View Full Version : Fuji X100 alternatives?
pixelatedscraps
02-24-2011, 19:56
Just curious, but are there any other high-end retro-styled film/digital cameras still in production?
I can think of:
Voigtlander Bessa R3 / R4
Leica MP / X1 / M9
Fuji X100
Zeiss Ikon
You could sort of/maybe count the olympus e-p1/2 or the Ricoh GXR
The Bessa folder sort of fits the description!
keepright
02-24-2011, 20:58
(I'm not sure you can count the Fuji X100 as an alternative to the Fuji X100.)
Just curious, but are there any other high-end retro-styled film/digital cameras still in production?
I can think of:
Voigtlander Bessa R3 / R4
Leica MP / X1 / M9
Fuji X100
Bessa R2
Fuji GX670 = Bessa III
Zeiss Ikon
Tachihara (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/tachihara.htm), Gandolfi (http://www.gandolficameras.com/), Zone (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/cameras/film-cameras/large-format/zone-vi/PRD_83190_3106crx.aspx) VI (http://photo.net/equipment/large-format/zone-VI-report), Canham (http://www.canhamcameras.com/8x10standard.htm), Shen Hao (http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/products.asp?PT_ID=437), and a whole bunch of wooden view cameras
Olympus Pen E-P series - remember how when it appeared, everybody was over the top how "retro" this camera was
I'm discounting stuff like the Nikon FM10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_FM10) because you wanted high-end. The Bessaflex (http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtFlexTM.htm) also fit the bill but it's discontinued.
Arguably "retro" is the only argument by which film cameras sell nowadays at all.
gshybrid
02-24-2011, 21:06
Fuji makes a couple and if it ever makes it to the US I'll get the Fuji gf670w (http://photorumors.com/2011/02/19/fuji-gf670w-medium-format-film-camera-to-be-released-next-month)
the GXR in terms of IQ(better) and size. Plus they will have a M mount module in fall.
the GXR in terms of IQ(better) and size.
I guess this goes to show that "retro-styled" doesn't mean anything in particular.
I guess everybody just chooses what they mean by that; in particular it doesn't imply anything about styling, rather about some kind of gut feeling of being of good quality and of getting something for the $$$ you spent, whatever it is.
pixelatedscraps
02-24-2011, 22:00
Fuji GX670 = Bessa III
Zeiss Ikon
Good calls, totally forgot about them. I guess I should also mention the Rollei RF but I don't think that's in production anymore.
Speaking of being in production, is the ZI still being made?
I'm curious how film camera can be substitute for digital X100? You mean just look? Or functionality and medium?
Epson RD-1x? But really, there is no alternative. JOIN US...JOIN US...JOIN...US...
R
I'd be a happier person if I could banish the term 'retro' from existence. The fact that the x100 resembles old style cameras isn't a nod to fashion or flashbacks of any kind - it's because ergonomically, compact cameras have gone backwards with the disappearance of physical controls and knobs from the old style or 'retro' mechanical ones of 40 years ago.
It's return to traditional controls isn't a retro fashion statement, it's an ergonomic statement that somewhere along the line ergonomics of compacts became seriously ****ty - and that's the exact reason why the x100 has such internet popularity right now!
Exactly, fdigital hit the nail on the head.
I'd be a happier person if I could banish the term 'retro' from existence. The fact that the x100 resembles old style cameras isn't a nod to fashion or flashbacks of any kind - it's because ergonomically, compact cameras have gone backwards with the disappearance of physical controls and knobs from the old style or 'retro' mechanical ones of 40 years ago.
It's return to traditional controls isn't a retro fashion statement, it's an ergonomic statement that somewhere along the line ergonomics of compacts became seriously ****ty - and that's the exact reason why the x100 has such internet popularity right now!
We've been able to buy compacts with physical controls and knobs for years. Look at a Canon G10, it has a shutter speed (correction: ISO) knob, exposure compensation knob and mode selector knob, plus another dial at the back for doing in-menu selections. That was two generations ago. If it was all about that, people wouldn't be as excited.
