View Full Version : X100, another Pro's opinion...
I am in near total agreement with him, funny how Pro's like Emraphoto, my self and this guy love the X100 and take the bad with the good and then many other types of shooters get all techy and negative..
http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/fuji-x100-review/
Some examples of what he has done with it:
http://500px.com/zarias
'Funny-strange' or 'funny-ha ha'?
Warren T.
07-21-2011, 09:14
:D LOL! :bang: I didn't need to read that... must... resist... GAS.
Thanks for posting it anyway. :)
huntjump
07-21-2011, 09:33
"The Fuji x100 is the greatest digital camera ever made"
I assume the use of such a strong statement is intended to stir some discussion
Moriturii
07-21-2011, 10:28
"The Fuji x100 is the greatest digital camera ever made"
by Ken Rockwell
:-)
Colin Corneau
07-21-2011, 11:08
Anyone saying that is automatically not to be taken seriously.
back alley
07-21-2011, 12:51
i can assure you that 'soft' is not the typical output from this camera...
'Funny-strange' or 'funny-ha ha'?
Both, it's comical and odd at the same time...
willie_901
07-21-2011, 15:51
I love the ubiquitous "looks soft" comments.
The X100 can make extremely sharp photos starting at f 4. At f 2 the center is also sharp and one notices a drop off at the corners.
Fuji states they designe the lens for maximum performance at f 4 on.
Macro use with f stops wider than f 4 is not recommended by Fuji and f 2 definitely doesn't do well in macro mode.
Funny money!
funny looking...
SimonSawSunlight
07-22-2011, 02:04
I get the feeling that most people complaining about the 'slow' AF are old grumpy blokes who take 5 minutes to focus their leica and then don't get it right. :D
the thing is that you cannot shoot this like an M (or comparable rangefinders), and that might mean you have to learn shooting with it.
Ronald M
07-22-2011, 03:11
Ah well if KR said it, must be true.
buckpago
07-22-2011, 03:18
bunch of computer technicians aye
emraphoto
07-22-2011, 05:29
well, it is purely coincidental BUT i do find myself in agreement with KR, KM etc. the x100 is a wickedly potent tool. one will have a tough time soliciting any absolutes from me yet i can't help but think it (x100) is one of the best digital cameras i have uses to date.
in tune with KM25, i read an article recently that talked about the 'two worlds' of photography today. the online forum/review/critique/gear world and the slightly smaller group of folks out using the tools, regardless of the online reputations, to produce new and progressive work.
i am not gunning for a scrap here but what do folks think about the two worlds? has the online 'review' game arrived at a point of detachment from the world of photography? admittedly i find the 'sample' galleries and subsequently the 'work' of most professional reviewers pretty pedestrian. would a review by say Chris Anderson be more relevant? if one looks up Alex Majoli today there will be hundreds of pages dedicated to his use of digital point and shoots that barely made the grade in the review world. (for the record i know he is not using them currently)
i do know the 'use what works for you' mantra etc. everyone has their own needs, the camera is a tool, 'best' is hard to define. With that aside, has the world of photography developed two heads?
jsrockit
07-22-2011, 05:45
I love the ubiquitous "looks soft" comments.
Hahaha, yep. Sometimes soft is good too.
Pherdinand
07-22-2011, 05:56
What a goofy dude behind that camera.
Anyway, is it only me who finds there's something horribly wrong with the shadow areas on the very first shot on that page??
OurManInTangier
07-22-2011, 06:59
....i am not gunning for a scrap here but what do folks think about the two worlds? has the online 'review' game arrived at a point of detachment from the world of photography?......
... has the world of photography developed two heads?
I, hand on heart, have always thought the world of photography was a two headed beast.
Those that are interested in cameras and those that are interested in taking photographs - a slightly over simplified categorisation maybe but essentially on the right lines in my experience.
the thing is that you cannot shoot this like an M (or comparable rangefinders), and that might mean you have to learn shooting with it.
Absolutely! I had the chance to play with one side by side with my M2. Apart from the X100 being a digital camera the main practical difference for me is indeed the focussing system. Not that the AF of the X100 is slow, but certain advanced focussing techniques are simply not possible and I do not mean zone focussing.
For example, imagine a crowded street in low light with a lot of people in close range moving in and out of the viewfinder frame. With a rangefinder camera, it is possible to quickly adjust the focus manually whilst composing and if everything is coming together - clack. That's it. Straight forward. With a rangefinder it is possible to move the frame and the focus point simultaneously in real time.
With the X100 and me it is more like zzzt, zzzt, ouch, zzzt - ahh - click-click. Oops.
However, this is a bit of an extreme example and for me it is to early to make a final decision about this camera. The built quality is very nice and the hybrid viewfinder is truly innovative. I will test it out a bit further.
emraphoto
07-22-2011, 11:51
it (the x100) is not a rangefinder. spot on.
i figured a damn sweet spot for those types of conditions though. pump the ISO up, which the x100 does very well, corresponding aperture and away i go! of course very limited DOF is not high on my list of priorities.
sevres_babylone
07-22-2011, 12:05
it (the x100) is not a rangefinder. spot on.
i figured a damn sweet spot for those types of conditions though. pump the ISO up, which the x100 does very well, corresponding aperture and away i go! of course very limited DOF is not high on my list of priorities.
