I'm out

[Pinphot]

Rather regretfully, after four months of X100 ownership, I'm selling up. I like the camera, and think the concept is great, but am finding that the cumulative quirks and niggles with the camera detract from the experience. I don't always trust what it's doing and find the sluggishness and handling quirks often turn what should be simple into a chore. As I've said before, I think we deserve something better from Fuji than a processing engine that appears to be scaled up from a p+s. The recent firmware update was quite a few steps in the right direction, but still left too many issues unaddressed.

I really wanted a camera that would finally give the digital equivalent of my old Contax G2's, (interchangeable lenses not withstanding), and had high hopes for the X100. After these four months though, I find that my old Panny GF1 with 20mm lens and a 35mm voigtlander or EVF finder still comes closest to that particular digital dream, and now that Olympus have announced a couple of interesting looking fast primes and what looks like very fast AF in the new EP-3, I've decided to sell my X100 and plough the proceeds into updating my M4/3 kit, probably an ep-3, EVF and 28/40/90 equivalent lenses.

It was fun while it lasted, and I remain interested in what Fuji might do in future with the platform, but for me, the x100 just didn't quite deliver on all it promised.

Mark

http://markpinder.wordpress.com

[Renzsu]

cool story bro

[back alley]

are you selling the adapter/hood as well?

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Mark,

So it wasn't the Second Coming?

I look forward with interest to those who will take the opposite view to yours. I mean that in the strictest sense, without irony. You've given cogent reasons for getting rid of it, and I thank you: I look forward to others' cogent reasons for keeping theirs.

Cheers,

R.

[back alley]

it's a fussy camera, no doubt, no argument...

[Rogier]

I always' said its an over hyped and prized P&S

[back alley]

it's not...the images it can create are phenominal, or they can be...the lens is fabulous, it is so sharp...i am fascinated by the details it picks up.

[kshapero]

I appreciate that many of us have flayed on the sword. I did and have taken the dive on the Sony NEX. I sometimes wonder are these cameras experiments or real solutions? Thanks to all the interesting comments.

[Thardy]

Isn't Panny coming out with "pro" MFT soon. That might prove to be very interesting, especially if it's a better GF-1.

[back alley]

bigger sensor wins...sorry!

[LKeithR]

...I sometimes wonder are these cameras experiments or real solutions?

I don't know about others but for me, every camera purchase is an experiment of sorts. You can do all the research you want but until you've actually held a camera in your hands and used it for a few days it's going to be hard to determine if it's really what you're looking for...

[back alley]

I don't know about others but for me, every camera purchase is an experiment of sorts. You can do all the research you want but until you've actually held a camera in your hands and used it for a few days it's going to be hard to determine if it's really what you're looking for...

agreed!

i put off getting an rd1 for ages, wondering if it really was the camera for me...and i love it...

the x100 was a tough decision and i was very back & forth with it...would still be if it was not made available locally...it's a very fussy camera but i am liking it more and more...and only using it could have helped me make that determination.

i think most of the 'i told ya so' folks here have not used the camera.

[rogerzilla]

Automation never works for me. It does have a great sensor though.

[KM-25]

The camera is good enough in that you either work around the buggines / fussiness because you like / love what it has to offer as strengths or you don't.

For example, I love the image quality and operation of my Nikon 35mm 1.4G, but I hate the bulk & weight, so I don't use it all the time. But unlike the 200-400 VR I sold, I like it and need it enough to keep it in the tool kit. I rent the 200-400 now for the three weeks I need it...

When I need that 35 1.4G, I am gushy, teenage in love with it. When I don't, it simply sits unused, not thought about. Like the X100, it can't do everything and I don't expect it to.

My X100 has not been used much this week as I have been shooting more film like Infrared in panoramic and 120 and Tri-X in my Leicas. But when I need it for what I bought it for...man, I LOVE that little camera!

[RayPA]

Thus far for me, the X100 is the one digital camera that comes closest to replicating the RF film camera experience, and really, with just a little bit of setup, it doesn't miss by much. Like a lot of folks here, I've run through my share of digital cameras in hope of replicating the RF experience. I've been through the Lumix LX series, the Canon G series, and the Lumix G1, but I think the search is finally over (until I can afford a Leica digital M).

As far as the X100 being a glorified p&s camera, well very often so are my film RF cameras. That's one of the reasons I like shooting with an RF camera: they can make great p&s cameras when you need that.

