Fuji x100

I have a preorder in for the camera and the leather case, but according to the shop I intend to buy from they have already sold their first shipment from Fuji, and so I'd be looking at the middle to end of April. That's ok, as it gives me to time to digest the flurry of reviews and opinions I guess.

But anyway, to the other point - I almost bought an M8. That is, I was resolved to buy one, until I used it. I thought it was awful. I suspect the M9 is the camera it should have been, but it is quite beyond me why anyone would choose to invest in one (and even the answer 'lenses' doesn't hold water with that camera imo). Even the M8.2 didn't seem to cut it.
 
py6km said:
I have a preorder in for the camera and the leather case, but according to the shop I intend to buy from they have already sold their first shipment from Fuji, and so I'd be looking at the middle to end of April. That's ok, as it gives me to time to digest the flurry of reviews and opinions I guess.

But anyway, to the other point - I almost bought an M8. That is, I was resolved to buy one, until I used it. I thought it was awful. I suspect the M9 is the camera it should have been, but it is quite beyond me why anyone would choose to invest in one (and even the answer 'lenses' doesn't hold water with that camera imo). Even the M8.2 didn't seem to cut it.
Click to expand...

How much will this camera cost anyway? This camera is sexy. I'm drooling now :D
 
As seriously cool as that camera is, it's well out of my budget.
 
If the x100 was in a modern black alloy body, no-one would be comparing it to a Leica, they'd be comparing it to the G12s and the like.
 
HoppyUK said:
Frankly, the M8 is an ill-conceived, poorly executed and fundamentally flawed disgrace
Click to expand...

:thinking:

Most of the M8 issues were rectified by late 2006, including a recall of the first batch. The only remaining "flaw" was that it wasnt fitted with an anti aliasing filter and it was very sensitive to infra red so Leica supplied UV blocking filters to fit on your lenses.. Any M8 you buy now should be as sorted as it should be.

But these sort of problems are not just related to Leicas, remember the Nikon D200 with green banding and the NiKon D70 with battery errors? Canon aren't saints here either, another "ill-conceived, poorly executed and fundamentally flawed disgrace" was the Canon 5D which suffered its fair share of problems from serious exposure errors, auto white balance problems, bad vignetting ( a sensor issue) and a common Canon theme, dust in the viewfinders. People still buy these cameras and enjoy using them.

The M8 still commands a keen following and it is still a good buy if it is the sort of camera you want or cant afford an M9. An even better deal would be to get one that has been repaired by Leica ( new sensor etc) Leica dont just repair their cameras, they totally rebuild them and upgrade them to the latest spec.

I'm with Dan here, if you want the Leica looks, buy a Leica not a Japanese look a like. The Fuji looks nice, but its only a pretender..........

Allan
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it interest is as a kind of rangefinder. If we only went for styling then we would just be stuck with leica! ;) I don't think its pretending to be anything but a high end retro looking compact. And Fuji know a thing or 2 about producing high end cameras!
 
allanm said:
:thinking:

I'm with Dan here, if you want the Leica looks, buy a Leica not a Japanese look a like. The Fuji looks nice, but its only a pretender..........

Allan
Click to expand...

Ah, but the first digital rangefinder was made by? Not Leica but Epson. With you on the rest of it though and I don't see why Leica is singled out for so much flack.

I don't see the X100 as a pretender, or a rangefinder. I see it as a classically styled compact with manual controls and if I didn't have a GF1 I'd be giving it a serious look.
 
Last edited:
allanm said:
:thinking:

Most of the M8 issues were rectified by late 2006, including a recall of the first batch...

<snip>

Allan
Click to expand...

To leave a camera like that needing an expensive filter on the front to make it work properly, even after modification, is frankly farcicle.

And they didn't change the M8's half-frame sensor which is not pure to the Leica heritage, nor can it ever make full use of the lenses. A used M8 might look like a cheaper short cut to the Leica experience, but it's just not, and that's why it was withdrawn. The M9 makes a much better fist of it altogether.

Pointing fingers at other manufacturers with minor (fixed) glitches doesn't change any of that.
 
HoppyUK said:
To leave a camera like that needing an expensive filter on the front to make it work properly, even after modification, is frankly farcicle.

