Obsessing Over the New Fuji X100? Why Not Just Get a "Real" Fixed Lens RF [Archive]

NickTrop

02-14-2011, 08:18

Recently, I've gotten back into film. Love my DSLR, has its place. But there are certain things film is simply better at, and others digital excels at - and it ain't "megapixes" (so "20th" century...) Digital's optimal point - if you were to graph cost/quality, is at the APS-C level. Here you have near-35mm film quality, excellent low-light performance - now better than film, reasonable cameras sizes and great cameras at prices compatible to SLR system cameras when they were new, taking inflation into account. No film, and no film processing, the ability to shoot away w/o the consumable cost consideration of film makes these cameras bargains at their current price points... esp. refubed or used.

Digital excels in the compact zoom with IS category. It's silly to buy an expensive zoom for an SLR when you can get one of these at less cost that has image stabilization... Also a small-sensor "digicam" has true portability, are capable of very "clean" technically sound images - but with a drop-off in image "sophistication" that often "makes" an image...

What I mean by "sophistication" is the subtle softer focus of foreground objects and background objects that turns up many/most pictures taken with 35mm film cameras. (Some call it "bokeh" but when I think "bokeh" I think of unintelligible swirls of color in portraits.) It's this subtle out of focus foreground - in focus area of interest - out of focus background that imbues a photo with a sense of depth and distinguishes them from being "run of the mill" uninteresting and unsophisticated "captures". Missing this in digital compact cameras, I got me a great sample of a "full frame" Olympus XA (thanks to a RFF member) as my new "take everywhere" camera. It's full frame that slips into my pocket.

Digital has yet to produce - and may never produce, a full-frame equivalent camera at a reasonable cost that you can slip into your pocket like an XA, XA 2 (etc..), Nikon 35Ti, Contaxt T2/T3 or even the line of tiny 80's-90's thrift store point-n-shooters that can be had for a few bucks, literally.

All of these cameras are "full frame" by nature and give you "full frame image sophistication". You lose variable ISO, you have to pay for film and get it processed... Nothing is perfect. But the price differential between these cameras - lots of junk, but plenty of gems also... pays for scads of film and film processing...

Isn't what Fuji X100 "wanters" really after something digital can't give you? Isn't there a compomise even in sensor size to achieve small size? Isn't a "full frame" camera like an "XA" - or similar higher end rangefinder (Oly RC, Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII, etc...) or even one of the better fixed lens point-n-shooters that can be had at truly a tiny fraction of the cost of an X100 simply a better option all things considered? Heck - they're even more durable! Is an $1200 camera with sensitive electronics really a practical consideration to throw in a briefcase, clipped to your belt, or something you will want to always walk around with on the street?

Is it really worth it? Or did Fuji just give you GAS? - You have an XA or a smaller fixed lens film RF, and you're tired of that "toy", and like "Andy's Toys" have thrown them in a box, forgotten in a closet... uh, oh, here comes "Buzz Lightyear..." with his digital sound effects and blinking LEDs.

jsrockit

02-14-2011, 08:55

Digital has yet to produce - and may never produce, a full-frame equivalent camera at a reasonable cost that you can slip into your pocket like an XA, XA 2 (etc..), Nikon 35Ti, Contaxt T2/T3 or even the line of tiny 80's-90's thrift store point-n-shooters that can be had for a few bucks, literally.

Well, it took Rollei 30 something years to minimize what Leica had created down to the Rollei 35. I think you have to give digital the same time frame to mature before making this proclamation. Not to mention the 35ti and T2/T3 were very expensive in their prime.

Isn't what Fuji X100 "wanters" really after something digital can't give you? Isn't there a compomise even in sensor size to achieve small size? Isn't a "full frame" camera like an "XA" - or similar higher end rangefinder (Oly RC, Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII, etc...) or even one of the better fixed lens point-n-shooters that can be had at truly a tiny fraction of the cost of an X100 simply a better option all things considered? Heck - they're even more durable! Is an $1200 camera with sensitive electronics really a practical consideration to throw in a briefcase, clipped to your belt, or something you will want to always walk around with on the street?

Why does everyone, who has discovered film, never left film, or rediscovered film assume that the rest of us really want to use film and are just fooling ourselves with digital toys? It's nonsense. I actually like and prefer digital these days and do not feel my images suffer from it. I've used film in all formats and I still like the digital workflow better.

A $50 rangefinder like the XA can turn into $1200 camera after approximately having 76 rolls of film processed and scanned (NY lab prices). This bit about sensitive electronics sounds a lot like the argument against digital watches back 30-40 years ago. Electronics are not always frail, plastic is not always bad, and the future is not the enemy.

venchka

02-14-2011, 08:56

The Fuji Klasse & Natura lines and the Konica Hexar AF come to mind in the upscale spectrum.

Juan Valdenebro

02-14-2011, 09:21

I agree with Nick about the difference in OOF results because of smaller size... If AF is considered, small sensor digital compacts can't do it the way film cameras can... It's not the most important factor for some images and situations, but a very important one for others, and the difference is there and is noticeable... If digital is the need, an M9 does it, but without AF... A few years ago I thought by now we would have a few FF AF RFs with a fix 35, but looks like it's not been easy for manufacturers...

Cheers,

Juan

f16sunshine

02-14-2011, 09:31

I'm witch-oooh Nick. The Fuji is not really a 35mm lens camera (35mm film equivelent). But it's a step in the right direction. If it is a success than maybe we will see what you and I and likely hords of others want. For many the cropped view of a 23mm lens will be a boone and most welcome in this small package. I don't think Film will be the answer for every one of the rest of us but, some. My feeling is that there will be many folks who purchase this Fuji expecting the rendering a 35mm f2 lens would give them on full frame. Disappointment will follow. Will film P+S cameras follow the disappointment.... doubt it .

kshapero

02-14-2011, 09:34

Nice rant, Nick. How about an M2 and 35 Cron?

Jamie Pillers

02-14-2011, 09:37

btgc

02-14-2011, 09:58

One can buy cheap cameras from time to time and at same time argue "digital gear giving same functionality, controls and IQ would cost me arm and leg" while money spent on those cheap cameras approaches, well, good DSLR with good lens and even flash. Same with film - hundreds and thousands are spent without deep impact on budget like it could be in case of good digital. 2+2=5, sometimes :)

Paul T.