If it ain't for you, it ain't for you, but it works for me. I'm keeping it! :D


/

[Vobluda]

I also sold X100 for too many quirks from which the most annoying was terribly terribly slow AF.
Side by side my GF1 with first firmware was significantly faster.
I still cant believe that Fuji has released camera with so slow AF in 2011 (GF1 was released in September 2009!).

[Roger Hicks]

I don't know about others but for me, every camera purchase is an experiment of sorts. You can do all the research you want but until you've actually held a camera in your hands and used it for a few days it's going to be hard to determine if it's really what you're looking for...

Dear Keith,

Not so much so for me. Most of the cameras I've ever bought have done pretty much what I expected, the way I expected. If there's much of a learning curve involved, I don't usually want a new camera.

Now, the X100 would be an experiment, because there's nothing else quite like it, but that's why I'm almost never an 'early adopter'. I can listen to/read others' opinions; take a guess at how much their opinions are worth to me; and then buy something when I've got a good idea of its good and bad points.

Cheers,

R.

[peter_n]

^ +1. Couldn't agree more!

[Pinphot]

Thanks for such considered responses, and for recognising the spirit in which my original post was made.

Just to clarify a point, i think the X100 is a long way above any p+s, at least as far as image quality is concerned. I do however think that in respect to things like buffer implementation and AF lag, (for example), Fuji have cut corners by simply turbocharging and upscaling an engine from a p+s rather than giving us the kind of processors we have come to expect from even a budget DSLR or Panny GF1 for that matter. The implementation of the burst mode, I think, especially points to this conclusion.

My other issues have been with AF implementation. I've never been particularly bothered by the MF issues, but why won't the camera hold AF on the shutter button after an exposure is made, so as not to have to keep on refocusing and reframing after every shot? I know I can use the AFL button to hold focus, but I find the implementation unintuitive and often ties me in knots. I have generally used the camera in MF using the AF button to acquire focus, but the AF box in that mode is huge, leaving me feeling insecure as to knowing exactly where the camera has focused. Had Fuji implemented the auxiliary focus spots solution from the recent FW update in MF mode too, then I almost definitely would have kept the camera. I'm a newspaper and magazine photographer by trade, and often work in fairly fluid fast moving situations where the equipment I use has to hinder as little as possible and not flake out on me by not waking up quickly enough or leaving me worrying about acquiring focus quickly or reliably. The wake from sleep does seem far more reliable after the new firmware, but I still manage to occasionally forget to eject the disk properly from my Macbook when I'm in a hurry and effectively brick the camera, (as far as working is concerned), until I can get the card back into the computer and re-eject it properly.

I still might keep the Fuji, but expanding my M4/3 kit is almost definitely on the cards. A 28/40/90 lens spread would cover probably 65% of what I currently do with my Canon 5D kit and I used to reach regularly for the GF1/20, (with whatever viewfinder), on professional jobs alongside the Canon's, which is not something I have done so much with the X100. I'm just getting to the point where I have so much kit, much of it overlapping in function, that where this overlap occurs, it's got to be pretty darn reliable to justify staying in my arsenal, and I'm not quite sure the Fuji is quite there.

A couple of weeks back, I covered the Appleby Horse Fair in Cumbria which alongside my Canon 5D's I shot partly with my Panny GF1 a Voigtlander 15mm set to f5.6 at various hyperfocal distances and a 28mm bright-line finder. I missed almost nothing, it was probably the most fluid shooting experience I have had since giving up my Olympus OM1's and 2's all those years ago. An Olympus 24mm equivalent with a focus scale and hard stop's!! In the word(s) of Homer Simpson mmmmmmmmmmm. A 28 would be even nicer!!

As was said by another poster, the X100 can be fussy, but not as fussy as me!!

Mark

http://markpinder.wordpress.com/

[Harry S.]

Im kind of feeling the same way. I like the images the x100 makes, and love how it looks and feels...but it feels clumsy to use and Im not at all confident with it.

I primarily bought mine to replace my 5D + 35mm when travelling. I think now I wouldnt be able to do that, the x100 to me just isnt nice enough to use despite how good the weight savings are.

[KM-25]

The way I have mine set up, it is really fast and very reliable, do a search of my posts to see why...

I also sold X100 for too many quirks from which the most annoying was terribly terribly slow AF.
Side by side my GF1 with first firmware was significantly faster.
I still cant believe that Fuji has released camera with so slow AF in 2011 (GF1 was released in September 2009!).

[KM-25]

After a dozen assignments and shooting over 6,000 frames in the X100, I have not only gotten used to using the AF/AF-L button to hold focus, I am actually very fast with it.