I think it's exactly the opposite and that it's all about the old-fashioned look. When the first pictures appeared, people were all about how sweet it looks. Now they ask questions such as what's the best bag to go with it. In a world where people buy things such as the ThinkGeek Bluetooth Retro Handset (http://www.thinkgeek.com/interests/retro/8928/) telephone receiver, "retro" is about appearance first, and about ergonomics a distant second.
kshapero
02-25-2011, 02:59
Since at the present the X100 does not exist, then anything is an alternative to nothing. Or put it another way: the X100 is a promise so an alternative to the X100 is a lie, therefore the new Zeiss Ikon digital camera is an alternative since at present that would be considered a lie.
We've been able to buy compacts with physical controls and knobs for years. Look at a Canon G10, it has a shutter speed knob, exposure compensation knob and mode selector knob, plus another dial at the back for doing in-menu selections. That was two generations ago. If it was all about that, people wouldn't be as excited.
If I remember correctly, the G10 doesn't have knobs for either aperture or shutter speed. It is more like a DSLR with knobs for exposure compensation, program mode and ISO. Certainly much better than most compact cameras, but very unlike direct controls for aperture and shutter speed.
And the retro style camera business works well for Leica and Olympus, Fuji is just jumping on the bandwagon.
If I remember correctly, the G10 doesn't have knobs for either aperture or shutter speed. It is more like a DSLR with knobs for exposure compensation, program mode and ISO. Certainly much better than most compact cameras, but very unlike direct controls for aperture and shutter speed.
True.
From my personal impression, however, the user interface model of putting often-changed things on user-configurable wheels under the thumb (and/or index finger, G12) arguably has been working very well for the last 25 years or so, since the T90 and the early EOSes. In fact for every camera that's more complex than a Spotmatic, this kind of interface concept makes much more sense for me personally. In a camera that has an EVF, like the X100, it would make much more sense for me, for example, to have shutter speed changed by an index finger wheel (like on the T90 or the Leica M5), rather than on a separate dial on top of the camera.
The success of some "retro" cameras, however, seems to illustrate that some "retro" minded people see this differently from me.
jsrockit
02-25-2011, 04:46
We've been able to buy compacts with physical controls and knobs for years. Look at a Canon G10, it has a shutter speed (correction: ISO) knob, exposure compensation knob and mode selector knob, plus another dial at the back for doing in-menu selections.
I think what you are not understanding is the return to not only knobs, but to a dedicated shutter speed dial (not a mode dial), a dedicated aperture ring, a manual focus ring, etc.
You will never understand the appeal of this, if you think DSLRs and the G series are designed great.
Just curious, but are there any other high-end retro-styled film/digital cameras still in production?
I can think of:
Voigtlander Bessa R3 / R4
Leica MP / X1 / M9
Fuji X100
Funny, I've never really considered an RF camera as "retro styled'. Sure there's a certain amount of styling involved with any camera, but primarily the 'look' is a product of the function of the camera. I don't see retro-styling when I look at an MP, an R-series Bessa, or a ZI. An RF camera looks the way it does for a reason.
For digital cameras that were intentionally retro-styled, the Olympus EP series comes to mind, because it was designed to look like the Pen-series SLR cameras. The X1 is a good call too. The Canon G-series maybe, and more so the later models (G10-G12 cameras). The X100, yes, because it looks like a rangefinder camera, but has no rangefinder (and of course the chrome and leatherette). But, really, where else could you put that OVF?
/
damien.murphy
02-25-2011, 05:26
Funny, I've never really considered an RF camera as "retro styled'. Sure there's a certain amount of styling involved with any camera, but primarily the 'look' is a product of the function of the camera. I don't see retro-styling when I look at an MP, an R-series Bessa, or a ZI. An RF camera looks the way it does for a reason.
Hear, hear. Any designer worth their salt will tell you form follows function. It's called fashion when it's the other way around :)
We've been able to buy compacts with physical controls and knobs for years. Look at a Canon G10, it has a shutter speed (correction: ISO) knob, exposure compensation knob and mode selector knob, plus another dial at the back for doing in-menu selections. That was two generations ago. If it was all about that, people wouldn't be as excited.
I think it's exactly the opposite and that it's all about the old-fashioned look. When the first pictures appeared, people were all about how sweet it looks. Now they ask questions such as what's the best bag to go with it. In a world where people buy things such as the ThinkGeek Bluetooth Retro Handset (http://www.thinkgeek.com/interests/retro/8928/) telephone receiver, "retro" is about appearance first, and about ergonomics a distant second.
