Would you buy a Fuji x100 now?

travellingcello

travellingcello

Messages
1,841
Edit My Images
Yes
OK the question I'm asking is basically :

Now that we've gotten over the hype and excitement of it, is it still worth the £750 price tag?

I'm looking for a more compact camera to go alongside my 5d and the obvious options are the Fuji x10 and x100. I could afford the Fuji x100 with a reshuffle of my line-up but I'm unsure whether it is a good buy. I like the sound of it, but I'm scared of investing into it as I imagine it will depreciate much faster than a dslr.

I want a compact camera with a good VF and good IQ, but /which is the best buy amongst the throngs of compact cameras out there? Its worth noting that I will end up using the compact camera more than the 5d because I hardly get the opportunity to carry around the heftier 5d, so a major trade-off in IQ is not something I'm looking for.

A m 4/3 camera with a pancake is an option, but is there one with a VF?
 
Yes, and I will do eventually. I like the X10 which I bought last week but I'd still love an X100 despite the mixed reviews.
 
I bought mine as soon as I could get my hands on one, paid full price and it's been worth every penny.
It has some quirks but once you get used to its functions and operations the pictures are pure class. A lot of the pro body photographers use it as second camera to keep with them when not working etc.
There is a slight possibility Fuji may cure most of the quirks but please bear in mind that the MF speed will probably not be improved.
I own the full X100 collection and it's really hard to find any negative points about it that would stop me from recommending it.

Buy it and enjoy.

Riz :)
 
I bought one a couple of months ago and I've fallen in love.

The negative factors in the reviews? New firmware have ironed out all the major bugs and the menu systems are very easy to use now. The autofocus is actually pretty fast, much faster than the Leica X1 and on par with micro four thirds (though not the EP3 or GX1).

Massive, MASSIVE positives:
Amazing sensor + ISO quality - noise is absolutely not an issue at 1600, and 3200 is still negligible. Also, best out of camera jpegs I've seen.
Really sharp, fast lens - sharp in the centre at f/2, sharp corner to corner as soon as you stop down a notch, all the way to f/11.
Hybrid viewfinder - shooting with the optical VF is a revelation, especially as it has moving electronic frame-lines and indicators. The EVF is as good as anything on u4/3 at the moment.
Complete manual dial control is just epic.

So yes, I'd buy one. There's really no equivalent on the market at the moment.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Nor would I - tried one at the Calumet open day and it just felt like a £200 compact, my GF-1 feels so
much more robust...
Click to expand...

I did and returned it. Flimsy and overrated and awful auto focus - I too prefer my GF1!:)

PS It does look sexy tho and the VF is brilliant.
 
travellingcello said:
Can you elaborate? That's a useless comment by itself!
Click to expand...

well TBF you asked the question

"would you buy a Fuji x100 now"

to which my answer was "no"





Firstly its an APS-C sensor and there are no current sensors that give me the performance I require.

It is far too expensive

Its a fixed lens of only f2 aperture but mainly the fixed lens

I'm not HCB in the 1930s walking the streets of paris :LOL:

the fuji X100 is a fashion accessory
 
Expense (and value proofing). For the same performance, cheaper (and slightly bigger) you can get: M43rds camera (i.e. EPL2), 20mm 1.7, and electronic viewfinder.

The EPL2 is now discontinued so it won't lose much money esp. second hand, and you can pick up the other items readily second hand. Plus you can change lenses and the AF is actually reliable!

The X100 will be still depreciating very quickly and if you don't like it in a year come resale time you'll have a lot more money on the M4/3rds setup than the X100.

I tried the X100 and it seems like AF only really works if you use the EVF. So why include a useless OVF in the first place! Just makes it bigger and more expensive for a flawed design.

If you want the whole 'retro' buzz - I just bought a used Epson R-D1 and Leica 28mm 2.8. You could find a much cheaper lens obviously, but come 1-2 years time it won't be worth much less - and you can try the 'proper' rangefinder experience (if you so wish!)
 
Not to excessively defend this camera, but some of the things being said are patently untrue.

Cheng said:
Expense (and value proofing). For the same performance, cheaper (and slightly bigger) you can get: M43rds camera (i.e. EPL2), 20mm 1.7, and electronic viewfinder.
Click to expand...