It took about a month of hard use, but I now trust my instincts with the X100 far more than I thought I would. I would love to have a black 50/2 version of it paired with the current 35/2.

I almost never use the MF with it's too large AF box now, it is a night and day difference in terms of precision...



My other issues have been with AF implementation. I've never been particularly bothered by the MF issues, but why won't the camera hold AF on the shutter button after an exposure is made, so as not to have to keep on refocusing and reframing after every shot? I know I can use the AFL button to hold focus, but I find the implementation unintuitive and often ties me in knots. I have generally used the camera in MF using the AF button to acquire focus, but the AF box in that mode is huge, leaving me feeling insecure as to knowing exactly where the camera has focused. Had Fuji implemented the auxiliary focus spots solution from the recent FW update in MF mode too, then I almost definitely would have kept the camera. I'm a newspaper and magazine photographer by trade, and often work in fairly fluid fast moving situations where the equipment I use has to hinder as little as possible and not flake out on me by not waking up quickly enough or leaving me worrying about acquiring focus quickly or reliably. The wake from sleep does seem far more reliable after the new firmware, but I still manage to occasionally forget to eject the disk properly from my Macbook when I'm in a hurry and effectively brick the camera, (as far as working is concerned), until I can get the card back into the computer and re-eject it properly.

I still might keep the Fuji, but expanding my M4/3 kit is almost definitely on the cards. A 28/40/90 lens spread would cover probably 65% of what I currently do with my Canon 5D kit and I used to reach regularly for the GF1/20, (with whatever viewfinder), on professional jobs alongside the Canon's, which is not something I have done so much with the X100. I'm just getting to the point where I have so much kit, much of it overlapping in function, that where this overlap occurs, it's got to be pretty darn reliable to justify staying in my arsenal, and I'm not quite sure the Fuji is quite there.

A couple of weeks back, I covered the Appleby Horse Fair in Cumbria which alongside my Canon 5D's I shot partly with my Panny GF1 a Voigtlander 15mm set to f5.6 at various hyperfocal distances and a 28mm bright-line finder. I missed almost nothing, it was probably the most fluid shooting experience I have had since giving up my Olympus OM1's and 2's all those years ago. An Olympus 24mm equivalent with a focus scale and hard stop's!! In the word(s) of Homer Simpson mmmmmmmmmmm. A 28 would be even nicer!!

As was said by another poster, the X100 can be fussy, but not as fussy as me!!

Mark

http://markpinder.wordpress.com/

[Pinphot]

After a dozen assignments and shooting over 6,000 frames in the X100, I have not only gotten used to using the AF/AF-L button to hold focus, I am actually very fast with it.

It took about a month of hard use, but I now trust my instincts with the X100 far more than I thought I would. I would love to have a black 50/2 version of it paired with the current 35/2.

I almost never use the MF with it's too large AF box now, it is a night and day difference in terms of precision...

I think you have summed up, (perhaps inadvertantly), where the real problem lies with the X100.

Whereas the big players in the market allow the user to customise functions to their own ways of working, (in this instance setting up the shutter release and AF parameters), the X100 is rather limited in its range of options, and the options that do exist are unintuitive and clunky, demanding conscious intervention by the user to get the camera to function in ways that otherwise come naturally on tools where the menus and options are properly thought out and implemented.

After 4 months of fighting against how Fuji thinks I should do things, I've finally admitted defeat and decided I can no longer live the Fuji way. A shame, as the camera has much to commend it otherwise.

Mark

http://markpinder.wordpress.com

[KM-25]

I think you have summed up, (perhaps inadvertantly), where the real problem lies with the X100.

Actually, I have summed up where the real problem lies with the X100 for you then, not everyone and certainly not me, and I mean this statement in a kindhearted way.

It really is as simple as I said in my first reply, either the odds are good, or the goods are odd, entirely up to individual needs, wants and tolerance levels.

I write this as I finish putting out 12x12 prints for a major gallery in town who is putting on a show of my work, shot entirely on an iPhone 4 in "Hipstamatic"....

[jsrockit]

Whereas the big players in the market allow the user to customise functions to their own ways of working, (in this instance setting up the shutter release and AF parameters), the X100 is rather limited in its range of options, and the options that do exist are unintuitive and clunky, demanding conscious intervention by the user to get the camera to function in ways that otherwise come naturally on tools where the menus and options are properly thought out and implemented.