And they didn't change the M8's half-frame sensor which is not pure to the Leica heritage, nor can it ever make full use of the lenses. A used M8 might look like a cheaper short cut to the Leica experience, but it's just not, and that's why it was withdrawn. The M9 makes a much better fist of it altogether.

Pointing fingers at other manufacturers with minor (fixed) glitches doesn't change any of that.
Click to expand...

The M8 used a APS-H sized sensor, not a half frame one. I don't get what you mean by 'not pure' to the Leica heritage - Nikon and Canon made their names on 35mm SLRs, does that mean a majority of their body line up today isn't true to their heritage? Leica themselves made a few half frame film bodies too. Although I do agree that the M8 was simply a glorified beta testing body for the M9.

Back to the X100, here's what John Sypal (of tokyocamerstyle fame) thinks of the X100:

Tonight I met friend of mine who was loaned a Fujifilm X-100 by a camera magazine for a review in an upcoming issue. Due to an agreement with the editors I promised I wouldn&#8217;t post the picture I shot of it until it officially goes on sale.

Admittedly I have little knowledge about &#8220;digital imaging&#8221; (and far less actual interest in it) but my gut reaction the moment I held the X-100 was that it is simply a cool looking point and shoot. Maybe it was because of the (light) weight and plasticky feel in my hands, but I couldn&#8217;t shake the feeling that it&#8217;s the digicam equivalent of the Bessa R. Entirely adequate but just not quite there.

It&#8217;s like the name of that Michael Jackson movie: This is it&#8230;?

One would be better off (photographically) buying a compact rangefinder from the 1970s (or buy a Klasse and still support Fuji) and 1000+ feet of bulk film, or a user Leica M6 and a Voigtlander lens. If you really just have to shoot digital, Canon makes that G12, and Ricoh has the GXR which would probably be just as good as Fuji&#8217;s offering.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FruitFlakes said:
The M8 used a APS-H sized sensor, not a half frame one. I don't get what you mean by 'not pure' to the Leica heritage - Nikon and Canon made their names on 35mm SLRs, does that mean a majority of their body line up today isn't true to their heritage? Leica themselves made a few half frame film bodies too. Although I do agree that the M8 was simply a glorified beta testing body for the M9.

Back to the X100, here's what John Sypal (of tokyocamerstyle fame) thinks of the X100:
Click to expand...

Glorified beta testing is one way of describing the M8. I'd call it a half-baked bodge.

M8's sensor is 27x18mm - 56% the area of full frame. And if Leica's are all about the lenses, as we're constantly assured, a sensor that's only capable of using half of their potential isn't doing anybody any credit.

Love that quote from John Sypal :thinking: :wacky: :D

Edit: sorry, don't mean to be rude, but let's all get an M6 and 1000ft of film? What is he thinking? Leica M6 was a fine machine mind, not sure they ever bettered that one.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Glorified beta testing is one way of describing the M8. I'd call it a half-baked bodge.

M8's sensor is 27x18mm - 56% the area of full frame. And if Leica's are all about the lenses, as we're constantly assured, a sensor that's only capable of using half of their potential isn't doing anybody any credit.

Love that quote from John Sypal :thinking: :wacky: :D

Edit: sorry, don't mean to be rude, but let's all get an M6 and 1000ft of film? What is he thinking? Leica M6 was a fine machine mind, not sure they ever bettered that one.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected on the sensor size thing. As for the lenses, again, Canon and Nikon have done/are doing the same thing. By your logic, every manufacturer has been under representing the quality of their lenses.

Bear in mind that Sypal is based in Japan where film is still very much in vogue (otherwise he wouldn't have much content to post on his blog). There's still a big infrastructure present over there that makes shooting film easier. Anyway, the main selling point of the X100 is that it offers the tried and tested packaging of old film cameras with the convenience of digital, but in his opinion it doesn't really approximate the feel and heft of a good film camera. So the X100 is in a bit of a grey area for him - it has the advantages of digital (i.e, convenience), while evoking all the romanticism involved with using those old film bodies (which according to his gut reaction, it fails at). At £999, it's a bit of a high price to pay considering you can get (assuming you'll only shoot 35mm):

A) A 70's rangefinder, a decent scanner, chemicals and film for about £500 all in. It's cheaper and in Japan you'd be able to find loads of labs/photo stores that won't shaft you on supplies. Hell even over here there are a few places that don't charge the earth for stuff. Or you could get the X100's film equivalent, the Hexar AF, for a bit more, and you'll have a 35mm lens that's as good as a pre-ASPH Summicron and really accurate AF (it uses IR triangulation instead of contrast detection unlike the X100).