02-14-2011, 10:02

ferider

02-14-2011, 10:04

Good point, Nick.

All this "Sturm" on the X100 has led me to, is to get another Hexar AF; and more film. I'll pick the Hexar up on Wed.

Roland.

dave lackey

02-14-2011, 10:14

Amen, Roland.

With the M3 and possibly another $700 RF body, I will never have to spend a dime on another camera for the rest of my life. Let's see, even 20 years at tossing a perfectly good $7000 DSLR every two years, that's $50,000. Oh, and the new computers and software will double that easily, so, $100,000. And there are always those $$$ expensive Nikon lenses that are bazookas, and then there are all the digital files that have to be transferred over the years to different formats, and...:eek:

Gosh, those Leica lenses and such are pretty darned cheap.:p

EDIT: I almost forgot, film cameras never caused nerve damage in my arm or cost me surgery or two years loss of use of my left arm. Or the lingering pain that I still have to tolerate while nerve generation will never be complete.

And before the digi nuts go nuts, I shoot 50% digital.

Paul T.

02-14-2011, 10:20

Good point, Nick.

All this "Sturm" on the X100 has led me to, is to get another Hexar AF; and more film. I'll pick the Hexar up on Wed.

Roland.

Same here, or rather the HExar will be coming with me for a shoot THursday - I've getting fed up of looking at the files from my GF1. Even reproduced small, there's no comparison.

hausen

02-14-2011, 10:27

Can't see why it is an either or situation. Does owning one preclude you from having the other?

goodtimes

02-14-2011, 10:29

shadowfox

02-14-2011, 10:34

Paul T.

02-14-2011, 10:37

Nick,
The Fuji wanters (I like that incorrect word, by the way) do not want film. Some of them are bitter film users who are so "over" film. The others never even touch a single roll of film, let alone "get it." So...

All they want is a digital camera that looks like a film camera, operates like one, and produces images that they can tweak to look like those we get from film. :)

Should there be a (10) after that?

I would suggest most people enthusing over the X100 are exactly the people who most like film cameras. The X100 might come close.

I think denigrating people who express enthusiasm for the camera (and I'm not about to buy one) is against the spirit of rff and threatens to reawake those tired film vs digital wars.

sevo

02-14-2011, 10:48

What if we've already got a real fixed lens RF, love it, but need something digital, thanks to deadlines, processing costs,

So far the only fixed lens camera I ever needed to meet a deadline shot 6x17. And even there processing costs were entirely irrelevant...

_larky

02-14-2011, 10:54

The X100 is worth it to me purely because film costs £5 a roll, then another £2.50 in stuff an an hour or so to process. So film is expensive. The X100 will give me the form factor, and instant access to my images.

Let's please not start another war about film vs digital. Who cares what other people want to use, really, get over it.

igi

02-14-2011, 11:00

Can I view my photos on an LCD screen with those "real" cameras?

No.

NickTrop

02-14-2011, 11:06

Here's what I'm saying. Both film and digital have their places - but it has nothing to do with "image quality". All are capable of good image quality - film and digital. What I'm talking about is "image sophistication" for lack of a better term - and this has to do with film/sensor-plane size...

1. Large format - film only, can't even get this in digital. Produces the most sophisticated image...
2. Medium Format - film "almost" only. Produces very sophisticated images... There are digital sensor but are prohibitively expensive

Now we get to full frame 135-size

3. Full Frame - produce very sophisticated images - both film and digital, but a noticable step down from medium and large format. The key to this size was portability over larger format, the trade off is image sophistication. Digital camera bodies cost thousands, film bodies costs range dramatically but $100 will get you a nicely equiped camera. I won't recap the digital images advantage in low-light. However, there are not many FF digital choices and all are BIG pro cameras with BIG honking lenses... None of these choices are pocketable.

4. APS-C - reasonable image sophistication. digital's sweet-spot Where average camera cost, size, and IQ and "sophistication" all come together if a camera body is in the average 5-700 dollar range. Digital produces much better images than film APS-C. However, digital cameras are still somewhat "largish". Most compacts are easy to carry but not small enough to slip into a pocket. Film cameras have "meh" quality at this size and offerings (afaik) weren't all that terrific.

5. 4/3 - same as above but even more of a trade-off in "image sophistication" in return for a somewhat smaller but still not pocketable size.

6. Digital P&S... Film takes over here. Both film and digital produce good IQ. However, digital point and shoot cameras offer little to no "image sophistication". Sharp photos, good color but absolutely no depth or selective focus capability.

For this level film cameras win hands down. Very low cost with true full frame with full-frame image sophistication. A high-end point and shoot or mini rangefinder will blow away the Fuji XA in terms of image sophistication over the APS-C Fuji... will be truly pocketable, and far more affordable. An option like a $30 mint XA2 can be slipped into a pocket... the Fuji can't. And cameras of this type are true full frame...

In addition to it not being full frame, not very durable (compared to a film camera), not pocketable... the Fuji's $1200 price-point - well above APS-C average, takes it out of the APS-C "sweet-spot"... The real choice here is to ditch the Fuji and get a $200 "full frame" Contax T2 or some such - or an XA or one of the better early-autofocus fixed lens cameras at a thrift shop for $10...

gns

02-14-2011, 11:23

It seems like all you are talking about is shallow depth of field. Why assign a term like "Image Sophistication" to that? If you mean, longer lenses have shallower DoF, then just say that. Pictures with shallow D0F are not inherently better (more Sophisticated) than other pictures, are they?