Seems like this is the issue. I find the X100 only makes you choose your core settings once (generally speaking) and then all you need to touch is the shutter speed dial, shutter release, and aperture ring. To many of us, it's beautiful in its simplicity (only bettered in the digital camera world by Leica and Epson). However, if you are used to having a lot of options...say from DSLRs / Micro 4/3, etc., this camera is not for you.
I'm just wondering what made you think it would be? What are you used to using?

[Pinphot]

Seems like this is the issue. I find the X100 only makes you choose your core settings once (generally speaking) and then all you need to touch is the shutter speed dial, shutter release, and aperture ring. To many of us, it's beautiful in its simplicity (only bettered in the digital camera world by Leica and Epson). However, if you are used to having a lot of options...say from DSLRs / Micro 4/3, etc., this camera is not for you.
I'm just wondering what made you think it would be? What are you used to using?

In nearly 30 years, everything from Leica M, Contax G, Olympus OM, Nikon F's-to F100's, Canon EOS film and dig, Panny GF1, Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Bronica, Mamiya 7, Epson Rd1, Linhof Technika, Pentax 67 etc.

I love the simplicity of the core camera, the dials, aperture and shutter speed control etc. Agreed, you only need to set many core settings once, but some of those settings, (especially where AF implementation is concerned), are very badly implemented. The X100 is an autofocus camera in a technologically mature market, where the basic implementation is sub par and lacking in fairly basic customisation performance and usage features that other manufacturers with professional pretensions seem to have no difficulty in implementing as a matter of course. You can produce work on an iphone, but, unlike the X100, the iphone does not have pretensions to being a serious camera.

Cheers,

Mark

http://markpinder.wordpress.com

[KM-25]

Mark: Are you out or are you in?

Because the record is starting to skip a bit if you know what I mean. Those who are "in" and also have talent and passion will make photos that might amaze you, people are just going to get better and better with it. And there is some pretty darn good stuff in the "Post your X100 pics" thread already, they like me have already commited to getting the most of the camera and will in no way be swayed or distracted by what you or others cite as reasons for passing on the X100...........so.........after awhile, well.....get out there and shoot no matter what you want to use...;-)

[gilpen123]

Trying to fit a camera system to our ways is far too difficult, for me image quality, lowlight capabilities and handling is foremost and far outweighs the quirkiness. I always use aperture priority, auto ISO (most of the time) focus and shoot. Nothing too difficult unless I want to be able to manipulate the camera in as many ways as possible. Simple needs simple solutions end of the day take the shot and move on. But that's me ........'cheers!

[back alley]

Trying to fit a camera system to our ways is far too difficult, for me image quality, lowlight capabilities and handling is foremost and far outweighs the quirkiness. I always use aperture priority, auto ISO (most of the time) focus and shoot. Nothing too difficult unless I want to be able to manipulate the camera in as many ways as possible. Simple needs simple solutions end of the day take the shot and move on. But that's me ........'cheers!

agreed...every camera i have ever had gets the aperture priority treatment...even in the old completely manual days!
auto iso works well on the x100.
i prefer spot metering when i have a camera that has it but on the x100 it didn't work so well for me (will try again later on) so i am using the 'matrix' mode and it gives better exposures than the rd1.
i compose and shoot and so far so good.

the x100 would be best if the little lens was a sonnar ;)

[LKeithR]

agreed!

...the x100 was a tough decision and i was very back & forth with it...would still be if it was not made available locally...

I understand. I've been thinking about a Ricoh GXR--or even a GRDIII--for a while but the fact that they're not even sold in Canada has been holding me back. I just can't bring myself to order something like this sight unseen. I'm only about 12 miles from the border so slipping into the States wouldn't be impossible but even then I can't find anything closer than Seattle. I worry about having to send the thing back if I don't like it or if it needs service...

[Roger Hicks]

It was a second coming but not in a Christian sense but more akin to Hinduism where everything is a cycle and basically nothing changes although everything appears to change - or to put it bluntly, a camera never makes people better photographers and it will never will, but then people will never accept that and if they did everything will fall apart and the Maya [illusion] will be lifted.

Recognizing this, O nobly born, free thyself from the cycle of illusion and see the clear white light of reality (Bardo Thodol, from memory).

But then, there are those who would speculate about the colour balance of the clear white light of reality...

Cheers,

R.

[rxmd]

Recognizing this, O nobly born, free thyself from the cycle of illusion and see the clear white light of reality (Bardo Thodol, from memory).

But then, there are those who would speculate about the colour balance of the clear white light of reality...

