Sure, more would be nice but the step from 12 to 16 MP is just a selling point, not enough to make a real difference - just a 15.5% increase in pixel pitch.This may very well be right. But it does not answer WHY ONLY 12MP - and this today? When they bring this camera to market, the latest and really great 16MP APSC sensors will already be shipping for longer than 6 months. Time enough IMHO to build the X100 on such a sensor. Would have allowed them an even better and more efficient market research and business plan evaluation.
I fully agree here-12 vs 16MP doesnt make a big difference IMO.Some people would argue that 12 MP is sufficient for most snapshooting needs, and I'd have to say I cannot completely disagree. Sure, more would be nice but the step from 12 to 16 MP is just a selling point, not enough to make a real difference - just a 15.5% increase in pixel pitch.
Perhaps sensitivity had a higher priority than resolution in the choice of sensor. Perhaps the latest and greatest 16MP APSC sensors were not available for purchase or deemed too expensive. Perhaps an X101 is planned with a 16MP sensor, to milk the market in a year. Who knows. 12MP is what we're getting for now.
The real difference of the latest 16MP sensors is not only the 4MP more (25%) but rather the really improved high ISO performance compared to the older 12MP generations of sensors. So I would argue this is a very substantial increase of IQ! And with the 12 MP sensor the X100 will just lack that.Some people would argue that 12 MP is sufficient for most snapshooting needs, and I'd have to say I cannot completely disagree. Sure, more would be nice but the step from 12 to 16 MP is just a selling point, not enough to make a real difference - just a 15.5% increase in pixel pitch.
Perhaps sensitivity had a higher priority than resolution in the choice of sensor. Perhaps the latest and greatest 16MP APSC sensors were not available for purchase or deemed too expensive. Perhaps an X101 is planned with a 16MP sensor, to milk the market in a year. Who knows. 12MP is what we're getting for now.
The linear resolution difference is the square root of the megapixel difference, or about 5% presuming all else (antialiasing filters, a-d conversion, comb filter, moire reduction and noise filtering) are all identical.The real difference of the latest 16MP sensors is not only the 4MP more (25%) but rather the really improved high ISO performance compared to the older 12MP generations of sensors. So I would argue this is a very substantial increase of IQ! And with the 12 MP sensor the X100 will just lack that.
I think we're debating in circles. The X100 is not a system camera. People here are saying they'd prefer a system camera with interchangeable lenses. Fuji's been successfully delivering fixed lens, non-system cameras for a long time.Umm I wasnt referring to the survival of Fuji, but rather the decision whether to create a new camera system. Businesses tend to like product plans that have a possibility of generating positive cash flow. Track record for Fuji's earlier system cameras probably hasn't been the greatest since we're not seeing any refresh on their modified Nikon body series.
OF COURSE Fuji has the competence and capability to make a top-of-the-line system. That doesn't mean such a product is financially viable as a business unit.
You are assuming that Fuji's sensor is sub-par and older generation just because it's 12 MP?The real difference of the latest 16MP sensors is not only the 4MP more (25%) but rather the really improved high ISO performance compared to the older 12MP generations of sensors. So I would argue this is a very substantial increase of IQ! And with the 12 MP sensor the X100 will just lack that.