Same performance? If you go for anything that's not the latest gen in u43, You get a sensor with much worse dynamic range, which can't handle 1600ISO without lots of chroma noise. Compare on dpreview...the x100 sensor is a beast.

Plus you can change lenses and the AF is actually reliable!
Click to expand...

Fair enough about the lenses point. But I don't see how the AF is unreliable? The camera maybe fails to focus in one shot out of 100, mostly because I'm looking at a non-contrasty area. When it does focus, it's very accurate.

I tried the X100 and it seems like AF only really works if you use the EVF. So why include a useless OVF in the first place!
Click to expand...

Lol? Sorry but that's absolute rubbish. I use the OVF 90% of the time. Autofocus is no different between OVF and EVF.

I guess it's what you look for in a camera. If you want something small to walk around with, if you shoot in manual a lot and you don't like fiddling through menus to change stuff, and if you like big OVFs, then get a x100. If you don't really care about that stuff then you may as well get something cheaper.
 
joxang said:
Not to excessively defend this camera, but some of the things being said are patently untrue.



Same performance? If you go for anything that's not the latest gen in u43, You get a sensor with much worse dynamic range, which can't handle 1600ISO without lots of chroma noise. Compare on dpreview...the x100 sensor is a beast.


Fair enough. How much difference an average user would see in an average shot without pixel peeping is IMO negligble, but I accept your valid point. It's just not a massive issue to me.



Fair enough about the lenses point. But I don't see how the AF is unreliable? The camera maybe fails to focus in one shot out of 100, mostly because I'm looking at a non-contrasty area. When it does focus, it's very accurate.

Lol? Sorry but that's absolute rubbish. I use the OVF 90% of the time. Autofocus is no different between OVF and EVF.

I tried this in a shop for a good half an hour. Admittedly I haven't owned one. I actually very very badly wanted to buy one - I was on holiday and the going new rate was £620ish from what I remember - when the UK rate was £850. So I did really wanted to have any reason to buy one. However I just couldn't get the AF to accurately work with the OVF. With the EVF it was spot on. The OVF AF was all over the place - just not on the target! It seems like my experience was echoed in many online testing/forums/reviews. Every night I researched this and wanted to find another reason to buy it but the AF was the biggest gotcha - I might as well not be using AF if I couldn't get reliable results! But if you can get AF working accurately for you, great. I couldn't. And it seems like quite a few others couldn't either. And what you say about AF not being different. Well I assure you it really is - again reading will reveal that most people find EVF great and OVF not as accurate....even going to inaccurate in quite a few situations.

I guess it's what you look for in a camera. If you want something small to walk around with, if you shoot in manual a lot and you don't like fiddling through menus to change stuff, and if you like big OVFs, then get a x100. If you don't really care about that stuff then you may as well get something cheaper.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cheng said:
I tried this in a shop for a good half an hour. Admittedly I haven't owned one. I actually very very badly wanted to buy one - I was on holiday and the going new rate was £620ish from what I remember - when the UK rate was £850. So I did really wanted to have any reason to buy one. However I just couldn't get the AF to accurately work with the OVF. With the EVF it was spot on. The OVF AF was all over the place - just not on the target! It seems like my experience was echoed in many online testing/forums/reviews. Every night I researched this and wanted to find another reason to buy it but the AF was the biggest gotcha - I might as well not be using AF if I couldn't get reliable results! But if you can get AF working accurately for you, great. I couldn't. And it seems like quite a few others couldn't either.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think a lot of problems were fixed in firmware and I do recall now reading about problems with OVF focus accuracy on close objects, something that I don't typically encounter in my shooting.

EDIT: personally find the following pretty accurate, OVF close focussing problem described at the bottom: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/x100.html
 
Last edited:
joxang said:
Same performance? If you go for anything that's not the latest gen in u43, You get a sensor with much worse dynamic range, which can't handle 1600ISO without lots of chroma noise.
Click to expand...

Your comments on noise are way out of my own experience with MFT. I have a GF1 and a G1 and I'm happy to use them both @ISO 1600. They both over expose a little and once the exposure is corrected to give an accurate scene I often don't need to do any NR at all other than what CS5 RAW does as default.
 
woof woof said:
Your comments on noise are way out of my own experience with MFT. I have a GF1 and a G1 and I'm happy to use them both @ISO 1600. They both over expose a little and once the exposure is corrected to give an accurate scene I often don't need to do any NR at all other than what CS5 RAW does as default.
Click to expand...