Cheers,
Gary

NickTrop

02-14-2011, 11:41

@gns... Image Sophistication is the subtle graduation of focus from foreground to background objects... Also, the nice way bright areas are handled. But these are just a couple aspects. You can pick off a medium format picture and usually easily. I call this "image sophistication"(tm). Ansel Adams and people who excel at large format make more sophisticated images by virtue of format (and their mastery thereof...) over an iPhone "capture". What makes a person sophisticated? The culmination of a number of personality traits. How do you define a "sophisticated person"? It's hard to do - but you know a sophisticated person when you meet one. The same applies to photographs. Depth of field is only one aspect - but a critically important one, as is intelligence to sophistication in a person, but it's not only intelligence. This is a nuanced concept... film makes more sophisticated images... Cinematic = sophisticated... Soap Opera video = unsophisticated, though technically they are both very good if your only standard is resolution, sharpness, and color saturation and accuracy. It's more than just depth of field, though that is a component.

jsrockit

02-14-2011, 11:43

I'm having much more fun in using good old gear like Leica, Nikon F, but also Minolta Hi-matic and stuff like that. The good point: their value seems to never decrease unlike digital gear.

Uh, right, these items never went down in price... Nikon F is like $125 these days.

hipsterdufus

02-14-2011, 11:49

jsrockit

02-14-2011, 11:56

6. Digital P&S... Film takes over here. Both film and digital produce good IQ. However, digital point and shoot cameras offer little to no "image sophistication". Sharp photos, good color but absolutely no depth or selective focus capability.

I agree.

For this level film cameras win hands down. Very low cost with true full frame with full-frame image sophistication. A high-end point and shoot or mini rangefinder will blow away the Fuji XA in terms of image sophistication over the APS-C Fuji... will be truly pocketable, and far more affordable. An option like a $30 mint XA2 can be slipped into a pocket... the Fuji can't. And cameras of this type are true full frame...

The XA is a 35mm f/2.8 lens... not exactly the best for selective focus or depth either. The XA2, f/3.5 i.e. even worse. I would argue that the XA and X100 are equal here. Also, like I said, give digital 40-50 years and I bet we'll see a smaller APS-C cameras (or whatever we call them then).

In addition to it not being full frame, not very durable (compared to a film camera), not pocketable... the Fuji's $1200 price-point - well above APS-C average, takes it out of the APS-C "sweet-spot"... The real choice here is to ditch the Fuji and get a $200 "full frame" Contax T2 or some such - or an XA or one of the better early-autofocus fixed lens cameras at a thrift shop for $10...

Full frame is not everything... you'll get similar seperation at f/2 with the Fuji as you would at f/2.8 with the XA.

Nick, have you even held the Fuji or are you assuming it isn't durable because it has electronics?

Also, why are you comparing film point and shoots that don't have full manual capabilities to the Fuji X100 that does?

Also, pocketable is over-rated. If I want to photograph, I am prepared to bring a full size camera.

NickTrop

02-14-2011, 12:01

I think I get what Nick is saying. As the size of the sensor increases, so does the depth (not to be confused with depth-of-field), tonality, and the "3D" effect of the image. These are all in my own words, but I think the 35mm negative is just big enough (compared to APS digital) that you can see a noticeable difference in all of those things I mention, especially when comparing a 35mm lens on full frame versus a 35mm equivalent lens on APS.

My $.02

Yes. The cumulative effect is what I call "Image Sophistication". APS-C has it, and that appears to be the minimum "image plane" size to achieve it... FF digital and film have it. Point and shoot pockatable micro-sensor digital does not (at any price-point, which is why it's simply silly to blow wads of cash on tiny-sensor pns digitals) though they are capable of making technically good images.

What the photographic community really yearns for is a camera capable of making sophisticated images that is also pocketable. This is beyond the current state of digital technology miniaturization - and always will be if we're talking about CCD/CMOS sensor technology. As the cameras miniaturize, so does the sensor, and with it image sophistication.

The solution? It's been right under your nose for decades... Cameras like the Oly XA family, Minoxes, 35Ti - even some of the better point-n-shooters etc.

For this reason, once the novelty wears off, the Fuji X100 will disappoint... It will eventually add to the list of the camera wander's shelf queens...

semilog

02-14-2011, 12:01

I second Nick's opinion and that was my personal feeling from the day i heard about the X100.
To me, that kind of camera has just become the same as the last "Tablet" computer or smart phone, but in the camera area. Almost everyone will feel a need for it, play with it a couple months and sell it for a quarter of the price.
Unfortunatly nowdays it seems to be the trend for just everything, including cars.

:bang:

Yeah, it's so much more wasteful to decommission a camera after say 5 years than to use hundreds of rolls of film and to discard the associated packaging and discharge the processing chemistry into the local estuary.

Look, I shoot 90% film with an M6 or a Nikon because I like the workflow, but anyone who shoots a decent amount of film (with a Leica or anything else) and pretends that they're being thrifty compared to those who shoot digital is being extraordinarily disingenuous.

Shoot what you like. Do the work you want to do. The merit of your choices is not increased by deprecating the choices of others.

bgb

02-14-2011, 12:04

I think Fuji has done an excellent job of creating a desire for the X100 in photographers who shoot film cameras most of the time. I fit into that category and while having a fixed lens is not the best 35mm is ok.
The X100 is likely to cost up to $1800 here in NZ after all the tax duties and currency exchange is done with
However film is getting harder to find and less convenient to process unless you do black and white at home
A roll of Fuji Reala 36 exposure is $12.00 getting it printed is between $15 and $30 depending on where you go! So about $1.00 a frame.
At a $1.00 a frame it won't take long to get to $1800 so it ends up being simple economics.

DougFord

02-14-2011, 12:06

the image sophistication ratings of many of your favorite cameras can be easily determined.
just tap the camera to be tested with your iphone. learn a camera's 'image sophistication' score before purchase!
save time, money and embarrassment.:p

igi

02-14-2011, 12:06

Darn it, I didn't understand NickTrop's post at first:D:D:D

But I think you've said it yourself Nick. APS-C is the sweet spot. That IQ balances with cost and size. Take note that IQ balances with non-IQ qualities.

I think most buyers of the X100 are either film users or former film users. Some probably still use fixed lens RF's to this day. It's just that the X100 is digital, it's a whole new kind and a whole new experience and offers something different without much compromises from 35mm which is likely the reasonable reason to buy it.

gns

02-14-2011, 12:07

Nick/Hipster,

I certainly wouldn't disagree that different formats and materials have different looks.
The term "Image Sophistication" seems pretty vague as do some of your explanations ("The nice way bright areas are handled". "3D effect"?). It also injects a value connotation. Aren't smaller formats/cameras more "Sophisticated" in their ability to handle moving subjects?