B) A Leica M3/M2/M4/user M6/Bessa and a 40/35mm f/1.4 VM lens, a scanner and chems/film for around £1100 (or even less). You'll be investing into a system, you get a solid body and lens (which is a stop faster) and the convenience noted in A) still applies.

C) If you're hell bent on digital, get a GF1 and the 20mm pancake. Job done. You could even get set up A on the side if you want your retro romance.

In short, he feels it's a lot to pay for a dolled up point and shoot.
 
Last edited:
FruitFlakes said:
In short, he feels it's a lot to pay for a dolled up point and shoot.
Click to expand...

I've preordered one of these as I personally don't think it's anything of the sort. Although it's a lot at the moment, the MRP of any manufacturers camera before and at launch is eye watering - it will undoubtedly settle in time.

Comparing it to a G12 or GF1 etc doesn't make much sense - both have much smaller sensors than the X100 for one thing. The VF on the G12 may as well not be there, and the EVF of the GF1 is a rather poor attempt (and I feel confident saying this as I've owned all these bits of kit). The hybrid VF on the X100 is a really nice looking feature.

I think the only thing it can really be compared to at the moment, if making a comparison is even worth it (not sure why it is), would be the X1 - it has the same size sensor, same styling and intended target market. I wouldn't buy one of those though to be honest - the lens is too slow (for me), there is no viewfinder unless you stick a passive optical one on top, and it has rather pedestrian af.

John Sypal is perfectly entitled to his opinion of course (even if it is wrong).
 
Indeed, I think that the X100 is an excellent bit of kit, but I can see where Sypal, who primarily shoots film, is coming from - the X100's selling points are already accounted for in the gear he shoots with.
 
I've never heard of John Sypal yet I want to slap him. How odd. :LOL:
 
I agree with py6km. The X100 is really like nothing else. It's perhaps quite a clever feature set from Fuji - niche for sure, and 'reassuringly expensive' but unique and can't be directly compared.

It has Leica rangefinder-esque styling, and that is surely powerfully evocative, but has a fixed lens, APS-C sensor, AF, and built-in flash. And it is far smaller than an M-series. It could hardly be more different!

It's not like the Leica X1, which has a slower lens and no viewfinder, not to mention disappointing performance and a significantly higher price. It's not like a GF1, which has interchangeable lenses, a smaller sensor and no viewfinder (or the similarish Olympus/Sony/Samsung MILCs with their pancake lenses).

I'm a bit surprised that I want one, but I do. I was thinking about getting a Canon G12 as a pocketable walkabout, which is a great little camera - and I really like the viewfinder, poor though it is, as you can at least shoot at eye-level which is crucial IMHO. But it's still a compact with a tiny sensor and therefore zero DoF control.

Of the MILCs, GF1 comes closest for me, but I couldn't bring myslef to spend that much money on something that wasn't right. But here I am thinking about spending even more on something with a really quite unique blend of features and I'm liking the idea more and more :) Need to get hold of one, see if it's got that feel-factor, see if that viewfinder is as good as it's cracked up to be.
 
FruitFlakes said:
Here's a nice hands on preview of the X100:

http://everythingphoto.net/?p=53

If the AF in the final version is quick then I think I'll pony up the cash.
Click to expand...
That's a nice hands-on review. Now I'm in doubt. Should I buy I I shouldn't. Guess just have to wait till its out then. Can judge it better by then. For now I should be counting my money :D
 
That is a good review and unless they do something stupid with the production model this is going to be a very tempting camera.

I wish that my GF1 had the X100 viewfinder.
 