Not to mention what colour bag would go best with it.

[Roger Hicks]

Not to mention what colour bag would go best with it.

Mahakala

(a Great Black One).

Maybe I should suggest this to Martin Billingham...

Tashi Delek,

R.

[Michiel Fokkema]

I like myX100 very much but the AF is very slow indeed. No idea how it compares to the competition though. For fast reportage work the camera is not suitable. My Leica is much better for that. For all my other needs it is as perfect as I can wish.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema

[jsrockit]

I love the simplicity of the core camera, the dials, aperture and shutter speed control etc. Agreed, you only need to set many core settings once, but some of those settings, (especially where AF implementation is concerned), are very badly implemented.

AF is set by one button though. Do you mean lack of AF modes?

[Richard G]

Second KM-25's suggestion to look at his collected posts on this camera. I'm keeping mine. It's too good not to work at it a little. I'm not a pro and haven't taken a thousand shots yet but I'm pretty confident of getting the shot with this now. I went skiing last week with the M2 and my little C-Lux 2 and really missed the X100. No hood yet.

[emraphoto]

I like myX100 very much but the AF is very slow indeed. No idea how it compares to the competition though. For fast reportage work the camera is not suitable. My Leica is much better for that. For all my other needs it is as perfect as I can wish.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema

on the contrary, i find the little bugger plents fast for reportage. i am by no means saying your assesment is wrong, just illustrating the differences in opinion.

for close up reportage work i pick a distance i want to work at and set the focus apropos via the afl/ael button. with a suitable aperture, iso combination and taking into account the inherrent DOF of the lens i can fire away with little concern.

i find the x100 to be superb when zone focusing, which makes up about 95% of what i do. when needed, the af is fast enough (with some of km25 and streetshooters advice) to suit me fine. is it a 1d mkIII? no. after a few weeks of experience though the x100, in MY opinion, has become one of the most capable reportage/documentary tools i have come across. the zoom H2 being second.

[v_roma]

I own an X100 and, for me, what keeps me coming back is the image quality (plus the viewfinder), which I find simply phenomenal. The level of detail, dynamic range, and high ISO performance are just excellent. There are very few, if any, digital cameras out there than can match the IQ of the X100 at the X100's "compact" size. When you throw in the OVF and some of the other external controls, then the competition pales even further in comparison.

I'm not dogmatic about the X100 just because I own it, though. Yes, the AF could be faster (but it's still contrast detection so it will never be as fast as a phase detection SLR) but I don't find that it gets in the way of that many shots. The MF could have been much better implemented. There is still room for improvement with firmware updates but things like not having a distance scale on the lens were missed opportunities in my mind. The camera can feel slugish sometimes. But any and all quirks that the X100 has are things I can live with when I know what the results coming out of the other end are. Every camera has it's pros and cons and, as someone said above, the X100 either works for you or it doesn't.

[NickTrop]

kay - gonna get flamed, I guess, for commenting on a camera I don't own. But, I was initially intrigued by this camera... reading about it. But when I read owner and some reviews - and in light of the price, I was disappointed with Fuji. I still say they got it right with the lower-end APS-C compact DSLRs over the last couple years. Pentax, Canon, Nikon - whatever "so many choices, so little difference" (love that member quote...) These are mature technologies and are in a competitive market - now beating each other up over features, quality, and benefits - and the "value proposition" in general... the consumer wins here... As opposed to more "experimental" offerings, if you will.

I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of the ability of the old film rangefinders to fare better in low light, smaller size (over most SLR offerings...), and quiet leaf shutter (or cutrain variations) for discrete candid photography in natural light, a decent fast "50"... over any "form factor". The Nikon I settled on is very quiet. Much ergonomic thought went into the protruding "grip" on the left side of DSLRs... it's actually better, ergonomically - I find, than the form factor of classic rangefinders from a practical perspective... 'bout the only thing is does is mess up the lines so they're not as pretty. The size of most of the APSC offerings is not an issue; a slightly smaller camera doesn't add anything (if it's not "pocketable"); they're less expensive; have interchangeable lens capability; have mature button/menu layout; extremely fast, quiet, and accurate autofocus; extremely accurate exposure and metering... etc that you would expect with a mature technology. They're excellent in low-light - trumping classic film rangefinders now, and there are good reasonably-priced prime lens offerings. All the bases are checked. This wasn't the case 3,4,5 years ago. They're darn near perfect and a generally a good bargain. There's no reason, in my mind, for these funky offerings... other than lower production costs and higher retail prices - and therefore higher margins, for camera makers who are leveraging nostalgia among a group of old-school photographers and photographic contrariarians who need something "different".