There is no way to directly change the aperture and shutter speed simultaneously, or with no button presses, or without having to look at the LCD screen to see what number you have adjusted to, or when the camera is switched off, or when you're using the OVF with the G10. It's (at best) a bandaid solution to small camera ergonomics - which means in real world terms it's clumsy, slow and limited in comparison to an ergonomically good camera like a high level dslr or an m9.
The x100 will do all those things, plus it will crap all over the g10 in just about every place a camera should be good - IQ, high ISO, dof control, build, ergonomics, lens speed, responsiveness, OVF usability etc.
If you can't see that from here I can't help you!
The new Fuji GF670W looks great.
I think what you are not understanding is the return to not only knobs, but to a dedicated shutter speed dial (not a mode dial), a dedicated aperture ring, a manual focus ring, etc.
You will never understand the appeal of this, if you think DSLRs and the G series are designed great.
Well, it's a bit of a stretch from my "there are some other digital cameras already with physical dials for some functions" to your "the G series is designed great", and I don't think there is much more that needs to be said about that.
As far as DSLR design is concerned, they mainly follow the same design principles that film cameras had already adhered to for over a decade after the late 1980s. If you look at a 1986 T90 with a data back, you have modern DSLR ergonomics in a nutshell, a quarter of a century ago. Practically all camera makers increasingly moved away from dedicated dials already during the film era. There was a good reason for that, which is simply that as soon as camera functions exceeded the complexity of one-dial-per-function, the old 1950s interface began to break down ergonomically. The photography world at large accepted this design change; by the mid-1990s, well before the advent of DSLRs, most newly-designed film SLRs already were shifting from dedicated dials to software-controlled programmable dials, and customers largely appreciated this shift - otherwise, for example, the newly-introduced Canon EOS series would have tanked, being completely built around this new user interface concept, instead of becoming the market leader.
A look at Leica is very instructive. A lot of people seem to associate Leica cameras with traditional, one-dial-per-function interfaces, but this is really just a tribute to the ideological stance of the retro-loving parts of the customer base, which can nowadays be considered proven allergic to changes, and the technical limitations of the M platform.
However, take a look at Leica's really high-end cameras. By this I mean not the M9, which basically caters to affluent enthusiasts, but those newly designed exclusively for working professionals, such as the S2. The latter has exceptionally clean ergonomics; it does have a dedicated shutter speed dial, but everything else, including setting the aperture, setting ISO etc. is done in software using a thumb wheel. The interface in turn can be heavily customized to suit the preferences of the photographer On the S2, dedicated dials would have resulted in a cluttered interface, but without the dedicated dials, the S2's interface design is cleaner than that of the M9, in spite of providing much more powerful functions. In other words, it's exactly through doing away with dedicated dials that the S2 has such outstanding ergonomics. Before embarking on a highly risky development venture, I think Leica made pretty sure they knew that this is what professionals want.
There is no way to directly change the aperture and shutter speed simultaneously, or with no button presses, or without having to look at the LCD screen to see what number you have adjusted to, or when the camera is switched off, or when you're using the OVF with the G10. It's (at best) a bandaid solution to small camera ergonomics - which means in real world terms it's clumsy, slow and limited in comparison to an ergonomically good camera like a high level dslr or an m9.
The x100 will do all those things, plus it will crap all over the g10 in just about every place a camera should be good - IQ, high ISO, dof control, build, ergonomics, lens speed, responsiveness, OVF usability etc.
If you can't see that from here I can't help you!
If you read my G10 post again, you will find that I was merely using it as an example that there have been other, earlier digital compacts with physical dials for some functions.
I can see that you're excited about the X100, but there is really not much need to go all "if you can't see that from here I can't help you", nor to prove that a camera that costs $1200 in 2011 is better in some respects than another that cost $900 in 2008.
jsrockit
02-25-2011, 08:52
Well, it's a bit of a stretch from my "there are some other digital cameras already with physical dials for some functions" to your "the G series is designed great", and I don't think there is much more that needs to be said about that.
