View Full Version : Fuji X100 performance proofs now online and look very promising!!!
I had a look of actual photos taken with the Fuji X100 on Fuji's web page and the JPEG's you can download look very promising indeed! Resolution, tone, bokeh look great. This camera WILL be the Leica X1 alternative, there is no question about it. It WILL also emerge as the compact of choice for many pros who shoot DSLR's. It WILL also be very hard to get when it comes out, as I anticipate it will sell like mad.
It WILL also create a resurgence of interest in retro classic camera design, maybe even more Rangefinder or Rangefinder like alternatives to DSLRS.
If it sells like I feel it will, an M mount version cannot be ruled out for the future for about $2,000.
All of this is great news for thos of us who use rangefinder cameras and have collections of valued lenses for our cameras.
Fortunatly, or unfortunatly, depending on your view, this will put pressure on Leica for more innovation at cheaper prices for camera bodies. Truthfully, after looking at the X100 proofs, I feel the M9 is way over priced. Even what I just paid for another M8 body (Used) seems high. I bought them because of my M lens collection. That is key. The true value of what Leica makes are LENSES not CAMERAS. CAMERAS were always boxes to me. In the days of film, they were Boxes that held Film. Today they are CHIP BOXES. Big deal. I value my lenses WAY WAY more. the fact that we will have more boxes to choose from soon for our lenses is very exciting, especially for my pocketbook! Hell, save money on the box and BUY EXCELLENT GLASS! THAT IS THE VALUE!!!!
Wow. So good it needs CAPITALS!
Is there anything with shallow DOF yet, or just that hydrant?
If you look at the photos with the fork on the plate, you can see some out of focus stuff, kind of.
I would like to see some low light pics at higher ISO.
One thing I did notice is one of the shots says US Mail on the Mail box. THis thing is being tested here in the USA, so it must be a production model. It really looks like this thing will be on sale sometime in March 2011.
I am optimistic about this camera. IT seems at least one camera and lens maker has been listening to what we have been wanting for some time now.
I really hope Canon and Nikon get away from the DSLR thing being the holy grail for pro photography and get back to offering more compact designs as an alternative. Rangefinders or Rangefinder like designs are far from dead in the 21st Century. This is what the X100 tells us. Great news for al of us at Rangefinder Forum!!!!
TimothyHughes
02-11-2011, 07:19
If it sells like I feel it will, an M mount version cannot be ruled out for the future for about $2,000.
All of this is great news for thos of us who use rangefinder cameras and have collections of valued lenses for our cameras.
How you feel will not have an impact on Fuji's future builds or the price point. Down the road-they may make more options for the lens but that is to be determined. They already stated the lens' image circle is optimized for the sensor and it was a challenging design. A 1.6x crop sensor on pricey M lenses is also less than ideal. You end up losing a lot of dof that you've paid for with the fast glass.
The sample photos look good, but like eleskin said, I will reserve judgment until I see a bunch of high ISO shots. It appears native resolution of the sensor is 200 ISO.
jsrockit
02-11-2011, 08:18
If it sells like I feel it will, an M mount version cannot be ruled out for the future for about $2,000.
What makes you think Fuji will use a M mount?
willie_901
02-11-2011, 09:56
I welcome a modern non-Leica M mount camera designed with manual operation as a priority with a competent optical or electronic finder. However the Fuji X100 has nothing to do with this concept.
Fujifilm's X100 website clearly states Fuji decided a fixed-lens APS-C sensor platform was the best way to go to produce a superior compact camera. The sensor micro-lenses are specifically designed for the 23 mm lens. This is a single-purpose camera. I'm not even sure I'd speculate that a 33 mm lens (50 mm field-of-view in 135 format) is compatible with the X100 concept as defined on the X100 web site. I see no reason to beleive that the X100 is intended to be a platform.
Fujifilm's hybrid viewfinder may be copied by others and in that sense the X100 (if successful) may lead to a non-Leica M mount camera sometime in the future. But the X100 is simply a modern version of the Canonet QL-17 III and similar fixed lens compact cameras that were successful in the 1960s-70s.
Roger Hicks
02-11-2011, 10:56
I welcome a modern non-Leica M mount camera designed with manual operation as a priority with a competent optical or electronic finder. However the Fuji X100 has nothing to do with this concept.