Fuji must be embarrassed by the photos though if they asked him to take them down? If it had lenses you could change then it would be far more desirable. As it is I'd probably wait for the X200 or some firmware upgrades in a few months to sort out the niggles.
 
Bit harsh to say that niggles need sorting as us lot haven't seen a production sample and can't be in a position to say that.
 
woof woof said:
Bit harsh to say that niggles need sorting as us lot haven't seen a production sample and can't be in a position to say that.
Click to expand...

^^^ Agree.

I think all we can say now is that it looks very promising, and the feedback so far is good. But it all depends, for me at least, on how it actually performs. Is it fast, accurate, responsive, sharp. Can a little thing like that really feel that good? Is it a cool toy or a workmanlike tool?

On the spec, my first thought was that I wished it had interchangeable lenses and while I'm sure that could be done easily enough, it would undoubedly add a lot of both cost and bulk. And suddenly it becomes a different camera. They're talking about wide/tele adapters, though how good they might be is another question.

And if you had to chose just one lens, what would it be? A zoom would not be f/2 for sure, and much bigger. 23mm (35mm equivalent) sounds about right to me (I've just hired a 35L 1.4 as my one lens for a city break); f/2 is a pretty good size/weight/cost/speed. So if you had to draw the line somewhere, where would you draw it? And without turning it into a GF1 clone.
 
One of the first things I'd check is the movement of the focus ring as on my 20mm f1.7 it just goes turns and turns and turns... all of which makes manual focus a pain.
 
woof woof said:
Bit harsh to say that niggles need sorting as us lot haven't seen a production sample and can't be in a position to say that.
Click to expand...

More realistic than harsh. I'd be highly surprised if it doesn't need some form of adjustment or upgrade in firmware relatively close to launch date. I don't buy into all this hype and sell your granny's silver to buy it on release day though. I'm wondering why Fuji is so desperate to take down test shots for a start.

Apparently Nikon is moving into this territory about April time as well with a camera aimed at pros.
 
I'd normally agree with not buying things on day one but sometimes products sell out and end up either unavailable or in very short supply and I think that this could be one of those so maybe could be an exception to the don't buy quick rule.

I don't think that I'd be too worried about firmware, Canon and Nikon are no strangers to cockups and firmware fixes themselves and it doesn't seem to stop people buying them. Dunno if I'd hold off buying and wait for either Nikon or Canon to launch a small camera as they could just be subject to the same early teething problems, or worse, and others will be well on the road already so how long do you wait?

I'm a Canon user and stuck with them I suppose as I have a bag ful of lenses but asuming that my lenses are not going to fit a smaller camera (and even if they would fit I wouldn't want to use them as they'd ruin the small form) I have no brand loyalty.
 
If you have not reserved one by now i think you are going to be out of luck!!
 
In short, he feels it's a lot to pay for a dolled up point and shoot.

I couldn't disagree more. It's a unique proposition in the camera world, and the only one which ticks the majority of my boxes. It's technically far superior to any P&S. The image quality of a D300 in something barely larger than a GF1, with a near silent shutter, high speed flash sync and a built-in high-res viewfinder - without needing to mount a cruddy add-on VF atop the hot shoe. Manual controls, build quality only bettered by the M9 and a seriously compact lens package. This camera is going to be an absolute classic.
 
Yes, high x-sync speeds (y) but have you seen the flash for it? Very dull thing :thumbsdown: http://www.parkcameras.com/18484/Fu...ogle&utm_medium=froogle&utm_campaign=pid18484

How about something like this? A classic flash-bulb styled gun, like this old Canon jobbie http://www.flickr.com/photos/gordoncoale/3222447317/in/photostream/ They give really nice light from that big reflector, and tons of it as I recall from a magnesium bulb. Folds away in your pocket like this http://www.flickr.com/photos/gordoncoale/3222447311/in/photostream/

That would be really cool, and great light.
 
I generally use off-camera flash for high speed sync, so I'll be using a Pocket Wizard or cable attached to the hot shoe - the latter gives me the ability to sync at faster than 1/1000th. Currently I have to use either my G9 or my D70s for this, so it'll be nice to be able to use a more modern camera with a DX sensor and 12MP.