As far as DSLR design is concerned, they mainly follow the same design principles that film cameras had already adhered to for over a decade after the late 1980s. If you look at a 1986 T90 with a data back, you have modern DSLR ergonomics in a nutshell, a quarter of a century ago. Practically all camera makers increasingly moved away from dedicated dials already during the film era. There was a good reason for that, which is simply that as soon as camera functions exceeded the complexity of one-dial-per-function, the old 1950s interface began to break down ergonomically. The photography world at large accepted this design change; by the mid-1990s, well before the advent of DSLRs, most newly-designed film SLRs already were shifting from dedicated dials to software-controlled programmable dials, and customers largely appreciated this shift - otherwise, for example, the newly-introduced Canon EOS series would have tanked, being completely built around this new user interface concept, instead of becoming the market leader.
A look at Leica is very instructive. A lot of people seem to associate Leica cameras with traditional, one-dial-per-function interfaces, but this is really just a tribute to the ideological stance of the retro-loving parts of the customer base, which can nowadays be considered proven allergic to changes, and the technical limitations of the M platform.
However, take a look at Leica's really high-end cameras. By this I mean not the M9, which basically caters to affluent enthusiasts, but those newly designed exclusively for working professionals, such as the S2. The latter has exceptionally clean ergonomics; it does have a dedicated shutter speed dial, but everything else, including setting the aperture, setting ISO etc. is done in software using a thumb wheel. The interface in turn can be heavily customized to suit the preferences of the photographer On the S2, dedicated dials would have resulted in a cluttered interface, but without the dedicated dials, the S2's interface design is cleaner than that of the M9, in spite of providing much more powerful functions. In other words, it's exactly through doing away with dedicated dials that the S2 has such outstanding ergonomics. Before embarking on a highly risky development venture, I think Leica made pretty sure they knew that this is what professionals want.
I'm not arguing that... yes, DSLRs are more popular and they are the norm. However, why come into a thread about a camera for the rest of us who prefer a simpler camera? Yes, we like retro style cameras because it is what we are used to. If you are a M user... the X100 is appealing because it is set-up in a similar fashion. The ss knobs, the aperture rings, etc are what we like. Why is that a bad thing?
I'm not arguing that... yes, DSLRs are more popular and they are the norm. However, why come into a thread about a camera for the rest of us who prefer a simpler camera? Yes, we like retro style cameras because it is what we are used to. If you are a M user... the X100 is appealing because it is set-up in a similar fashion. The ss knobs, the aperture rings, etc are what we like. Why is that a bad thing?
I don't know about "the rest of us" and your use of the plural. Basically this thread revolves around the idea of "retro" styling and what it means to be "retro". Someone suggested that "retro" was primarily about ergonomics (which I doubt; I think it's mainly about gut feelings of quality and about fashion statements). It was you who brought up DSLRs, and I was just replying to you by stating that some DSLR design is indeed "great" and provides good ergonomics precisely by not being "retro".
NickTrop
02-25-2011, 09:53
Here are my alternatives...
Olympus XA, Retinas, Minolta AF-C, Pentax PC35 AF, Minox... etc. Plus film and a scanner... + a decent negative scanner. Yes, I'm serious... and, hey, it's even full-frame.
Jamie Pillers
02-25-2011, 10:02
Gavin,
Well said! I agree completely. The ergonomics of both the compact digitals and the big DSLRs, until now, have been completely goofy... in my opinion of course. I've tried many of these and always sold them due entirely to the stupid erogonomics. The X100 looks like its returned some sanity to digital camera design (size, viewfinder, grip).
Jamie Pillers
02-25-2011, 10:04
Akiva.. did you just complete a course in logics? :-)
I don't know about "the rest of us" and your use of the plural. Basically this thread revolves around the idea of "retro" styling and what it means to be "retro". Someone suggested that "retro" was primarily about ergonomics (which I doubt; I think it's mainly about gut feelings of quality and about fashion statements). It was you who brought up DSLRs, and I was just replying to you by stating that some DSLR design is indeed "great" and provides good ergonomics precisely by not being "retro".
This thread is NOT about retro styling - it's about compact cameras with BIG sensors/35mm film (meaning good IQ) and direct controls/ergonomics. You're the ONLY person saying it's about 'retro styling'. Every single other person is interested in these cameras because of their ergonomics and how good they are to shoot.
And yes, my main camera is a DSLR - a 5d, and yes it's good ergonomically. The problem is that it's big and heavy, and up until now digital compacts have sucked for either IQ or ergonomics or both. Try shooting a Canon G-series camera, and switch to something like a voigtlander bessa R2a and you'll very quickly realize that the traditional ergos of the r2a lend to significantly more fluid, efficient and satisfying shooting. The shared dial and menu based adjustments of the G camera and other compacts end up being clumsy in use.