Well it's all relative isn't it :p.

Here's a direct comparison I just googled, 1600ISO is the first set.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=38342165

But yeh, my old kit was 4/3 (same as u4/3 sensor) and I was perfectly happy with the 1600 output.
 
You say that MFT ISO 1600 has lots of chroma noise but also say that you're happy / were happy with ISO 1600 output, as you say, it's relative.

I posted some very low light ISO 3200 comparison shots with a 5D in the MFT thread together with some real world high ISO MFT shots. I'd say my GF1 and G1 are within maybe a stop of the 5D, maybe a little more, but it's not a night and day difference IMVHO.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=262800&page=104

PS. Looking at images on the net is a dangerous thing :) After reading how great some of the latest high MP count cameras are I looked at some high ISO RAW shots on DPR and I couldn't believe how noisy they were :( I personally don't think it's worth worrying about maybe 1 stop difference at ISO 3200. Not unless you're obsessed with pixel peeping :)
 
Last edited:
I had the GF1 and G1 but I was never that impressed with them. Could never get that much detail from the shadows without it turning into a noisy mess and never shot above 800 due to noise.
 
Nope, I wouldn't want one. I just don't do enough at a 23mm FL, not keen on the retro look (see new pentax also), not got a big enough buffer or fast fps, and I'm just not keen on the layout with the 2 selector buttons, shutter and on/off switch so close together. On top of all that, I prefer FF for landscape and portrait photos which is why I bought a 5D2. I've got a 7D as well but the 5D2 is used much more. I only use the 7D for fast or long shots now.

Oh and joxang, just because you've got one doesn't mean you have to defend it or justify it.

Sorry joxang, yeah I was serious, you shouldn't have to defend it, you bought it because you like it and I'm sure it's a great camera for you and a lot of others. Just because others don't particularly like or want it doesn't mean you shouldn't of got it in the first place and shouldn't keep it now. You don't have to justify your purchase to the people who haven't. I have used a Fuji X10 for a while and it's just not for me and I suspect the X100 is the same. I wasn't making any unkind remarks about you or your camera and I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way. Maybe I should of explained the remark better when I first posted it.
 
Last edited:
modchild said:
Oh and joxang, just because you've got one doesn't mean you have to defend it or justify it.
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious. I'm stating facts + infos from my experience and I've also said what kind of person the camera would suit :(.

Isn't that what the OP wanted? Opinions from people who think it's good, and people who think it sucks?

Anyway, I like it but it's obviously not perfect and it's not for everyone. See if you can borrow one and give it a go.
 
I have both the x100 and x10.

There are quirks on both cameras - just like there were quirks on the GF1 and G3 I previously owned, and the D90 before them.

The general AF speec is fine for me - street, landscape, and travel shots.

OVF focusing is fine - now the firmware added the corrected guidelines, plus you have the option to switch to EVF when shooting up close/macro.

Handling suits me fine, layout of buttons and dials are not a problem for my hands.

It would be nice if the menu UI got redesigned perhaps to suit the new Xpro1 - but scrolling through a long list of options isn't really the end of the world. With the X100 it really does seem to be that once you have set the options to what you want, you really don't have to touch the menu that often.

35mm range is fine by me (the x10 with its zoom or my feet are there if I want to get closer to the subject).

At the end of the day you buy the camera that suits you - compact, dslr, CSC or whatever.

I love the x100 and would recommend it to anyone. If they tried it out and agreed then great, if they tried it and didn't like it - that's good too.

Ta,
Shane :)
 
Last edited:
Willo said:
I had the GF1 and G1 but I was never that impressed with them. Could never get that much detail from the shadows without it turning into a noisy mess and never shot above 800 due to noise.
Click to expand...

Whenever I think that kit is limiting me I take a look at what other people are doing with the same kit and realise that I need to do better :D Boosting the shadows is very often going to give you problems, probably with anything short of the latest Nikons but get the exposure right or ETTR and you shouldn't have too many problems.