Fuji could not have released a camera with such "quibbles" that caused the poster to sell his in the entry-level DSLR market, and no enthusiast would have considered it for a second. They would have gotten eaten alive by the photographic "press" and in reviews... let alone charge $1200 for it.

[emraphoto]

as i tried to illustrate, one's 'quibbles' may not be anothers.

[Rick Waldroup]

I posted this on another thread about this camera. When Fuji first announced this camera, I was as gung ho as everyone else about getting one. A friend of mine finally got his and he let me shoot it for a day and that is when I decided not to purchase one.

The images it produces are wonderful, I just did not like the way it handled and it seemed sluggish to me. Now, this is probably due to the way I shoot, that the camera just did not seem right for me. My friend absolutely loves it and shoots with it every day.

I guess what I am trying to say, is that it was just not the camera for me, and that is a bummer because I really had my hopes up for it finally being the digital street shooter I have been looking for all these years.;

[FrankS]

Cameras are like foods. Everyone has different tastes, and no one is wrong about that.

[NickTrop]

Cameras are like foods. Everyone has different tastes, and no one is wrong about that.

An edible camera - now that would be something!

[FrankS]

I have a minty example. :)

[jsrockit]

The size of most of the APSC offerings is not an issue; a slightly smaller camera doesn't add anything (if it's not "pocketable"); they're less expensive; have interchangeable lens capability; have mature button/menu layout; extremely fast, quiet, and accurate autofocus; extremely accurate exposure and metering... etc that you would expect with a mature technology. They're excellent in low-light - trumping classic film rangefinders now, and there are good reasonably-priced prime lens offerings. All the bases are checked. This wasn't the case 3,4,5 years ago. They're darn near perfect and a generally a good bargain. There's no reason, in my mind, for these funky offerings... other than lower production costs and higher retail prices - and therefore higher margins, for camera makers who are leveraging nostalgia among a group of old-school photographers and photographic contrariarians who need something "different"

Nick, you have used this argument in numerous threads about this camera. We all know you are a value hunter and love your low-end DSLR. I respect that and at times wish I liked DSRLs because they are the best value. Unfortunately, I hate using them. Also, I'm not one to go for the cheapest option. I go for the best option for me. Obviously, this differs for everyone, so I don;t know why you are trying to convert people to a DSLR on a rangefinder forum.

Many of us do not like the DSLR shape that you love so much. Therefore, Fuji was smart in making the X100. If they made the X100 in the shape of a typical DSLR, I bet it wouldn't have been as nearly the hit the X100 is. As much as you cannot fathom it, I did not buy the X100 because it looks cool / retro. I bought it because I prefer the traditional RF shape and prefer a OVF to a DSLR's prism.

As we have stated before, buying your low-end DSLR with a f/2 24mm lens is just as expensive (if not more) as the X100.

[NickTrop]

I have a minty example. :)

:D Touche - very clever, Frank.

[NickTrop]

Nick, you have used this argument in numerous threads about this camera. We all know you are a value hunter and love your low-end DSLR. I respect that and at times wish I liked DSRLs because they are the best value. Unfortunately, I hate using them. Also, I'm not one to go for the cheapest option. I go for the best option for me. Obviously, this differs for everyone, so I don;t know why you are trying to convert people to a DSLR on a rangefinder forum.

Many of us do not like the DSLR shape that you love so much. Therefore, Fuji was smart in making the X100. If they made the X100 in the shape of a typical DSLR, I bet it wouldn't have been as nearly the hit the X100 is. As much as you cannot fathom it, I did not buy the X100 because it looks cool / retro. I bought it because I prefer the traditional RF shape and prefer a OVF to a DSLR's prism.

As we have stated before, buying your low-end DSLR with a f/2 24mm lens is just as expensive (if not more) as the X100.

Few points - yes, the Fuji is not a bad option if you must shoot with a 35mm focal length. And - no, there not many alternatives at this focal length and speed and yes, those that exist are expensive. I concede that the camera is a decent value if you are, indeed, a pure 35mm shooter.