If you ask me, the x100's form is secondary to the function - fujifilm obviously wanted to target an advanced audience as there is very little automation available on it.
From my personal impression, however, the user interface model of putting often-changed things on user-configurable wheels under the thumb (and/or index finger, G12) arguably has been working very well for the last 25 years or so, since the T90 and the early EOSes.
The success of some "retro" cameras, however, seems to illustrate that some "retro" minded people see this differently from me.
Well, people are different. Nothing against thumb wheels, I would be happy with a compact camera with the interface of the Leica S2. But not the G10, I remember being very disappointed when I found out how the knobs of the G10 worked. Privileged access to program mode and ISO, but none to shutter speed and aperture. The X100 just gets a lot of things right.
This thread is NOT about retro styling [...] You're the ONLY person saying it's about 'retro styling'.
No need to shout. Do take the time to read the original posting again. All the OP asks for is "high end, retro-styled cameras"; "compacts" aren't even mentioned, but "retro styling" seems to be at the heart of the question. Blame me all the way for saying something you don't like, but blaming me for bringing it up seems a bit silly.
I brought up the Canon G series not because I think that they're the best thing since sliced bread, but because you mentioned the "disappearance of physical controls and knobs". All I said was that digital compacts with physical knobs have actually been around for a while.
Leaving away those parts where you read stuff into my posts that isn't there, your whole angry argument after that seems to boil down to that those knobs didn't do what you want them to do. As a sentiment that's fine, but why you get so worked up at me about it escapes me.
A good alternative, no longer made though. Only one control, flash off.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awcam/3804808073/
Sleek!
Juan Valdenebro
02-25-2011, 21:40
Just curious, but are there any other high-end retro-styled film/digital cameras still in production?
I can think of:
Voigtlander Bessa R3 / R4
Leica MP / X1 / M9
Fuji X100
Hi,
Bessas and Leicas are not retro-styled: they look the way they've always looked like.
But if you consider them retro-styled, two alternatives in that price range -and a lot more capable cameras- are the R-D1 and the M8. And their external designs are (to me) way more attractive and classy than that of the X100, and they can be focused how (where) the photographer wants, and use lots of different lenses (best ones in the world), in case you're looking for better options...
Cheers,
Juan
No need to shout. Do take the time to read the original posting again. All the OP asks for is "high end, retro-styled cameras"; "compacts" aren't even mentioned, but "retro styling" seems to be at the heart of the question. Blame me all the way for saying something you don't like, but blaming me for bringing it up seems a bit silly.
I brought up the Canon G series not because I think that they're the best thing since sliced bread, but because you mentioned the "disappearance of physical controls and knobs". All I said was that digital compacts with physical knobs have actually been around for a while.
Leaving away those parts where you read stuff into my posts that isn't there, your whole angry argument after that seems to boil down to that those knobs didn't do what you want them to do. As a sentiment that's fine, but why you get so worked up at me about it escapes me.
Yes, the G series had knobs, no, they weren't the right knobs and no, it's not in the same class of IQ as the x100, not even on the same planet.
You inferred that we're all drooling over the x100 because it's a fashion statement, and because we like it's retro looks. This is untrue - we're drooling over it for the reasons I have already listed a few times in this thread.
Yes, the G series had knobs, no, they weren't the right knobs and no, it's not in the same class of IQ as the x100, not even on the same planet.
Good that you got that out of your system. On a side note, I found your post funnier when it just said "retro styling" five times before you started editing it.
You inferred that we're all drooling over the x100 because it's a fashion statement, and because we like it's retro looks. This is untrue - we're drooling over it for the reasons I have already listed a few times in this thread.
I don't care much what you personally are drooling over and why. (Interesting, however, how sometimes people have to insist they're part of a collective when stating their opinion.)
Regarding the X100, well there are the discussions about what bag to go with it, which strap to buy, whether they will make it in black and so on. You could try and find functional explanations for this kind of discussion, but it does become a bit of a stretch rather soon. I mean, seriously, "best bag"? The best bag is a pocket, what else do people buy small cameras for??
