Fuji x100/S/T/F Owners Thread

Rosedalelad said:
I really envy photographers who can 'see' the image before they take it. That never happens with me and I invariably end up cropping the image to make the picture - I 'see' the image when it's on the computer screen and by then, it's too late. That's why I'll never be a good photographer. Very frustrating.
Click to expand...

I’m not purist about my pictures, if a crop makes a picture then I’m good with that.
This pic is a combination of chance and editing. The lead ends in shadow so it looks like the woman is on the end of it.
Although I’m not sure everyone will see this, on my Instagram feed someone said that it was a lovely picture,
I guess they just see the Bulldog.
 
upload_2018-8-15_10-12-7.jpeg

The Deep

View across the Humber.
One of the frustrations of a fixed lens is seeing amazing horizon details, and no way of capturing them.

X100
 
Seanazz said:
What I was trying to say is that I have no capacity for zooming into distant details.
But thanks for the reply
Click to expand...

Whilst I love the X100 series cameras and think that they are just about the best 'lookers' out there (and I've had 6 now) it's that 23mm fixed lens that kills it for me. The X100 is a one-trick pony and exceedingly good at that one trick - but if only it had a moderate zoom, it would be all I ever need. You've hit upon that limitation with your image and there's no way round it. The digital zooms on the later X100s just don't cut the mustard either.
 
Rosedalelad said:
Whilst I love the X100 series cameras and think that they are just about the best 'lookers' out there (and I've had 6 now) it's that 23mm fixed lens that kills it for me. The X100 is a one-trick pony and exceedingly good at that one trick - but if only it had a moderate zoom, it would be all I ever need. You've hit upon that limitation with your image and there's no way round it. The digital zooms on the later X100s just don't cut the mustard either.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this.
I’m happy with what the x100 produces, but for my next purchase I’m looking for a bit more reach.
 
gad-westy said:
Would the TC attachment work for you or are you looking for more drastic reach?
Click to expand...

I had thought about that, but i’m Looking to give myself a few more options.
I’ve got a couple of lenses sat on my shelf gathering dust, it would be nice to use them again.
 
Seanazz said:
I had thought about that, but i’m Looking to give myself a few more options.
I’ve got a couple of lenses sat on my shelf gathering dust, it would be nice to use them again.
Click to expand...

I wanted a bit of an all-rounder, so I’ve brought a Sony x100 MK4. I will still be posting Fuji pics, as I have a lot off them. Still to decide if it is worth selling my x100.
 
I'm not sure why but I've been contemplating an X100 for the past few days, I think I just fancy giving one a go ;) I have a few questions about these questions, please forgive me ignorance about these cameras :oops: :$

How does the hybrid viewfinder work, I'm not sure exactly what you see through the viewfinder? Is it like TTL viewfinders where you see what you're getting, or is it more like the old rangefinders where it's just a window and you have to guess/get used to what image you're going to get with it? I'm not sure I could cope with a single focal length, how good are the adapters in terms of how much do they reduce IQ, and how easy are they to put on and off?

Am I right in thinking that it's only the original X100 that has the bayer sensor? Do the later models have the 'potential' for artefacts like other X-Trans cameras?

From what I can gather the X100s was the next in line and upped MP to 16mp vs 12 on the X100, plus improved the AF. Are there any other differences? In what ways is the AF better, and how bad is the X100?

The X100T appears to have an 'advanced' hybrid viewfinder (whatever advanced means?) and also electronic rangefinder with parallax correction, plus has electronic shutter. Anything else?

And finally the X100F which seems to be quite a large step up, offering 24mp 3rd gen X-trans, control changes (including joystick and ISO dial), improved AF, 6x magnification on the VF, and better refresh rate on the viewfinder. Anything else?

In the real world how good are these improvements, is there a model which 'hit the sweet spot' or is it case of the latest incarnation being the best?

Any help appreciated.
 
snerkler said:
I'm not sure why but I've been contemplating an X100 for the past few days, I think I just fancy giving one a go ;) I have a few questions about these questions, please forgive me ignorance about these cameras :oops: :$

How does the hybrid viewfinder work, I'm not sure exactly what you see through the viewfinder? Is it like TTL viewfinders where you see what you're getting, or is it more like the old rangefinders where it's just a window and you have to guess/get used to what image you're going to get with it? I'm not sure I could cope with a single focal length, how good are the adapters in terms of how much do they reduce IQ, and how easy are they to put on and off?