If I do need on-camera flash, I'll probably use my Nikon flashes in manual mode.
 
HoppyUK said:
Frankly, the M8 is an ill-conceived, poorly executed and fundamentally flawed disgrace :thumbsdown: Apart from those minor details, it's great! :LOL:
Click to expand...

I assume from your condemning, but very short, review that you have owned and used an M8?

I had one for two years prior to buying the M9 and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone who fancies the Leica experience. At £2k or less it is a decent, if expensive, buy. The quality of the images are superb and if you forget about the use of IR filters, it is little different to an M9.

For those who wish to be involved in photography and to learn the art then an M8 would perhaps be a better starting point than an auto-everything point and shoot canon/nikon.

Rangefinders are not for everyone but neither is video or HDR or any other system.
 
Last edited:
Wuffstuff said:
I assume from your condemning, but very short, review that you have owned and used an M8?

I had one for two years prior to buying the M9 and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone who fancies the Leica experience. At £2k or less it is a decent, if expensive, buy. The quality of the images are superb and if you forget about the use of IR filters, it is little different to an M9.

For those who wish to be involved in photography and to learn the art then an M8 would perhaps be a better starting point than an auto-everything point and shoot canon/nikon.

Rangefinders are not for everyone but neither is video or HDR or any other system.
Click to expand...

Heck no! I've never actually owned any Leica. Why would I buy a camera I don't like? Used them plenty (my job) but never got on with the rangefinder idea and its inherant flaws, which is after all the fundamental problem that SLRs were invented to resolve. And Leica SLRs were always very average - low-tech and massively costly.

You can't just forget about the IR filters on an M8, or the small sensor wasting the lenses which are such an integral part of the Leica thing. That's why they discontinued it and introduced the M9 which, if Leicas do it for you, is a pretty good camera, albeit north of £6k with a lens of any kind.

Leica ownership has never been a cheap way of taking pictures, and rarely the most efficient. It's not actually about taking pictures, any more than buying an Aston Martin is about getting to the shops. It's about the red dot and all that stands for, the great heritage, the superb engineering and optics, the pleasure of owning and working in a disciplined and precision way. All of which are excellent and entirely valid reasons IMHO. You either get the whole Leica ethos, or you don't, but please do it with a camera with some brand integrity. Which I see you do - M9 (y)
 
Last edited:
Richard

I've owned most modern cameras including a 1DsIII and 5DmkII and they have their advantages. However, even the best of those does not campare to sheer joy of both taking the pictures, and printing the images from an M8 or an M9.

I can say that because I've owned them and used them daily. I loved the results I used to get from my 1DsIII and 85 1.2L but I'm happier with the M9 and a 75 lux.

I have a D7000 now for long range photography and believe me there are plenty out there who say this little gem is rubbish. They say it's soft and the autofocus doesn't work. Funny that, 'cos mine works perfectly. I suggest there are too many nerds, too many techies, too many amateurs who concentrate on words and not taking pictures.

What I'm really saying is that there really is no Leica thing, no rangefinder ethos, no Red dot thing, no condescending sense of camera superiority, there's just a joy of photography thing.
 
SLRist said:
In short, he feels it's a lot to pay for a dolled up point and shoot.

I couldn't disagree more. It's a unique proposition in the camera world, and the only one which ticks the majority of my boxes. It's technically far superior to any P&S. The image quality of a D300 in something barely larger than a GF1, with a near silent shutter, high speed flash sync and a built-in high-res viewfinder - without needing to mount a cruddy add-on VF atop the hot shoe. Manual controls, build quality only bettered by the M9 and a seriously compact lens package. This camera is going to be an absolute classic.
Click to expand...

It's a unique proposition in the digital world, yes, but for someone who has already invested in a film workflow then no, not really. By designing it in the way they have, Fuji probably saw existing film users as a potential target, and that is what one film user thinks of it. It's all about perspective.
 
Wuffstuff said:
Richard

I've owned most modern cameras including a 1DsIII and 5DmkII and they have their advantages. However, even the best of those does not campare to sheer joy of both taking the pictures, and printing the images from an M8 or an M9.