I swing both ways on DOF, using fast lenses on an RF for shallow DOF, and loving my GRD3 for deep focus. A camera with the x100's high ISO capabilities and larger sensor, coupled with something like Ricoh's snap focus controls would be very nice indeed. Hopefully Ricoh and Fuji will engage in a race to get us there in the future.
I have been impressed with the work being done with the Fuji by pros and others.
Roger Hicks
07-22-2011, 12:10
The fact that someone uses a camera professionally does not necessarily add weight to their opinion, if you want the camera for something else. What does 'pro' mean, apart from 'earning money from your photography'?There were those who used 110 for press photography, for example. And wedding photography is very different from advertising. 'Pro' is too diverse a term for me to attach all that much weight to it.
Cheers,
R.
i figured a damn sweet spot for those types of conditions though. pump the ISO up, which the x100 does very well, corresponding aperture and away i go! of course very limited DOF is not high on my list of priorities.
Yes, the high ISO performance is quite impressive. In some extreme situations there is heavy banding in the shadows (at least with firmware 1.01), but well, who wants to take pictures of black cats in the coal cellar? Another thing I have not solved yet are blown highlights in contrasty light situations.
EDIT:
Ah, I have found a solution for the focussing issue: AF-C und focus lock on the AFL-AEL button should work. Cool.
tbarker13
07-22-2011, 12:45
Thanks for posting that. It's a nice read. And makes me think I might actually get one of these some day.
emraphoto
07-22-2011, 12:50
I swing both ways on DOF, using fast lenses on an RF for shallow DOF, and loving my GRD3 for deep focus. A camera with the x100's high ISO capabilities and larger sensor, coupled with something like Ricoh's snap focus controls would be very nice indeed. Hopefully Ricoh and Fuji will engage in a race to get us there in the future.
I have been impressed with the work being done with the Fuji by pros and others.
that (snap focus) is an easy set on the x100. Afl button at the distance you want... Shazam! love the ricoh gr's!
gho - i am a chronic underexposer and that seems to keep me in the highlight business.
Roger - pro is a very grey term in my books as well. the deeper i get into what photography CAN BE the less and less interest i have in providing the material 'pro' requires. bit of a pickle these days.
andredossantos
07-22-2011, 12:52
I've made up my mind to buy one of these. Problem is I can't find one anywhere. Surely, a whole lot of people really, really like this camera.
I concur with Roger - I've seen Zack's name bandied about here and there but have never bothered to read or look into who he was.. the wedding photography world can be quite nasty to be honest... lots of envy, backbiting, people who take advantage of naivete and the sort. ETA: hence my reason for not bothering to pay attention to other wedding photographers
Right now, if people like the X100.. good for them.. and more power to them.. there will always be proponents / detractors of various tools of the trade.. just go and take photos and show them.... if the customer or viewer likes them as well as the photographer.. that's the perfect win/win situation.
Cheers,
Dave
back alley
07-22-2011, 13:21
the more reviews the better...that's how i see it.
i love reading the opinions of many...doesn't necessarily mean it will have much impact on me.
many years ago i loved reading the consumer reports on cameras...they often would 'best buy' a total peice of crap...i just saw it as a bit of life's comedy.
even here on rff, some of the opinions of some of the people are hilarious...especially those i consider to be be truly lousy photographers.
but hey...i'm pretty sure someone labeled me 'mundane' the other day so what do i know?
;)
Thanks for posting that. It's a nice read. And makes me think I might actually get one of these some day.
Same for me - it was really nice to read that review. And I think I will order such a Blackrapid SnapR 35.
With that aside, has the world of photography developed two heads?
I think so..
The photo world has always had a fair amount of those who are more gear centric rather than talent focused, but now it seems off the charts in terms of gear in many cases, like there are legions of those who not seem to care about freeing their creativity from the tool to allow great images to happen.
I am out shooting nearly everyday, most of the day if not all day so I meet lots of people. Most of the time, when someone approaches me while working, they want to talk gear and most of the time, I don't. I ask them if we can talk about something else like life, current events, where they are from, things like that and they seem surprised, like they offended me, like I don't like photography or something.
And most of the time when I do end up talking about gear, the reference of where they get their info from is from the gear-centric websites, not from experience, workshops or life in general...
I have had lots of people ask me how I like my X100 and that they were interested in it, but that the reviews were mixed so they opted out. I tell them that I know several great photographers who are using it to great effect, so that should be all they need to know...
Roger - pro is a very grey term in my books as well. the deeper i get into what photography CAN BE the less and less interest i have in providing the material 'pro' requires. bit of a pickle these days.
What I consider to be a pro in this day and age might offend some of those who call them selves pros, so I will pass on that one...:-)
Having said that, the cure to the pickle is to take the approach Sam Abell has, to live the "Photographic Life". And what that means is to me is that you do photography so much, that you have to pay your bills with it, so the more financial expectations you place on your self, the less you live that life. This includes doctors, dentists and lawyers who claim that because they make a good living, they can take more time to photograph, the reality being that they are doing it when they have time, not living photography 24/7/365 in a "Photographic Life"...
It's a balance that when struck, you too, feel balanced and centered in that you are largely making images for your self, but get paid enough to where you don't have to do anything else but photography because you have placed conservative financial expectations on your self...
I would love to be making the fat checks I were before the economic crash, and since I have been home, I have been steadily gaining lost ground. But I am also shooting a ton more for my self, more than 60% of my work is self propelled with no pressure. I can pull this off because I keep my bills low and my priorities high...
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.