Yes these small sensor digitals are different and that is a good thing isn't it as it gives us more choices?

Gary

emraphoto

02-14-2011, 12:11

so, if I have this all figured...

I can purchase sophistication? Via the capture medium?

NickTrop

02-14-2011, 12:13

Bottom line - then I'm out, work and alla dat.

A restatement of thesis...

Photographers serious amateurs/pro seek a camera that provides optimal image sophistication, which is a function of both well-designed optics working in symbiosis with the image capture plane size and ability to render technical quality. Image sophistication is a nuanced concept, like sophistication in a person and is a synthesis of many attributes. It diminishes in photography as the image capture plane shrinks in size.

Although the Fuji X100 will render "sophisticated images", its price-point knocks it out of the APS-C "sweet-spot" of its compact DSLR competitors. It is not as durable as film cameras as it is a sensitive electronic device. It is too large to be pocketable. It will be only marginally more portable than compact DSLR offerings and 4/3 offerings. It is not full frame.

The solution for the above is a small, pocketable, durable high-quality film rangefinder or point-n-shoot, loaded with a high-quality emulsion suitable to the lighting condition you're shooting. Not the Fuji X100 or any other current digital offering. Terry Richardson is on to something...

ampguy

02-14-2011, 12:13

With the fixed WA lens on the X100 (~24mm fl), it will cover landscapes, and travel, lots of general purpose photo op situations, but not portraits or selective focus artful type photos like this one (hexar af, 35mm, 24x36mm film size) taken of a flower wide open @f2 :

http://matsumura.smugmug.com/photos/467432360_2e9aC-L.jpg

NickTrop

02-14-2011, 12:19

I'm not saying the X100 won't be capable of image sophisitication. It will be as any other APS-C sensored camera is. It, however, is not sufficiently durable as a sophisticated electronic item. It is not small enough to carry around with you comfortably and will spend most of its life on a shelf or in a box or closet, unused. It loses out to any full-frame camera - film or digital, in image sophistication to a degree by virtue of its sensor size. Its cost, about 2X that of other APS-C compact DSLR offerings, knocks it out of the APSC "sweet spot". It offers only a marginal portability advantage over them.

It sure does look cool though... Just like those coo' looking rangefinders of yesteryear, that still work, are full frame, offer better image sophisitication, and are just as much of a drag to carry around with you, which is why you don't...

Platinum RF

02-14-2011, 12:20

The key word is "digital"

semilog

02-14-2011, 12:25

Image sophistication is a nuanced concept, like sophistication in a person and is a synthesis of many attributes. It diminishes in photography as the image capture plane shrinks in size.

This is why the miniature 2.25" X 2.25" format was designed as an amateur format, will always be an amateur format, and will never catch on with professionals. We won't even talk about the sub-minature 35mm format.

jsrockit

02-14-2011, 12:54

Although the Fuji X100 will render "sophisticated images", its price-point knocks it out of the APS-C "sweet-spot" of its compact DSLR competitors. It is not as durable as film cameras as it is a sensitive electronic device. It is too large to be pocketable. It will be only marginally more portable than compact DSLR offerings and 4/3 offerings. It is not full frame.

The price works for those of us who hate the shape of DSLRs, hate the menus in DSLRs, hate the multi-use knobs of DSLRs, etc. Some of us just like rangefinder shaped cameras with old fashioned shutter speed dials and aperture rings and we'll pay extra for it.

Most of the film cameras you have mentioned have electronics as well. They are also great tools... as the X100 is sure to be as well.

Leigh Youdale

02-14-2011, 12:56

In essence, I think it all boils down to this:-
Nick doesn't like anything electronic or plastic, and has come up with an imaginative rationale to justify his choices and to try to convince us that he's right and others who make different choices are wrong. Most of us have recognised the age we're living in, made our choices and moved on.
It just doesn't matter, Nick. Enjoy your XA.

jsrockit

02-14-2011, 12:57

but not portraits or selective focus artful type photos like this one (hexar af, 35mm, 24x36mm film size) taken of a flower wide open @f2 :

http://matsumura.smugmug.com/photos/467432360_2e9aC-L.jpg

You will completely be able to do this on the X100. Even small sensor P&S cameras allow for selective focus if the in focus subject is close to the camera and the out of focus background is very far away.

Roger Hicks

02-14-2011, 13:09

Well, it took Rollei 30 something years to minimize what Leica had created down to the Rollei 35.
By the simple expedient of omitting a few irrelevant features such as the rangefinder and interchangeable lenses, let alone fast lenses.

Where's your '30 years' coming from, that matter? Ah, that would be the 1962 Rollei 35, 30 years after the Leica II. Nothing like the Retina II of 1936, then.

Cheers,

R.

hausen

02-14-2011, 14:34

Price point sensor sweet spots mean very little to me. I love the look of this new Fuji offering, I love it size compared to my recently sold Mamiya 6 or Leica M6 and have very rarely if ever have put a camera in my pocket. The price is the price you have to pay to play, and I agree with my fellow Kiwi above it will pay for itself in less than a year for me in film, chemicals and scanning costs and will give me more time to be out using it. Don't see it as pro-digital or anti-film, it just is what it is. Will be my 3rd Fuji and have loved all of it's predecessors and if I don't I will sell it. A no brainer.

bgb

02-14-2011, 15:16

Price in NZ confirmed by Greg at Photo and Video $1695 with 50 coming to this country, they are taking orders , I'm waiting to see the reviews but I'm keen as!

It's less that the cost of film and chemicals for one year I would imagine 1695 frames the first week ... yeah really :-)l

NickTrop

02-14-2011, 15:43

Uggh... you're all hopeless... Hopeless! :)

Oh - and take a look at the gallery here at RFF. Do note the level of image sophistication, and take a look at what they were shot with... ;) You will find very few 4/3rds stuff... some APSC, some FF. Most are film, and the most sophisticated are shot with film, and you will find the most sophisticated among them shot with medium format film if you're still not getting where I'm coming from...