However, you miss my point. First off, entry-level APSC DSLR options are not the "cheapest" option. The cheapest option would be a no-name, low end pns that you can get these days for $50-$60. The point I was trying to make is that they represent the best value because this is a highly competitive segment and a technologically mature one. The intense competition over the years in this segment has resulted in near "perfection" and and optimization of value to the consumer with last year's "pro" technology being pushed downmarket in a very rapid release cycle. It's not that they're the "cheapest", it's that this segment represents the best bang for the buck, currently, imo. The IQ varience is negligible between all APSC cameras. It's all the same "engine" under the hood. Some have different approaches to sharpening, noise reduction, and color saturation. When fitted with a prime instead of a zoom they are "bigger" than alternatives but the difference in size offers no practical advantage one way or the other. You can make a strong case that having a grip offers more control and better ergonomics than not, as this is what (I'm sure) research into ergonomics indicates, and what I find. It's why they're designed this way with form following function - at the expense of "pretty lines".

And, again, the "quibbles" that have been oft pointed-out - especially regarding speed of autofocus, regarding the X100 would have excluded it from being released in the entry-level sub-1000 DSLR category. The issues cited by the poster (not the first either) that caused him to sell would not be accepted in even the entry-level DSLR segment.

There are clearly more sensible options for a photographic tool if you're willing to broaden your horizons and consider (shreik) less expensive options and lose your soft spot for an old form factor.

[KM-25]

I suppose I could use the bottom of the X100 to pound a small nail into a wall to hang a picture up with, but why do that when I could go find a hammer?

I could load the lens cap up with some M&M's, but I might be better off with a candy dish...

When I want or need what my X100 has to offer, nothing else will do...and I do mean nothing, not even a Leica. We as photographers *want* some people to like the cameras we do not find adequate. That way camera makers keep giving us the variety they come up with...

[jsrockit]

And, again, the "quibbles" that have been oft pointed-out - especially regarding speed of autofocus, regarding the X100 would have excluded it from being released in the entry-level sub-1000 DSLR category. The issues cited by the poster (not the first either) that caused him to sell would not be accepted in even the entry-level DSLR segment.

Well, if we were all looking for bleeding edge technology, we wouldn't be here. This forum is full of people who use cameras with limitations and old school functionality. Some of us actually like that aspect.

There are clearly more sensible options for a photographic tool if you're willing to broaden your horizons and consider (shreik) less expensive options and lose your soft spot for an old form factor.

I agree with this. I'm too sensitive to ergonomics and simplicity. I wish I wasn't at times... it would be a lot cheaper. That said, I don't think anyone was arguing that there aren't better deals out there. However, again, this forum is full of people who aren't looking for the best deal in the collective minds of others...just the best camera for them.

[efirmage]

It seems like some people are using it to great effect. For me, the X100 and all the similar types of cameras are in fact prosumer point and shoots. That's fine for many, and some pros might be able to get enough out of it. I opted for the Canon S95 to achieve almost as much quality in something that I can take with me everywhere. The portability won out over image quality in this format.

[paultreacy]

I'm using the X100 everyday and I think it's the finest camera I have ever used and I've used many. I'm ever liking it as a video camera. The images are so clear it could be up ressed to 1080 with little loss. Sound gathered separately and it's quite a formidable little performer.
http://paultreacy.com

[JonR]

Have used mine for a couple of months now and I tend to like it more and more. For me having come from the analogue Nikon cameras and then all the digital ones the X100 is a perfect combination with a D90 and the bigger Nikon system.

My daughter needed a smaller camera but for her having grown up with P&S cameras and Niokon D50/D60´s it was more natural to go for a Nikon Coolpix 7000 (which by the way is a really nice camera).

It all just shows that different needs requires different cameras!
Jon

[gavinlg]

I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of the ability of the old film rangefinders to fare better in low light, smaller size (over most SLR offerings...), and quiet leaf shutter (or cutrain variations) for discrete candid photography in natural light, a decent fast "50"... over any "form factor". The Nikon I settled on is very quiet. Much ergonomic thought went into the protruding "grip" on the left side of DSLRs... it's actually better, ergonomically - I find, than the form factor of classic rangefinders from a practical perspective... 'bout the only thing is does is mess up the lines so they're not as pretty.

The fuji has a leaf shutter and is basically silent FYI. The other thing is that there certainly are people who prefer the 'classic' gripless form-factor - me for one, and I know some other guys in here too. One of my favorite DSLRs ergonomically is the Olympus e-4x0 series, which has a classic style body with no protruding grip, like so:

http://digital-lifestyles.info/copy_images/olympus-evolt-e-410-xlg3.jpg

For some of us, the form factor is the whole point of the x100, and not just for nostalgias sake.

[bhop73]

Sorry, i'm not going to be selling my x100 since I happen to love the thing.