So I do think a lot of the drooling over the X100 actually has to do with how its styling fits current fashion trends for consumer items. Retro styling is hip and cool, for some items prices have gone through the roof. (My 1960s rotary-dial telephone that was made by the millions and used to be a junkyard item is now worth $80 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150562981690) to some people.) Hard to explain that by anything else than by "retro" being a fashion statement. When using my Leica in the street, I regularly get asked about it by people who basically don't care about photography at all. They couldn't care less about shutter speed and aperture dials and wouldn't know what to do with them, they just think it's cool.
So I do think that "retro" is a strong selling point for cameras, as I mentioned earlier in the thread. That doesn't preclude other people such as you liking them for functional reasons - but this in turn doesn't make it wrong, after all the world doesn't revolve around you either, whether you agree with it or not.
rpilottx
02-26-2011, 05:54
rxmd: A lot of the posts on RFF ask the same questions about Leica M's and other cameras: should I get black or chrome, what strap, Domke 803 vs BBB etc. I agree that the look of the X100 may be a strong selling point but having recently tried both a M8.2 and D7000, the look reflects the type of ergonomics I am looking for. That is why I am still using film M's.
...
So I do think a lot of the drooling over the X100 actually has to do with how its styling fits current fashion trends for consumer items.
...
That's one way to see it, but not the only one.
Leicas, Bessas , Contaxes and many other cameras used a specific control element layout for a reason: Straightforward operation and a maximum of user control. This actually has nothing to do with fashion.
Later camera generations tried to establish different control paradigms that were meant to (a) better reflect digital workflows (I contend they mostly were unsuccessful), and (b) save manufacturing costs (among which also were fingernail-sized sensor formats that deliver crappy IQ).
The X100 is the first product that tries to come back to an old-school user interface AND contains an image sensor that finally promises an image quality on par with larger DSLRs.
That's a technical statement, not a fashion statement. Of course, the Fuji designers also listened to their key target market, which apparently comprises a lot of older photographers that still remember the clear, uncluttered controls of the cameras from classic times. If that's a fashion statement, then so be it, but I don't think this was their first priority.
I would be interested in any camera with the features of the X100 - independent of its design. Although I suspect that form follows function. ;)
rxmd: A lot of the posts on RFF ask the same questions about Leica M's and other cameras: should I get black or chrome, what strap, Domke 803 vs BBB etc.
I know - after all you can't really escape it :)
However, I think that asking, for example, whether one should buy a black or chrome lens to go with a chrome body etc. is essentially a fashion question, too; maybe this is the form fashion discussions take on a gear-centric hobbyist forum such as this :angel:
And asking bag questions about a camera that isn't even on the market yet (and that fits in a pocket) really doesn't seem practically or ergonomically motivated at all...
...having recently tried both a M8.2 and D7000, the look reflects the type of ergonomics I am looking for. That is why I am still using film M's.
I can appreciate that sentiment; myself I use an M5, which I consider the pinnacle of the M line from an ergonomics point of view. To me it seems, however, that this works mainly because the M line offers such a reduced function set.
Good that you got that out of your system. On a side note, I found your post funnier when it just said "retro styling" five times before you started editing it.
I don't care much what you personally are drooling over and why. (Interesting, however, how sometimes people have to insist they're part of a collective when stating their opinion.)
Regarding the X100, well there are the discussions about what bag to go with it, which strap to buy, whether they will make it in black and so on. You could try and find functional explanations for this kind of discussion, but it does become a bit of a stretch rather soon. I mean, seriously, "best bag"? The best bag is a pocket, what else do people buy small cameras for??
So I do think a lot of the drooling over the X100 actually has to do with how its styling fits current fashion trends for consumer items. Retro styling is hip and cool, for some items prices have gone through the roof. (My 1960s rotary-dial telephone that was made by the millions and used to be a junkyard item is now worth $80 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150562981690) to some people.) Hard to explain that by anything else than by "retro" being a fashion statement. When using my Leica in the street, I regularly get asked about it by people who basically don't care about photography at all. They couldn't care less about shutter speed and aperture dials and wouldn't know what to do with them, they just think it's cool.
So I do think that "retro" is a strong selling point for cameras, as I mentioned earlier in the thread. That doesn't preclude other people such as you liking them for functional reasons - but this in turn doesn't make it wrong, after all the world doesn't revolve around you either, whether you agree with it or not.