Jamie Pillers

02-14-2011, 15:55

And lets not forget ISO and white balance on the fly! Maybe the b&w-only users here don't care much about that, but for someone that sees color as a very important aspect of the world these things are incredibly useful. Being able to do that without lugging a giant, ill-shaped DSLR is heaven.

For those here that think there's some 'obsessing' going on, the fault is with Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Olympus, Ricoh, and all the rest. Where's there an equivalent even close to what the Fuji brings to the table with respect to a small compact rangefinder-ish camera? Leica? Yeah, for $$$$. But otherwise? Nada. Obsession? Nope... just relieved and happy. And now lets see if this thing pushes the others to compete! :-)

daveisbest

02-14-2011, 15:58

"Obsessing Over the New Fuji X100? Why Not Just Get a "Real" Fixed Lens RF"

What if we've already got a real fixed lens RF, love it, but need something digital, thanks to deadlines, processing costs, and the fact work is increasingly online?

It's true, of course, that the excitement that the X100 might be nearly as good as the elderly KOnica Hexar is an indictment of today's digital offerings.

Exactly. I use 35mm film exclusively right now, and 70% of my work is done with fixed lens cameras. I love film, and don't find it too expensive. However I hate the tedium of scanning negatives onto my computer. I have some negatives which have been sitting beside my computer desk for more than a year waiting to be scanned. Don't get me started on dust or scratch removal.

If I'm shooting an assignment the client wants the digital files in a day or two, not in a week. I hate using cameras which don't have an OVF or have manual controls that are hidden in some stupid menu. Thus the X100 is the first affordable digital camera I would feel comfortable using, assuming it lives up to the hype(if that's even possible).

GSNfan

02-14-2011, 16:11

A sophisticated image is created by a sophisticated photographer. gear has nothing to do with it.

Give the best gear to a yahoo and all you'll get would be yahoo-like unsophisticated images.

Arjay

02-14-2011, 16:25

Nick - you're offending the audience (as per Peter Handke).

All you do is postulate a self-imposed attribute, your 'sophistication', just like some marketing geek that is in dire need of some dreamt-up new buzzword to make the competition look inadequate. By doing this, you declare the rest of the readership here as uneducated and ignorant. I think your statements say more about you than about your audience.

You are right that the larger the sensor / film format, the more DOF control and 3D separation will the user get. But that's rather trivial - nothing we didn't know before.

Apart from that, all your remaining assumptions are unfounded:

The user does indeed have a lot of freedom in controlling and managing DOF, even when using smaller sensor / film formats: He just has to get close to his subject and see to it that the background is far away.

Digital image files per se do not inherently have a specifically 'harsh' look - that all depends on the person who does the post-processing. Rich tonality can be achieved from digital files just as well - just as with darkroom competence, digital files require a specific light room experience. If such files are treated competently, they can be up to par with 'wet' processing.

Lastly, the assumption that digital cameras are less stable, durable or reliable than their mechanical ancestors is a stubborn myth that has survived in the minds of those who suffered from the first generations of (admittedly crappy) digital cameras. Technology has come a long way (I can assure you I know what I am talking about, as I started my career in semiconductor manufacturing QC). Vibration resistance and temperature stability have come up to a level that electronics today performs equally well as mechanics. And when eleectronics fail, so will mechanics when it gets too hot or too cold.

Next comes the battery myth: Power consumption in modern cameras has improved by several orders of magnitude, to a degree that it is'nt a serious problem any more. Carrying one or two spare rechargeable batteries really isn't an issue with a camera that doesn't need voluminous film cartridges.

So, if there's no sophistication in a photographers images, it's not the camera's fault.

gavinlg

02-14-2011, 17:09

I'd have a gf1 with 20mm f1.7 over an olympus XA for 'travel' and every day shooting anyday. Reason - versatility, low comparative ongoing cost, gf1/gf2 significantly more reliable, 20mm f1.7 is a significantly better lens than the XA 35mm, similar size, gf AF's WAY faster than I can MF the XA, 20mm is significantly faster, GF is manual capable and has better external controls.

If you load an XA with 400 speed film, you're pretty limited in what light you can shoot. It's shutter only goes to 1/500th, so you're not going to get any subject separation in any kind of bright light anyway, and as soon as it gets just a little bit dark you have to get an 800 or 1600 speed film in there due to the slow lens.

I'd love the X100 to be full frame, but the aps-c sensor will be just fine. As for film comparisons, last overseas trip I shot 15-20 rolls of film and it was a nightmare to get it all processed and finished, was quite frustrating and expensive really. By the end my digital shots from the 5d were significantly better in quality than the film shots using the same lenses and a 1n.

NickTrop

02-14-2011, 17:29

All excellent points, Nick.
I'm one of those that has pre-paid for the X100. Here's why.
1) When I have a small, inexpensive, carry-everywhere film camera with me, I burn up a LOT of film. In the last few years of carrying these cameras around with me, I exposed roughly 500 rolls of color film. Cost of film plus processing (no prints, just CDs from Costco) was between Five and Six THOUSAND dollars!!
2) I love color photography. To print color from film requires even more $$ for Costco... and that would leave me with... Costco prints!!
3) The sophistication you speak of seems equally present in pictures I've made from film and digital. Possibly if I did some wide-open close-up portraits, maybe I'd see the character you're referring to. But for my street photographs, I can't see any difference.
4) The control over printing I now have using the computer with RAW files is WAY beyond what I was skilled enough to do in the color darkroom.
Cheers,
Jamie

Fair enough... I might add, I carry a camera with me at all times. It was my new years resolution and it's the first one I've ever kept. I carry a small sensor digital camera for precisely the reasons you've mentioned... I can't keep up with the film costs, processing etc. so the little digicam augments film - or it might be the other way around.

However, your comments somewhat are aligned with my point. Although the Fuji certaily is capable of APSC-level image sophistication, the size of the Fuji precludes its use as an "always have on you" camera. Additionally, its inflated price knocks it out of the APSC "sweet spot".