[semilog]

bigger sensor wins...sorry!

Wahoo! 20% more horizontal lines of resolution, WINS!

But "wins" what, exactly?

[Adanac]

point out the alternative choices, available for purchase today (or last February), in the X100's basic size and shape, with an APS-C sensor, with both an optical and electronic viewfinder (and with a viewfinder, *period*), that produce images on par with the X100, I'd appreciate that.

There being relatively few cameras now or back when the X100 that could deliver on *all* of those features is where real and perceived value is assigned, and where "what the market will bear" fits in. The X100 wasn't priced horribly out of balance, given it provides / provided a set of features difficult to acquire at lower prices.

Mirrorless compacts with larger sensors delivering high IQ in a package that appeals to photography enthusiasts and pros alike are going to be more common soon. There will be more choices than ever, and that is definitely going to change market pricing dynamics in this segment of the industry.

For that reason alone I'd say the X100 is likely to see competition - perhaps even from Fujifilm themselves - that undercuts its real or perceived value soon.

At the same time the Leica digital rangefinders are also going to face increased competition, what with a number of makers coming out with products that are different primarily because they lack a rangefinder focus mechanism. When other makers produce very high IQ capable machines, able to satisfy enthusiasts or professional desire to mate manual and autofocus lenses of high quality - and work equally well with either - it stands to reason that Leica's perceived value will be eroded and perhaps much more severely than the likes of the X100 and similar cameras.

[Adanac]

The size of most of the APSC offerings is not an issue; a slightly smaller camera doesn't add anything (if it's not "pocketable");

Having now read back to this earlier post of yours, I do get where you are coming from.

I do disagree about your size comment - there's a certain threshold of size, and shape, above which a camera (to me) no longer becomes an every-day carry item. I can fit the X100, my smartphone, wallet, two spare power packs and a sling strap in a very small carry bag - not deep at all - that I carry slung around my back. It doesn't look like a man-purse which for me seems to be important. Both the camera and the carry bag is small, light, and unobtrusive, and as a result the camera gets carried everywhere, every day. That was worth something to me... actually quite a lot.

That all said, if I could get (and afford) the same in an APS-C or better yet full frame sensor mirrorless "compact" that took interchangeable lenses, had an optical or as good as optical electronic viewfinder, could focus AF or MF with equal ease and accuracy, silent-ish and vibration resistant shutter system,... then I'd be in the market for that. But it has to fit in that bag of mine (with a decently fast and sharp prime, probably a 35mm equiv. a go-to lens) because I'll go no larger.

[anorphirith]

bigger sensor wins...sorry!

totally agree & I'm coming from a GF-2

[hausen]

Really love my X100. Took it and my M9 on holiday to Tahiti last week and come home with a new respect for X100. My M9 gave me major headaches with buffering/card writing and card failure issues. Long story but it is currently jetting it's way to Solms. Am really impressed after having to use the X100 as my digital option a long with my Xpan. May not be for everybody but is consistently delivered for me when my M9 let me down.

[peripatetic]

My X100 is the best camera I've ever owned.

My 5D2 is sitting there gathering dust, and so is my Zeiss Ikon. Don't think I'll ever use a DSLR again.

The AF could be better. No other complaints at all. Of course it doesn't suit everyone, possibly even it doesn't suit most people. But Fuji made a camera just for me. :-) They also made sure I got one of the first models outside of Japan.

I still put an occasional post on my blog for those who haven't visited for a while.

[bhop73]

point out the alternative choices, available for purchase today (or last February), in the X100's basic size and shape, with an APS-C sensor, with both an optical and electronic viewfinder (and with a viewfinder, *period*), that produce images on par with the X100, I'd appreciate that.


There are none, at an affordable price anyway, but the haters don't seem to care about that. Personally, I won't buy a camera that doesn't have an optical viewfinder no matter how good the sensor is.

[Adanac]

bhop73, I'm with you on that. Before heading over here and seeing your latest comment I had just written on the x100 forum site that the primary reason I was first attracted to the X100 was the hybrid finder. That the camera also paired that finder with a decently sized and capable sensor and other key features of which size and shape were in my books a key feature, made it, for me, very easy to buy. I'd been holding out for something like it since, well, forever.

Mike

[Keith]

My X100, after lighting the digital fire within me for a while, has assumed a position in the cupboard next to my D700. I haven't used it in a couple of weeks and suddenly it just seems like another digital camera to be used when film won't do the job or the required output is colour.