Fujifilm's X100 website clearly states Fuji decided a fixed-lens APS-C sensor platform was the best way to go to produce a superior compact camera. The sensor micro-lenses are specifically designed for the 23 mm lens. This is a single-purpose camera. I'm not even sure I'd speculate that a 33 mm lens (50 mm field-of-view in 135 format) is compatible with the X100 concept as defined on the X100 web site. I see no reason to beleive that the X100 is intended to be a platform.
Fujifilm's hybrid viewfinder may be copied by others and in that sense the X100 (if successful) may lead to a non-Leica M mount camera sometime in the future. But the X100 is simply a modern version of the Canonet QL-17 III and similar fixed lens compact cameras that were successful in the 1960s-70s.
What's logic worth, next to blind ENTHUSIASM with CAPITALS?
Cheers,
R.
x100 body is good enough for the price like D7000 / K-5 / 60D.
The lens is not as good as Leica standard but it is not a Leica.
skibeerr
02-11-2011, 11:12
x100 body is good enough for the price like D7000 / K-5 / 60D.
The lens is not as good as Leica standard but it is not a Leica.
Gave it a good testing did you?
W
Gave it a good testing did you?
W
I will to give a good testing when it go for sale. See how good it compare to a X1.
Looked at the samples, I see some kind of distortion like CV35/1.4. But most people can live with it.
The micro-contrast is a bit low from F2 sample and it get better at F4. (Look at the cats photos)
Wait some raw files before I could make more comments.
tapesonthefloor
02-11-2011, 11:23
Do they really look all that amazing to anyone? Is just it a coincidence that our resident IQ experts have gone mum the moment these samples went online?
I'm truly asking. I've been shooting nothing but film for two years now. I don't even recognize what's good and what's bad in the digital world anymore.
I searched Flickr for the Leica X1 and here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreasvoegele/4857920283/sizes/o/)'s the first shot I clicked on, full-zoom. Can anyone with an eye for this sort of thing compare & contrast between this shot and the full-zoom X100 samples?
Is this conversation already raging in another thread and I've just missed it?
Do they really look all that amazing to anyone? Is just it a coincidence that our resident IQ experts have gone mum the moment these samples went online?
I'm truly asking. I've been shooting nothing but film for two years now. I don't even recognize what's good and what's bad in the digital world anymore.
I searched Flickr for the Leica X1 and here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreasvoegele/4857920283/sizes/o/)'s the first shot I clicked on, full-zoom. Can anyone with an eye for this sort of thing compare & contrast between this shot and the full-zoom X100 samples?
Is this conversation already raging in another thread and I've just missed it?
Base on what film you shoot.
If you're a tri-x guy, you will find all samples are "flat"
I feel like the B/W Jpgs have even less contrast than PX125 at diffused light. It look "grey scale" to me, not true black and white.
I searched Flickr for the Leica X1 and here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreasvoegele/4857920283/sizes/o/)'s the first shot I clicked on, full-zoom. Can anyone with an eye for this sort of thing compare & contrast between this shot and the full-zoom X100 samples?
This would be another completely nonsensical apples-to-oranges comparison. The only meaningful way to compare image files would be using images shot of the same subject under identical lighting conditions with identical FOV.
I'm sorry, since the camera's not out yet, you'll have to wait for any meaningful IQ comparisons.
I am repeating myself but I am not so overly impressed with the samples offered on the Fuji webpage. The images are really soft and low contrast. Especially the 3 studio shots (even though nicely composed and lit) should have MUCH more clarity/punch to them. With such image setting it is easy to get smooth tones. The BW images are plain bad from any point of view, period.
The lens may give the resolution but with such a contrast/curves setting you just can hardly see it. There is no micro-contrast to speak about in most of the images. Definitely f/2.8 is better than f/2.0 but that would not really surprise me. The second cat and the little girl shots look nice.
Apart from the 3 or 4 images all the rest are just snapshots that do not keep up with the professional impression the X100 webpage tries to make. Fuji, kick the a** of the guy who took the shots and find somebody who can actually prove that the camera can deliver what was promised.
EDIT: The dark tones of some images (e.g. the second cat) even show first hints of banding, at ISO 200 ...
Look, we can all go any buy a used anything with amazing glass any use it, but we don't. The X100 will get people taking photos again, which is the point. Who gives a flying turd about a little x, y or z here and there. So it's not like Leica glass, doesn't matter. So it's not using film, doesn't matter. People will love the look of it, the idea of it, the use of it, and therefore they'll make pictures with it.
That is a great thing, and we should all encourage a camera which attracts attention like this.