The only cameras that truly offer full frame image sophistication that are durable enough and small enough to comfortably carry with you all the time are a handful of cameras that were designed in the later part of the modern film era - such as the XA line, the 35Ti, and some fixed lens point-n-shoot models, like the Minota AF-C.

Significantly less expensivethan the X100 to offset film consumable costs, more durable than the X100, significantly larger imaging plane offering more "image sophistication" than the X100...

The are all-around more pragmatic and sensible choice, it seems to me, all things considered.

NickTrop

02-14-2011, 17:31

BS Nick.

I shoot a small format digi p+s. Fixed lens, fixed focus.

I get mentions just about every week in the "Picks of the week thread".

How do you account for that?

How do I account for that? 1. You are a good photographer who is able to overcome the handicap of the tool you have chosen to use... 2. You are the exception that proves the rule.

NickTrop

02-14-2011, 17:39

cooltouch

02-14-2011, 21:19

When I first saw photos of the X100, my first impulse was "I want one!" But after reading on a bit further about its specs -- and then its price -- my feelings of excitement were dimmed somewhat. But I definitely have to give props to Fuji for coming up with a design that causes folks like me to have this sort of gut-level, knee-jerk reaction.

As to this ongoing debate, in which at least some attempt is being made at restricting the "film vs. digital" discussion to "rangefinders," I think we should stop dancing around the obvious and just admit it. If you're an old graybeard like me, who cut his (or her) teeth on manual focus, manual exposure gear, then -- in spite of all digital's obvious advantages -- we are gonna have a soft spot for film, and will attempt whenever possible to come to its defense. Just admit it. Sophistication be damned.

And as for you yabbos who have never run a roll of film through anything besides a disposable camera, show some respect for your elders. Cuz when you're our age, you'll likely be waxing poetic over the early pioneering days of digital, and looking askance at the latest technology that all the younger set is using in that future time. Just remember this: if you're fortunate, you'll be old too someday, and you'll have to put up with all the yahoos around who are absolutely convinced they already know everything there is to know about a subject that will be two hundred years old by then -- without having bothered to learn any of its history, of course, because "who needs it?"

Chris101

02-14-2011, 21:26

I love that term - image sophistication! It's much better than the oft abbreviated Image Quality. So much more RFF, if you know what I mean.

And I know that you do!

Leigh Youdale

02-14-2011, 22:32

I love that term - image sophistication! It's much better than the oft abbreviated Image Quality. So much more RFF, if you know what I mean.

Can we please have a new Forum on "Image Sophistication"?

_larky

02-14-2011, 23:23

I think the term Image Sophistication belongs tied to a pole in front of a firing squad. What a load of crap.

Use what you wanna use, shoot what you wanna shoot, and ignore all the idiots who say otherwise.

btgc

02-15-2011, 00:56

IS and IQ belong to vocabulary of photographer.

NickTrop

02-15-2011, 04:49

IS and IQ belong to vocabulary of photographer.

Yes - Image Sophistication(c) should definitely be in the lexicon. It is far more encompassing than mere "image quality". I agree in full. The term that should be "in front of the firing squad" is "digital negative".

GSNfan

02-15-2011, 05:24

Juan Valdenebro

02-15-2011, 05:28

Members are right about Nick having his tone: we all have our own tone.
Members are right about the X100 can be a good tool if it is well used.
But Nick is very right about the reduced ability the X100 has for OOF rendering at any given f-stop: no matter if a photographer takes care of distance between foreground and background while using the X100, it's a tool that's inferior there, and the same careful photographer can go further in isolating subjects if as Nick says, uses the real thing... It's as simple as that: its attractive f/2 35mm equivalent lens can't produce the kind of images a film 35mm f/2 has always produced because it's not a real f/2 35mm. The X100 as other small digital cameras just can't do it no matter the photographer's skills: it can do it to a lower degree only. Who cares about it and when, is another story, but as tools, they just can't do the same for any image if the same conditions are used. In the other hand, the X100 is superior than most film cameras for producing near free photographs, or for seeing an image on a screen, or for AF. But in general Nick (to me) is right, and it's an important observation in a public forum because lots of people don't know it and just think 23mm is equivalent to 35mm so let's find images in the net from 35mm lenses at f/2 to see the bokeh I'll be able to get with my X100...

Cheers,

Juan

jsrockit

02-15-2011, 05:32

Where's your '30 years' coming from, that matter? Ah, that would be the 1962 Rollei 35, 30 years after the Leica II. Nothing like the Retina II of 1936, then.

Rollei 35 came out in 1966.

http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/35classic/info/index.shtml

doolittle

02-15-2011, 06:28

I think I will have to spawn a new thread: Obsessing over people Obsessing Over the New Fuji X100 :)

nightfly

02-15-2011, 07:29

This is the same Nick who was raving about his Nikon D5000 being the best thing since sliced bread a few months back?

I do think there is something to the argument and it's probably what's kept me shooting film for so long even though I have a highly digital lifestyle otherwise. The photos coming out of the digital cameras I've used (mostly small sensor) lack a certain quality that I value in my film negatives. After the initial fling they go in the drawer and eventually get sold at a big loss.

I've seen some nice photos come out of the Canon 5D and I've considered buying one used and a few of the Canon primes but it's just large enough to keep me from pulling the trigger.

I think everyone has an individual quality threshold. For me 35mm is just about there. I sometimes regret selling my Mamiya 6 but the negs were almost too clean and the camera just a bit too big. As I get into color though there is something about medium format color film that is really wonderful.

sevo

02-15-2011, 07:40

Members are right about the X100 can be a good tool if it is well used.

Maybe, or maybe not. That thing is not there yet, and it would not be the first digital compact to start out with a massive hype which later proved to have some irritating property that made it a very short-lived phenomenon...

cooltouch

02-15-2011, 07:40

The sad thing about fixed lens RFs are that due to their cheap selling rate, most clean and functioning ones are horded by second tier collectors who keep them for some sort of absurd pleasure of keeping things and thus making it hard to find clean and working condition quality fixed lens RFs.