You're so wrong about current camera trends... Just look at the consumer point and shoot market - there have never been more slow 28-600mm zoom/menu driven/tiny sensor point and shoots available from so many companies. A fixed lens $1200 compact without mode dials or movie buttons is an oddity in the market, and surely aimed squarely toward advanced photographers. Even the marketing on the website blatantly mentions it being a professional camera.
I don't understand why you're so insistent on lumping the essence of the x100 into it being a retro fashion statement. Are you so obsessed with others image and perception of yourself that you cannot look past the cameras aesthetics in fear of being labelled a shallow trend follower?
Additionally can confidently say that the vast majority of RFFers who are anticipating the x100 are doing so mainly because of it's camera attributes (like ergonomics and IQ and size), rather than it's aesthetic attributes, and that's why I state my opinion as though I am part of a collective. Maybe your view would be more widely shared on some sort of sociology forum, by the non-photographers.
I know - after all you can't really escape it :)
However, I think that asking, for example, whether one should buy a black or chrome lens to go with a chrome body etc. is essentially a fashion question, too; maybe this is the form fashion discussions take on a gear-centric hobbyist forum such as this :angel:
And asking bag questions about a camera that isn't even on the market yet (and that fits in a pocket) really doesn't seem practically or ergonomically motivated at all...
You will find that professional race drivers - ie. in formula 1 will custom paint and decorate their helmets so that they're aesthetically pleasing to them, and to suit their style. Doesn't mean they're primarily fashion orientated and a driver second. Photographers are no different. Just because someone prefers a lens color or wants to know what bag will fit the camera does not make that the primary concern over the camera itself. If it was, they would be asking "what camera can I get in this bag, or what lens can I get in this color."
Maybe your view would be more widely shared on some sort of sociology forum, by the non-photographers.
You're wrong; at least I share rxmd's opinion. This is the perfect forum to talk about cameras as fashion accessories. Check out the most viewed thread ("Let's see your Leica M"), or threads on bags, camera color, 250 US Luigi cases, and other accessories. GAS and equipment trading can be viewed like this as well, buy a new dress after using the old one for a couple of months and becoming bored with it. Note that I'm not saying there is anything wrong with any of that.
And finally, the positive response to the X100 is until now completely based on hear-say. Until very recently there was nothing but camera pictures (not pictures taken by the camera) that people built their opinion on.
The proof will be in the pudding: let's see how quickly X100s will show up in the classifieds.
Roland.
Pickett Wilson
02-26-2011, 06:58
I think the thing that will tell the tale is how many photos are shot with X100's versus clunky DSLRS among serious photographers. Fashion doesn't translate into actual use, generally. SLR's became the camera to own back in the 1980's. But they were rarely used, as can be seen in the mint SLR's from that era that are available on eBay.
You're wrong; at least I share rxmd's opinion. This is the perfect forum to talk about cameras as fashion accessories. Check out the most viewed thread ("Let's see your Leica M"), or threads on bags, camera color, 250 US Luigi cases, and other accessories. GAS and equipment trading can be viewed like this as well, buy a new dress after using the old one for a couple of months and becoming bored with it. Note that I'm not saying there is anything wrong with any of that.
And finally, the positive response to the X100 is until now completely based on hear-say. Until very recently there was nothing but camera pictures (not pictures taken by the camera) that people built their opinion on.
The proof will be in the pudding: let's see how quickly X100s will show up in the classifieds.
Roland.
You misunderstand me - I don't disagree that the aesthetics of cameras and accessories is important to photographers, and RFFers - I'd take a nice looking camera over a functionally identical ugly camera anyway and so would everyone else, but in no way is it the PRIMARY concern for most users, and in no way is it the PRIMARY reason for the x100's popularity/hype.
If aesthetics/retro trends were the primary concern of RFF, this camera would be featured on here far more often:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2010/01/pentax-optio-i-10.jpeg
So far, I haven't seen any mention to it, even though it is quite obviously a direct throwback to the 110 film pentax SLRs. The reason why no one here cares is because as a camera it's crap. Small sensor, slow zoom lens, no external controls, plastic etc etc.
If RXMD were correct that the x100 is popular due primarily to it's worth as a trendy fashion symbol, that little digital pentax 110 should theoretically be just as popular.