Am I right in thinking that it's only the original X100 that has the bayer sensor? Do the later models have the 'potential' for artefacts like other X-Trans cameras?

From what I can gather the X100s was the next in line and upped MP to 16mp vs 12 on the X100, plus improved the AF. Are there any other differences? In what ways is the AF better, and how bad is the X100?

The X100T appears to have an 'advanced' hybrid viewfinder (whatever advanced means?) and also electronic rangefinder with parallax correction, plus has electronic shutter. Anything else?

And finally the X100F which seems to be quite a large step up, offering 24mp 3rd gen X-trans, control changes (including joystick and ISO dial), improved AF, 6x magnification on the VF, and better refresh rate on the viewfinder. Anything else?

In the real world how good are these improvements, is there a model which 'hit the sweet spot' or is it case of the latest incarnation being the best?

Any help appreciated.
Click to expand...

The OVF is effectively a 'dumb' window however it had illuminated overlays that show the frame based on focus distance so you actually do see what you're framing if you have focused correctly. That's quite useful in a traditional range finder way for being able to see outside of the frame so you can see when something is going to enter the frame. If that makes sense. The EVF is pretty much what you'll know from other EVF's.

I've not used the adapters but sounds like there is no noticeable impact on IQ.

Only the X100 has the bayer sensor. And that's largely why it still has such a big following. Really nice output but the X100 itself is a very slow camera to use and AF is slow too. It's fine if you're happy to take things slowly, maybe use MF a bit more often that you normal would etc, which is all part of the charm. The actual images are worth it.

The advanced hybrid VF is quite clever in that you get a tiny evf in the corner of the ovf which shows critical focus etc. In all honesty I rarely use it on my x100t. Normally use EVF though OVF saves battery life a lot. The biggest advantage of the X100s and x100t over the x100 are that they are just much faster to use and less frustrating. AF is much, much better although it's still not as fast or slick as recent cameras. But I don't like the output of xtrans quite as much as the x100. Shame we don't get to pick and choose our favourite bits! And yes, the X100s and x100t will deliver the same artifacts as other x-trans cameras. Though you might find yourself mainly shooting jpeg. That's what I do despite bascially shooting raw only on everything else I use. There are a number of reasons for that I can get into if you wish!

X100t brought in USB charging which is almost essential for me now but ymmv.

X100f seems nice. I suspect the AF system and general speed of operation are the biggest appeals though I've not used one. Oh, and acros film simulation is nice.

Sweet spot is hard to say. You'll obviously pay a lot more for an x100f but it will be new or there abouts. There doesn't seem much between the x100s and x100t price wise so I'd say x100t maybe represents better value but there isn't that much difference between the two cameras full stop. Much as I love the original x100, I think they should be cheaper and I don't think they represent great value, but that sensor....

Anyone local have one you can have a play around with? They're not for everyone but those who like them, love them if you know what I mean. Happy to let you try my x100t if you ever pass through the north east.
 
snerkler said:
I'm not sure why but I've been contemplating an X100 for the past few days, I think I just fancy giving one a go ;) I have a few questions about these questions, please forgive me ignorance about these cameras :oops: :$

How does the hybrid viewfinder work, I'm not sure exactly what you see through the viewfinder? Is it like TTL viewfinders where you see what you're getting, or is it more like the old rangefinders where it's just a window and you have to guess/get used to what image you're going to get with it? I'm not sure I could cope with a single focal length, how good are the adapters in terms of how much do they reduce IQ, and how easy are they to put on and off?

Am I right in thinking that it's only the original X100 that has the bayer sensor? Do the later models have the 'potential' for artefacts like other X-Trans cameras?

From what I can gather the X100s was the next in line and upped MP to 16mp vs 12 on the X100, plus improved the AF. Are there any other differences? In what ways is the AF better, and how bad is the X100?

The X100T appears to have an 'advanced' hybrid viewfinder (whatever advanced means?) and also electronic rangefinder with parallax correction, plus has electronic shutter. Anything else?

And finally the X100F which seems to be quite a large step up, offering 24mp 3rd gen X-trans, control changes (including joystick and ISO dial), improved AF, 6x magnification on the VF, and better refresh rate on the viewfinder. Anything else?

In the real world how good are these improvements, is there a model which 'hit the sweet spot' or is it case of the latest incarnation being the best?