Ooooh, do I detect a bit of elitism here? Just what, pray tell, is a "second tier collector?" Perhaps one who can't afford the best Leica and Nikon rangefinder gear, and instead goes for the Canon QL-17s and Yashica Lynxes? Might it not be argued that all collectors have a rather "absurd pleasure of keeping things" and that this is, in fact, what defines them as "collectors" as opposed to (perish the thought) investors?

MIkhail

02-15-2011, 07:59

........

Is it really worth it? Or did Fuji just give you GAS? - You have an XA or a smaller fixed lens film RF, and you're tired of that "toy", and like "Andy's Toys" have thrown them in a box, forgotten in a closet... uh, oh, here comes "Buzz Lightyear..." with his digital sound effects and blinking LEDs.

This is funny. You are trying to rationalize the decision of people in the area where decisons are based on impulse and "like vs. dislkie".

Do I need this digital camera? Of course not. Do I need camera at all? I can go to Sears photo twice a year and get "frozen smile" pictures of my kids and wife there. Hell, for the money I spend I can hire a personal pro photographer. But it's not about the money, isn't it?

Another thing: I could understand if you compare this camera with Konica Hexar AF, or similar. But XA? Please... (I have both, by the way). XA is a cute little pocket camera but nothing beyound that, IMO.

With respect.
Mikhail

Jamie Pillers

02-15-2011, 10:51

Nick,
You remind me of another matter relative to all this. I suppose its just a problem with lack of brain processing speed, but if I have both film and digital cameras, of approximately the same size and capability I go into 'brain lock'. Which to use... pixels or grain, and why? I can barely get out the door with this weighing on my little brain!

Jamie Pillers

02-15-2011, 10:57

Beware, Nick. If the term "image sophistication" catches on, I guarantee you that the first revision to the definition made by the 'critique en masse' will be to argue that CONTENT plays a larger role in sophistication than anything else. 'They' will not accept the term as limited to some sort of technical measurement. :-)

_larky

02-15-2011, 12:06

If a sophisticated image is anything like so-called sophisticated conversation it can bugger off back to the 80's where it belongs, along with all the ****e music.

Brian Sweeney

02-15-2011, 12:23

ANDY loved BOTH Buzz and Woody, played with Both of them after the initial "new out of the box". AND Woody and Buzz became BEST Friends!

So, I think everyone can see the analogy of Buzz and Woody as the best of Digital and Film being used together. New and Old, Electronic and Mechanical.

I kept my Panda Canonet Ql17l and Minolta Hi-Matic 9. I've kept the latter out of other's hands for 42 years now.

d_ross

02-15-2011, 13:29

Perhaps as much as anything, Nick via the technical aspects relative to different mediums he talks of, is in a way also talking about the differing aesthetics offered by film and digital, this is not a pro or con to either medium, it is an actual physical difference. For example the way light is absorbed into film is totally different to how light is received by a digital sensor, this also goes for the difference between the way light is absorbed by light sensitive paper compared to ink landing on a coated paper. All of which results in a different type of sophistication possible from the two mediums, we need to understand both and supply the appropriately Sophisticated images to the particular type of Sophisticate they relate to.

Sophistication; see sophist . Meaning "wordly wisdom, refinement, discrimination"
Sophisticated, see ideas, tastes, or ways as the result of education worldly experience, etc

The sophistication I see, that Nick talks of, is that of one image appearance distinctly different to that of another, and as sophistication allows for personal interpretation, it is just one mans view. However, his view is supported by many who think about and understand the Sophistication he is talking about! The beauty of film and of digital is to be found firmly in their respective differences, dismissing or simply not understanding those differences or not being prepared to accept them is foolish and contrary to improving ones work.

DFNDRMP

02-15-2011, 13:52

What's the point of having "image sophistication" if all you do is talk about it on the internet?

NickTrop

02-15-2011, 14:16

certainly not when it's presented the way it was. as much as Nick finds sophistication in what he presented, others may find it something as novel as CONTENT. neither is wrong really.

i fear it is easy to be thought of as a member of the 'critique en masse' throngs on the old interwebs. there are a lot of folk about and you might find some of them share your thoughts.

This is a good point in the evolution of the concept of "image sophistication". I hereby proclaim as creater of new photographic lingo there to be, indeed, two variations of image sophistication:

1. Technical Image Sophistication (TIS), which is what I am alluding to in this thread...

2. Content Image Sophistication (CIS), which emraphoto has defined here (see above) but which I shall, nonetheless, take full credit for...

Doug

02-15-2011, 14:32

What's the point of having "image sophistication" if all you do is talk about it on the internet?
Why not discuss matters of interest in a discussion forum? Note there is also a large and active RFF photo gallery. :cool:

shadowfox

02-16-2011, 06:35

I think denigrating people who express enthusiasm for the camera (and I'm not about to buy one) is against the spirit of rff and threatens to reawake those tired film vs digital wars.

Paul, I am not denigrating anyone.
That's why there's a smiley at the end of my sentence. Like this :)

Dante_Stella

02-19-2011, 06:40

Nick -

I don't know if I like the X100, but my take is:

1. Fixed lens RFs, historically, were never positioned as serious tools nor designed to be. Consistent with their misogynistic era, they were marketed as dumbed-down cameras for women and positioned below any manufacturer's amateur SLR line. Or dumbed-down cameras for rich men. Of the cameras you mention, only the Contaxes (and the Rollei 35S, Nikon 35ti, and the Hexar AF - all of which priced at the equivalent of $1,200 in the day) are really good optically. And none of the cameras you mentioned in your original post hold film flat enough to take full advantage of the optics they do have. Compact digital cameras are positioned no differently, but they are (a) smaller; (b) built to much higher tolerances by robots and individually calibrated on computerized test fixtures; and (c) do not have film flatness to contend with. An APS-C camera with microlenses keyed to the lens focal length is keyed to a different market altogether.

2. The difference in depth of field (regardless of whether you call it by its generic name or some new trademark) is negligible between an APS-C digital camera with an f/2 lens and fixed RFs, most of which had f/2.8 lenses. An APS-C digital will, for the most part, make better use of its wide aperture because the lenses are generally made better - and because it uses closed-loop focusing that can be arbitrarily trained on any point in the frame. The X100, having an ND filter in it, can also maintain "sophistication" in a much wider variety of situations.