I'll stop defending MFT now as I'm starting to look like a fanboy :D but I just don't believe MFT is a bad as some say and I'm a bit surprised at the problems some other people have had.
 
travellingcello said:
Just out of interest, are those of you using a X100 using it as your only camera body or as a secondary body?
Click to expand...

Primary digital body. Probably the camera I shoot most on.

I have a Hexar which comes a very close second in usage terms and a Canon 5D1/100mm macro when I need something longer but it sits at home where as the two others are with me everyday.

travellingcello said:
Thanks for all your comments guys- whats the thinking behind having both the X10 and the X100 though?
Click to expand...

Giving serious thought to selling my Canon stuff and getting an X10.

When I started hearing about the X-Pro I thought I'd go for one of them but it's too spendy. The X10 would give me the longer lens option plus it'd put it in a very pocketable package. Infact, I'd worry that the X100 might start getting left at home if I got one!

The X100 is definitely not for everyone and I guess you could say that I'm pretty lucky in that because of how I work and the style of image I make, a lot of the 'faults' it is commonly cited as having just don't affect me.

I'm not really bothered about things being pin sharp most of the time, that said though, when I am trying to take sharp photos the AF has only very rarely diappointed.

I haven't changed the iso, drive mode, white balance, film simulation etc for months - and I use the camera daily - so the menu system is fine for me.

As for the lens, it's not exactly like the lens being a fixed FL is hidden so if it doesn't suit you, don't buy it. Me, if I bought an RD-1, or an M9 then I'd be putting a 35mm or equiv on it anyway so that's not an issue.
 
I would assuming it was priced at the level of a very good 24mm lens and no more. It is a one trick pony and unless that kind of trick makes a substantial amount of your photography then the price is too high and the compromises too great. So I'd buy it for around £400, 450 at a push if I felt overly generous but no more. Plenty of great cheap more flexible alternatives out there.
 
vrapan said:
I would assuming it was priced at the level of a very good 24mm lens and no more. It is a one trick pony and unless that kind of trick makes a substantial amount of your photography then the price is too high and the compromises too great. So I'd buy it for around £400, 450 at a push if I felt overly generous but no more. Plenty of great cheap more flexible alternatives out there.
Click to expand...

Flexible alternatives? Such as?
 
Any interchangeable lens camera is more flexible. So if you are after a compact high quality shooter, a GX1, EP-3, NEX 5N are all great cheaper alternatives with some very good primes.

I would even consider a K-r with the Pentax 21mm prime a more flexible if not necessarily better alternative.
 
There seems to be lots of these people for whom 35mm equiv doesn't suit and instead of just say "camera isn't for me" and move on they get quite aggressive, saying that the X100 is overpriced crap because it only has one FL or such.

I don't know if they are jealous that such camera does not exist in the 50mm (or whatever would suit them) FL or what it is make them so angry?
 
vrapan said:
Any interchangeable lens camera is more flexible. So if you are after a compact high quality shooter, a GX1, EP-3, NEX 5N are all great cheaper alternatives with some very good primes.

I would even consider a K-r with the Pentax 21mm prime a more flexible if not necessarily better alternative.
Click to expand...

That's great but what if a viewfinder is of more importance to you than having lens of other than 35mm?

They can all accept add on VF but the Pentax only third pary OVF with no focus confirm or info. The NEX GX and EP have specific add on VF but those are not OVF/EVf switchable, only EVF. The GX1 and EP3 can take third patrty OVF but then no focus indication in VF so no use with manual focus.

The Nex 5N doesn't have any kind of hotshoe so makes it petty much useless if you wants to use off camera flash.
 
brianwar said:
That's great but what if a viewfinder is of more importance to you than having lens of other than 35mm?

They can all accept add on VF but the Pentax only third pary OVF with no focus confirm or info. The NEX GX and EP have specific add on VF but those are not OVF/EVf switchable, only EVF. The GX1 and EP3 can take third patrty OVF but then no focus indication in VF so no use with manual focus.

The Nex 5N doesn't have any kind of hotshoe so makes it petty much useless if you wants to use off camera flash.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, if you need the rather good OVF/EVF on the X100 then it is your only way pretty much.

However you give up on price, different focal lengths, video and size. So as I said if your shooting consists of plenty of images around the 35mm equivalent then of course it probably is a great camera at a decent price. For everybody else - me included - when you buy it, it is like buying a very expensive 24mm lens :)
 
vrapan said:
Fair enough, if you need the rather good OVF/EVF on the X100 then it is your only way pretty much.