Look, we can all go any buy a used anything with amazing glass any use it, but we don't. The X100 will get people taking photos again, which is the point. Who gives a flying turd about a little x, y or z here and there. So it's not like Leica glass, doesn't matter. So it's not using film, doesn't matter. People will love the look of it, the idea of it, the use of it, and therefore they'll make pictures with it.
That is a great thing, and we should all encourage a camera which attracts attention like this.
I agree that it is more about the experience of photography than the photos.
Like iPhones, no one really cares about how easy it make phone calls and how clear people can hear you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
But Sorry to be rude. A camera phone will attract more people to make more photographs than any camera. (FYI : Top camera on Flickr is iPhone 3GS)
Wow, folks, RFF is really buzzing with this X100 thing. I can't wait to see what you all are going to make out of it. As for the test shots, from a technical point of view they are looking really promising from my point of view. However, I would like to see some hands on shots from some seasoned street photographers, with appropriate post processing, also in black and white. From the design, this camera seems to be well suited for street photography. Meanwhile, I am quite happy with my sweet (pardon me) M2 and M4-P. If this concept (especially the hybrid viewfinder) is going to be a success, a digital M mount camera with such a feature will be inevitable, of course in "full frame". Good for us, who hold our legacy M mount and LTM lenses dear. :) The gear-head has spoken.
dazedgonebye
02-11-2011, 12:39
How good will the images have to be to make people happy, I wonder?
As good as an entry level DSLR?
As good as a Canon 5D mkII?
As good as an M9?
Since I can't believe it will not perform as well or better than any entry level DSLR (very well indeed from the perspective of a 300D owner) it's all about the form factor.
Is it as easy/intuitive to use as the cameras it reminds us of?
As for the previously released images on the company site, I downloaded some of the infamous cat photos and found that they sharpened up very nicely in PP.
I hope they did not use the RFF gallery for inspiration. :p No offense intended, really. Obviously the gallery is one of my favourite places here. :) Philosophy of photo is a bit stale lately, in my humble opinion.
There are new shots from this camera posted today on this guy's site:
http://brandonremler.blogspot.com/
It's difficult to glean too much from these images, other than that someone should have told the photographer that you don't shoot tight closeups with a 35mm lens. Merciless distortion going on here.
If Fuji were wise, they'd put the camera into the hands of someone like Chase Jarvis, as Nikon does when they release a new model.
As for the previously released images on the company site, I downloaded some of the infamous cat photos and found that they sharpened up very nicely in PP.
Oh, please. I've just returned from a meet with a photog friend to discuss a new project, and coming back to see this amateur-hour blog... this is pathetic.
On the bright side, it maybe can't be hype if they're so crap at getting the camera into the hands of people who know how to use it.
I hope.
tom.w.bn
02-11-2011, 12:46
How good will the images have to be to make people happy, I wonder?
As good as an entry level DSLR?
As good as a Canon 5D mkII?
As good as an M9?
Since I can't believe it will not perform as well or better than any entry level DSLR (very well indeed from the perspective of a 300D owner) it's all about the form factor.
Is it as easy/intuitive to use as the cameras it reminds us of?
If it provided only the quality of an entry level dslr then it would be very disappointing for me!
On the bright side, it maybe can't be hype if they're so crap at getting the camera into the hands of people who know how to use it.
Oh well, we should not diss the unknown photographer who took the pictures. But surely, a good marketing also means asking some icons for testing out the camera in the wild.
Benjamin Marks
02-11-2011, 12:59
CAMERAS were always boxes to me. In the days of film, they were Boxes that held Film. Today they are CHIP BOXES.
I had promised myself to stay away from all of this commentary, but I can't help offering the following: in the past, cameras were boxes, more or less. Now, though, the "box" contains all sorts of magic bits and bobs. When the name of the game is massaging electrons, the who-what-where of what's in the box suddenly matters a lot. As an example, I'd offer the advent of in-camera processing to correct the aberrations of cheap lenses. So you get a $200 electronically chipped wide-angle out-performing (or equaling the performance of) a $2000 lens on a m4/3. And guess what? It's all in the box.
damien.murphy
02-11-2011, 13:44
Not too worried about image quality myself, even if it is only average (by current standards), dslr quality images are excellent.
It would be nice if the camera could produce great quality at iso 3200/ 6400, but this is not too realistic in my opinion. Good iso 1600 seems to be the limit of APS-size sensors, and with a lens that is f2 should be enough.