3. APS-C sensors already crush the low-light capabilities of film cameras. This is even filtering down to the 1/1.6" sensors. Neopan 1600 deserved to die.

4. Pictures shot in color with 35mm cameras are vulnerable to mishandling in processing - to say nothing of long-term storage or what you are going to do when minilabs have completely disappeared and competent film scanners are no longer supported by computer operating systems (that will happen far faster than TIFF, JPEG or Lightroom go away - and if you own a Nikon scanner and a Mac Pro, it's already happened with 10.6). Scanners are already discontinued for the most part.

5. With most 35mm fixed-lens RFs, you get result that rarely exceeds 6 megapixels (since virtually all minilab output is now Frontier or Noritsu). Although you might argue that you get "4000 dpi" out of fixed-lens 35mm cameras of yore by scanning, the reality is that the system performance yields at or below 12mp - and for that, your ISO is pretty much 400 or less. And you go through a lot of time and effort to get that. Query why many pro 24x36 digital cameras are still 12mp.

6. The money argument does not make a lot of sense anymore. Good film and competent C-41 negative processing (meaning test strips run every day and not done at Costco) runs about $8 per roll of 36 (or even 24). Once you shoot 150 rolls of film (5,400 exposures in 36 rolls of 3,600 in 24s), it costs more to own the fixed-lens film rangefinder (assuming that RF cost you zero).* The money argument might have had some sway when digital cameras cost $5K, but we're competing with a lower-cost digital camera and film that costs almost twice as much as it did way back when.*If you "paid" yourself even minimum wage to develop your own b/w, you are paying even more.
7. I think the discussion of "today's toy, tomorrow's trash" is amusing because fixed-lens RFs pretty much all ended up on shelves (and at thrift stores and garage sales) for decades. The only reason why they are cheap is because they were rendered obsolete by other film cameras.

In all, I think your argument (though posed in the form of a question) doesn't hold much water anymore. It would have been straight out of my thinking 7 years ago, but that's the better part of a decade and a geologic age in digital cameras.

Dante

sevo

02-19-2011, 06:48

1. Fixed lens RFs, historically, were never positioned as serious tools nor designed to be.

As far as small format goes, yes. The Makina, Makina 67, Fuji G(S)W and similar cameras were professional gear and generally not even available through consumer stores.

Dante_Stella

02-19-2011, 06:58

Right. We were talking about 35s. Nothing amateurish about a GSW690III...

As far as small format goes, yes. The Makina, Makina 67, Fuji G(S)W and similar cameras were professional gear and generally not even available through consumer stores.

panda88888

02-24-2011, 16:37

We've drifted away from the original question. Anyway, to me the attractiveness of X100 is that,
1. It's digital.
2. Dedicated manual controls.
3. Good lens and sensor

I just got my first rangefinder (Canonet QL17), and to tell the truth it is a lot more effort to work with film than digital. Developing and scanning takes time, and I still have to post process anyway--not to mention the film/development cost. Although the X100 is priced out of my range, I am hoping that it will inspire other cameras of similar design and feature in the marketplace and drive the price down.

Chris101

02-24-2011, 19:14

We've drifted away from the original question. Anyway, to me the attractiveness of X100 is that,
1. It's digital.
2. Dedicated manual controls.
3. Good lens and sensor

I just got my first rangefinder (Canonet QL17), and to tell the truth it is a lot more effort to work with film than digital. Developing and scanning takes time, and I still have to post process anyway ...

Or you could just print it. ;)

ps, how ya doin, and welcome!

panda88888

03-01-2011, 14:42

Or you could just print it. ;)

ps, how ya doin, and welcome!

Hi Chris101,

I just got my first 2 roll developed and scanned back from Costco. I'll know how I did when I get home later today. Shooting film is definitely a different experience than digital--I find that I slow down and think much more, because each shot actually costs money :eek::D

PCStudio

03-02-2011, 06:55

Re Dante Stella
5. With most 35mm fixed-lens RFs, you get result that rarely exceeds 6 megapixels
...is this correct ? :-)

Brian Sweeney

03-02-2011, 16:31

A lens that resolves 50LP/mm on black and white film would require an 8.6MPixel monochrome array, 3600x2400. Color arrays without anti-aliasing filters also work for most tests.

50LP/mm* 2pixels/line* 24mm* 36mm. 8.64 Million Pixels.

That's probably about right for a consumer grade fixed-lens RF stopped down to F4~F5.6.

atlcruiser

03-03-2011, 05:26

From all the talk and hype the x100 better walk on water. Maybe it is just me but I really seem to be missing the overall point.

Film is great...I love it and use it.

Digital is great....I love it and use it

I saved my money and bought an M8.....

I am saving for an M9; eventually.

I am sure the x100 will be a great camera for the price but I dont see it as groundbreaking as all the hype seems to suggest.

_larky

03-03-2011, 06:53

Nothing is ever as groundbreaking as the hype suggests.

Dante_Stella

03-05-2011, 04:54

Sssh Brian - don't dispel the myth that any 35mm rangefinder camera, no matter how cheap, can resolve 20-24Mp.

I didn't do it mathematically but observed the marginal effect of adding more resolution to scans and seeing no additional detail coming out. I tried this both on an LS-8000 and a Pakon Rank-style line scanner. The Pakon does 2000dpi native; the LS-8000 does 4000dpi native.

Rarely would any real-world 35mm picture, no matter how expensive the camera, get any great benefit over 2000dpi (6mp). Compacts never seemed to get any; expensive ones would have better detail at 4000 dpi - but not as much as you would expect given the equipment cost and resulting file sizes. But whatever the equipment used to shoot the pictures, you would get nice, sharp grain.

Dante

A lens that resolves 50LP/mm on black and white film would require an 8.6MPixel monochrome array, 3600x2400. Color arrays without anti-aliasing filters also work for most tests.

50LP/mm* 2pixels/line* 24mm* 36mm. 8.64 Million Pixels.

That's probably about right for a consumer grade fixed-lens RF stopped down to F4~F5.6.