Pickett Wilson
02-26-2011, 07:04
The I-10 looks much better in black, though.
snausages
02-26-2011, 07:49
I think what you are not understanding is the return to not only knobs, but to a dedicated shutter speed dial (not a mode dial), a dedicated aperture ring, a manual focus ring, etc.
You will never understand the appeal of this, if you think DSLRs and the G series are designed great.
The Canon G12, S90 and S95 compacts all have a dial or ring on the front of the camera that can be dedicated to aperture or iso control.
You're so wrong about current camera trends... Just look at the consumer point and shoot market - there have never been more slow 28-600mm zoom/menu driven/tiny sensor point and shoots available from so many companies. A fixed lens $1200 compact without mode dials or movie buttons is an oddity in the market, and surely aimed squarely toward advanced photographers. Even the marketing on the website blatantly mentions it being a professional camera. [...] Maybe your view would be more widely shared on some sort of sociology forum, by the non-photographers.
Leica markets the M line as being aimed at professionals, too. How large do you think the percentage of actual professionals among M users is? I'd be surprised if it was 20%. Do you think Leica doesn't know that? This is how marketing works for many high-end amateur products.
However I'll go into a bit more detail just so that you can understand that I'm not attacking you, nor the X100, just describing a general concept how "retro" marketing works; and then you can decide whether you want to be angry with me, or call me deluded, or what not. (I don't really care if my view is widely shared or not; and I use the cameras I like and that get the job done, without much concern for images and perceptions; and I don't need to hang around in sociology forums, I get enough of that in my day job, and I don't engage in this kind of discussion on RFF all that often either.)
Your description of the camera market actually underlines my point, rather than disproving it. A lot of the marketing for high-end products works by distinction. A high-end product needs to be clearly distinguishable from a mass product. This has been marketing 101 for at least a decade. Remember Apple's slogan "Think Different"? From a marketing point of view, what that slogan aims to communicate to the customer is that "you know it's worth spending the extra $$$ on an Apple, because you know and everyone'll see that it's not a Dell."
Distinction is so powerful and well-established as a marketing concept because most people want to feel individual. By your example, professional Formula I racing drivers put designs on their helmets, and no, that doesn't make them fashion oriented. However, a much larger number of non-professional drivers put racing stripes on their cars, too. And those are fashion-oriented. They do it because they like it, and because it makes them feel a little bit like a Formula I driver, and because it makes their particular VW Golf car look different from all other VW Golfs. Photographers are no different. The question what strap goes with a chrome M3 is like the question what stripe goes with a chrome Corvette.
So, in a camera market that's, as you rightly say, full of plasticky $200 compacts with small sensors and dozens of buttons, a metal $1200 large-sensor camera with dials makes a powerful marketing statement precisely because it is so different. You, and me, and the RFF crowd know about aperture and shutter speed dials; for us, the statement is "here, we know that you understand these things, and we give you what you've been waiting for". However, you don't really have to understand apertures and shutter speeds to be susceptible to this kind of marketing. For what I think is the majority of the potential buyer base the statement is different and much more general, and it's conveyed precisely by what the original poster called "retro styling". The essence of marketing products as "retro" is that it communicates quality, value and authenticity. Whether the product marketed such actually is better is besides the point; it often will be (after all you usually do all this marketing effort for high-end products), and in the case of the X100 I'm pretty sure it is. However, as you know, that's not the point of marketing.
In a world where people are overwhelmed with junk, where they are skeptic about the future, and where the trust in products is largely gone, it's a common trend that quality, simplicity, authenticity, essence and value are typically associated with the past. From a marketing point of view, this means that by associating a product with the past, you can communicate these values, along with communicating distinction. So, in the case of the (according to the OP) "retro-styled" X100, I think the message that Fuji wants to send to the general public is "you know that all the low-end cameras on the market are plasticky junk. Here's something different for you, if you can afford it. Built like they used to build them. Just look at it - you, and everybody else, will see immediately just how different it is." This has a strong undercurrent of distinguishing oneself and of making a fashion statement (but as a message, nevertheless it is perfectly legitimate).
RXMD - Okay, that was very well explained - I agree with and see where you're coming from with most of the things you say, its become clear to me that we're thinking similar things but perceiving them differently. You're seeing it as somewhat of a marketing venture for fujifilm to sell more, I'm seeing it as getting what I want in a camera.
I'll try and leave it here so that I don't take this thread any more off course!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.