Any help appreciated.
Click to expand...
I won’t go into great detail because I can’t, but I had the S and couldn’t get on with it. I now have the F and it could easily be my only camera, it’s so much better. Re the viewfinder - you have the choice of optical (with a parallex corrected focus indicator), an EVF, or a combination whereby an electronic version is inlaid to a corner of the OVF. Artifacts? Never ever seen them on any Fuji. Others may have different opinions.
 
T also brings wifi ( which works well ) to transfer images to your phone if you're that way inclined.

I'd agree with Graham that this version is probably best value
 
gad-westy said:
The OVF is effectively a 'dumb' window however it had illuminated overlays that show the frame based on focus distance so you actually do see what you're framing if you have focused correctly. That's quite useful in a traditional range finder way for being able to see outside of the frame so you can see when something is going to enter the frame. If that makes sense. The EVF is pretty much what you'll know from other EVF's.

I've not used the adapters but sounds like there is no noticeable impact on IQ.

Only the X100 has the bayer sensor. And that's largely why it still has such a big following. Really nice output but the X100 itself is a very slow camera to use and AF is slow too. It's fine if you're happy to take things slowly, maybe use MF a bit more often that you normal would etc, which is all part of the charm. The actual images are worth it.

The advanced hybrid VF is quite clever in that you get a tiny evf in the corner of the ovf which shows critical focus etc. In all honesty I rarely use it on my x100t. Normally use EVF though OVF saves battery life a lot. The biggest advantage of the X100s and x100t over the x100 are that they are just much faster to use and less frustrating. AF is much, much better although it's still not as fast or slick as recent cameras. But I don't like the output of xtrans quite as much as the x100. Shame we don't get to pick and choose our favourite bits! And yes, the X100s and x100t will deliver the same artifacts as other x-trans cameras. Though you might find yourself mainly shooting jpeg. That's what I do despite bascially shooting raw only on everything else I use. There are a number of reasons for that I can get into if you wish!

X100t brought in USB charging which is almost essential for me now but ymmv.

X100f seems nice. I suspect the AF system and general speed of operation are the biggest appeals though I've not used one. Oh, and acros film simulation is nice.

Sweet spot is hard to say. You'll obviously pay a lot more for an x100f but it will be new or there abouts. There doesn't seem much between the x100s and x100t price wise so I'd say x100t maybe represents better value but there isn't that much difference between the two cameras full stop. Much as I love the original x100, I think they should be cheaper and I don't think they represent great value, but that sensor....

Anyone local have one you can have a play around with? They're not for everyone but those who like them, love them if you know what I mean. Happy to let you try my x100t if you ever pass through the north east.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the lengthy reply, much appreciated. TBH it would be a camera that I would use in slow situations, AF speed etc wouldn't be an issue, within reason ;) I've been toying with using my old OM1 again, but not so keen on forking out for film and processing and I thought that this X100 might give me a similar usability but with the advantage of not having to pay for film ;)

With regards to jpegs, I could still see some artefacts on the jpegs of my XT1 too so I'm not sold on the argument that it's all down to the software tbh.

I will of course try the camera out before I was to buy one, but we don't have a proper camera shop near me now so I like to find as much about it first before making the trip to a store because I might decide it's not for me prior to actually using it (y)

Stephen L said:
I won’t go into great detail because I can’t, but I had the S and couldn’t get on with it. I now have the F and it could easily be my only camera, it’s so much better. Re the viewfinder - you have the choice of optical (with a parallex corrected focus indicator), an EVF, or a combination whereby an electronic version is inlaid to a corner of the OVF. Artifacts? Never ever seen them on any Fuji. Others may have different opinions.
Click to expand...
Thanks. What is it in particular that makes you prefer the F so much, or should I say what made you dislike the S?
 
snerkler said:
Thanks. What is it in particular that makes you prefer the F so much, or should I say what made you dislike the S?
Click to expand...
Difficult question to answer. I think it’s because it’s just so much more responsive and involving. There are minor ergonomic differences, difficult to say how they change the feel but they just do.
 
Might be worth mentioning that, in my opinion, manual focus is ridiculously good. Zoomed split focus and fresnel. Often quicker than AF, especially in low light.

I have the S by the way, so referring to that.
 
simon ess said:
Might be worth mentioning that, in my opinion, manual focus is ridiculously good. Zoomed split focus and fresnel. Often quicker than AF, especially in low light.

I have the S by the way, so referring to that.
Click to expand...
Yeah I saw the split focus on youtube, looks good, bit like the old split prism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top