I can say that because I've owned them and used them daily. I loved the results I used to get from my 1DsIII and 85 1.2L but I'm happier with the M9 and a 75 lux.

I have a D7000 now for long range photography and believe me there are plenty out there who say this little gem is rubbish. They say it's soft and the autofocus doesn't work. Funny that, 'cos mine works perfectly. I suggest there are too many nerds, too many techies, too many amateurs who concentrate on words and not taking pictures.

What I'm really saying is that there really is no Leica thing, no rangefinder ethos, no Red dot thing, no condescending sense of camera superiority, there's just a joy of photography thing.
Click to expand...

I respect your view, really I do. And TBH I wish I liked Leicas - they represent so many of the values I appreciate but for me, they just don't work very well. And I have to admit it annoys me a little when Leica owners (not you!) wax lyrical about how superior they are as picture taking tools, how the lenses have magical qualities (but elusive to define) and how 'you just don't understand'.

And I would definitely question the value of the red dot for most owners. It has to be a Leica, even though others have made arguably better cameras over the years in a similar mould. Contax particularly, and Minolta, and Epson gave it a good shot. But unfortunately, a Leica lookalike from a Japanese printer manufacturer doesn't do it! They never even bothered to import it to the UK.

I know a guy who is gutted to discover that his Rolex is a fake. It's a very good fake, for which he paid a substantial sum - looks like a Rolex, feels like one, ticks like one, keeps pretty good time, box and all the papers etc. But it's not a Rolex. With things like that, Leicas included, it's impossible to separate the product from the brand and folks should be more honest with themselves.

PS Never heard that said about the D7000! PPS Why don't Leica make watches? Maybe they wouldn't be in such a terminal financial mess :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Well I'll be honest - I don't think that Leica's take superior pictures and are better than other cameras, but I definitely do know that they do work well.
I do believe that if I (or any other photographer) feel 100% OK with the camera (any camera) then that improves my chances of a good picture.

It's what works for you.

Note: I'm no Leica fanboy (I own a D700 and a Sony NEX 5 as well as my M9) but to correct you slightly - Leica are not in any financial difficulty. The sales of M9's and the lenses has increased revenues dramatically. Their year end results are freely available. I wish mine were that positive!!!!
 
Funny how people are saying 'you can't criticise it until it's out' but then some people are raving about how amazing it is without ever having seen it.
 
Wuffstuff said:
Well I'll be honest - I don't think that Leica's take superior pictures and are better than other cameras, but I definitely do know that they do work well.
I do believe that if I (or any other photographer) feel 100% OK with the camera (any camera) then that improves my chances of a good picture.

It's what works for you.

Note: I'm no Leica fanboy (I own a D700 and a Sony NEX 5 as well as my M9) but to correct you slightly - Leica are not in any financial difficulty. The sales of M9's and the lenses has increased revenues dramatically. Their year end results are freely available. I wish mine were that positive!!!!
Click to expand...

Absolutely! :)

But not in any financial difficulty? I don't want to take this (Fuji) thread too much further off topic, but Leica will not see the end of the decade. They just don't have the technology (and Panasonic won't give it to them) and there can't be many more philanthropic billionaires left. Most newcomers have not even heard of Leica, and why should they. Sadly, they will join a long and very distinguished list. Hasselblad and Pentax next... :(
 
Last edited:
Not wanting to take this thread to far off track either...

I quite liked my Bessa R and thought that as a camera it was nicer and easier to use than a Leica because it had a bright rangefinder and I didn't need to take it apart to change the film.

I can see the appeal of a Leica (although I chose a Bessa R) and I'm sure that they are lovely to use and isn't that a great part of the appeal? the user experience?

Getting back to the X100. If someone had asked me years ago what a compact digital camera should be like I'd probably have pointed at my 35mm cameras and said “Just like that” and to me the X100 seems to fit the bill exactly. It looks like a 35mm camera, made digital, and that's what many of us want. My GF1 is almost there but the lack of a built in viewfinder and the fiddly to manually focus 20mm f1.7 stop it just short for me.

I probably wont buy a X100 as I have the GF1 but if I didn't have it I'd probably be very tempted as to me it looks just about a perfect digital replacement for a 35mm compact camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top