However you give up on price, different focal lengths, video and size. So as I said if your shooting consists of plenty of images around the 35mm equivalent then of course it probably is a great camera at a decent price. For everybody else - me included - when you buy it, it is like buying a very expensive 24mm lens :)
Click to expand...

Well I presume you just wouldn't buy it then as it seems to not really suit you.
 
Despite the shoddy AF, I would still buy one. I've not actually got rid of my G1 + lenses yet, but purely out of laziness, I never use them. Sensor performance is so far ahead of the G1, the X100's fixed lens makes supposedly highly-regarded lenses like the 20mm f1.7 look dreadful.

I don't think there is a better compact(ish) camera for shooting available light at night, high ISO performance in practice is as good as my old 5Dii. With almost totally silent operation, it's a perfect street shooting camera.

The X-Pro 1 is tempting....but if I think about it, I never miss having different focal lengths.
 
mid_gen said:
Despite the shoddy AF, I would still buy one. I've not actually got rid of my G1 + lenses yet, but purely out of laziness, I never use them. Sensor performance is so far ahead of the G1, the X100's fixed lens makes supposedly highly-regarded lenses like the 20mm f1.7 look dreadful.

I don't think there is a better compact(ish) camera for shooting available light at night, high ISO performance in practice is as good as my old 5Dii. With almost totally silent operation, it's a perfect street shooting camera.

The X-Pro 1 is tempting....but if I think about it, I never miss having different focal lengths.
Click to expand...

The 20mm 1.7 is a fantastic lens, plus the G1 is a really old body, not really a fair comparison. BTW I picked up a G1 for £95 and think its great, got some super images from it. I'd expect the x100 to be bloody amazing for that amount of money
 
Last edited:
ShrubMonkey said:
The 20mm 1.7 is a fantastic lens, plus the G1 is a really old body, not really a fair comparison.
Click to expand...

I did say that I wouldn't defend MFT again but I couldn't resist shooting off a ISO 3200 test shot as I went to bed.

Whole scene.
_1040952c.jpg


100% crop of the plug.
_1040952c1.jpg


100% crop of the noise in the OOF shadow background.
_1040952c2.jpg


This was ISO 3200, +1 and backed off in post capture, 1/10th sec hand held and quite a wide aperture, basic NR in CS5, a little boost to contrast and saturation and mild "smart sharpen." I'd say that ISO 1600 is possibly better. There is some noise but it's ok IMVHO and there's lots of detail and the results here seem to match what I get in real world shots. Hardly terrible IMVHO :)
 
Last edited:
personally wouldnt get one as im very happy with the x10 at the moment and that will more than do me until the xpro1 drops to sensible prices.
 
travellingcello said:
Thanks for all your comments guys- whats the thinking behind having both the X10 and the X100 though?
Click to expand...


The reason I got both the x100 and x10 is that although 80% of my shooting with the D90, and GF1 and G3 was around the 28mm-40mm (35mm eq) range - there were times I'd shoot in the 90mm (35mm eq) range, so I decided to get both cameras. Even carrying both - the overall package is pretty damn small.

Also my better half can use the x10 (exr and more traditional point and shoot modes) when we're out and about together - ie: holiday travelling etc.
 
Having had mine now for a couple of weeks, I am more than happy with it.

Whether or not you should buy one depends on your photography needs and likes.

I like the size of the camera and the quality of shots it provides me with. More and more I left my D90 at home because I couldn't be bothered carrying it around everywhere; the X100 fits into a coat pocket without any major inconvenience.

For what I like to shoot, it does a great job and while there are one or two niggles I have with it, on the whole it was worth the purchase.
 
ShrubMonkey said:
The 20mm 1.7 is a fantastic lens, plus the G1 is a really old body, not really a fair comparison. BTW I picked up a G1 for £95 and think its great, got some super images from it. I'd expect the x100 to be bloody amazing for that amount of money
Click to expand...

I do like the G1, and it's criminal that the AF is so much better than the X100.....but I do a lot my shooting on the streets at night and the X100 just blows the G1 right out the water, no contest....as you'd expect a much more modern and larger sensor to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top