One of the options I would really like to see actually is in-body stabilisation. I've been away from dslr's for a while, and have been very impressed experiencing VR in one of my recently acquired Nikon lenses.
Anyhow, not too worried about IQ as I mentioned already. The X100 for me will be the camera to GET the shot. If it can do this, I will be more than happy with it's IQ.
Not too worried about image quality myself, even if it is only average (by current standards), dslr quality images are excellent.
It would be nice if the camera could produce great quality at iso 3200/ 6400, but this is not too realistic in my opinion. Good iso 1600 seems to be the limit of APS-size sensors, and with a lens that is f2 should be enough.
One of the options I would really like to see actually is in-body stabilisation. I've been away from dslr's for a while, and have been very impressed experiencing VR in one of my recently acquired Nikon lenses.
Anyhow, not too worried about IQ as I mentioned already. The X100 for me will be the camera to GET the shot. If it can do this, I will be more than happy with it's IQ.
I find it interesting that the response from Fuji re: the absence of Image Stabilization is due to the fixed lens aspect of the camera.
I find it hard to link that response to the need for IS to be related to interchangeable lenses, or for that matter, my own ability to handhold a camera steady enough to not need stabilization because the lens is fixed to the camera.
Hmmmm??:rolleyes:
There seem to be a lot of inconsistent logic in all the hype related to this camera? But it truly is a wait and see. I don't hear anything from any one that convinces me nay or yay on this camera.
I do find it also interesting that the leicaphile's continue to harp on any lens makers ability to make a lens that competes with Leica Glass.
If anyone has the wherewithall to match Leica lens quality (and many have), I would be willing to bank on Fuji to compete favorable there.
tom in mpls
02-11-2011, 21:11
I find it interesting that the response from Fuji re: the absence of Image Stabilization is due to the fixed lens aspect of the camera.
I find it hard to link that response to the need for IS to be related to interchangeable lenses, or for that matter, my own ability to handhold a camera steady enough to not need stabilization because the lens is fixed to the camera.
Hmmmm??:rolleyes:
More likely they are referring to the fact that the fixed lens FL is very wide and IS would be less important than it would be at long FL's.
Here are a couple shots I did basic post to.. NO WB
http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/5238882/1600LS-DSCF1427_2_tn.jpg
http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/5238882/1600LS-DSCF1455_2_tn.jpg
200% Crop
http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/5238882/DSCF1455_2%20at%20200%20percent%20crop-.jpg
I think it will meet some needs for IQ :D
andredossantos
02-11-2011, 21:52
Has Leica EVER responded to competitors by lowering their prices? Seriously, has that ever happened? Im seriously asking as Im not a Leica historian and I find the OP's prediction that Leica would be forced to lower prices in response to the X100 very unrealistic.
As I see it, and perhaps Im off-base, buying Leica has always been about having to pay a huge premium above and beyond all the other camera's out there on the market. Its worked for them for almost a century and I just find it hard to believe that they will start now.
And just because there has been a lot of controversy in these x100 threads, let me be hyper-sensitive and add a couple caveats so that there are no misunderstandings: A) I don't intend to imply Leica charges a premium that isn't warranted (their products are handmade and of impeccable quality, etc etc and one is not simply paying for a brand name) and B) that I think its possible that the X100 could be a revolutionary camera in that it may open some eyes in the sense that there is a larger than expected market for a RF style camera in the digital age...
That's an interesting question. I think Leica has managed first because of their (perceived) superb quality and reputation, and second because they largely stayed in a niche market - rangefinder camera. I think the X-100 is something sincerely new - a camera that people can use in the same they they might use a traditional rangefinder, but with the convenience of digital output, autofocus and a bunch of other attractive trinkets. The image quality might not exceed that of an M9 with a good Leica lens (some people's measure for the viability of the X-100) but it will certainly be good enough for a lot of people. These characteristics will attract a certain number of people who already use rangefinders, and may also attract new users. Whether any of this will impact on Leica, and their pricing policy, is unknowable. Does anyone here really want Leica to fail and fold? Who loses out if they do?
If it provided only the quality of an entry level dslr then it would be very disappointing for me!
Today's entry level DSLRs are actually pretty decent.
If it sells like I feel it will, an M mount version cannot be ruled out for the future for about $2,000. [...] All of this is great news for thos of us who use rangefinder cameras and have collections of valued lenses for our cameras.[/QUOTE]
The X100 does absolutely nothing for your collection of lenses.
The M-mount and full frame versions that people like you are dreaming up are just wishful thinking on your part.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.