View Full Version : Have you just walked away?
Snapper_uk
09-13-2011, 04:33
Yesterday I went to my local hi-tech camera shop with the intention of getting an X100. I'm not anti-digital as such, but when I buy (another) digital camera, I want it to be the last one I'll need/want to buy.
At first sight of it in the display case, it looked even better in real life than on screen. The case was opened, I held it and... oh... felt nothing. I didn't like it, it just didn't feel good in the hand. And that EVF - horrid, what's that all about?
Kind of like a internet date that's fallen flat within the first two minutes (I expect).
After 5 minutes with it, I just said, you know what, I won't bother. I'll wait for the next one.
Anybody else just walked away?
jsrockit
09-13-2011, 04:38
Nope, bought sight unseen and have liked it since day one. I think too many people expect it to feel and act like an old mechanical rangefinder when it isn't one. The EVF, while not my thing either, is one of the better ones out there. I just use the OVF... problem solved.
Moriturii
09-13-2011, 04:44
Precisely how I felt when I had an epiphany about photography, was looking around to my first camera, a dSLR. Was looking at D90's at the time, seemed amazing, I was overjoyed! Went to photography class, and tried one out, and felt absolutely NOTHING. Was like holding a brick in my hands, I just gave it back to the teacher and left with low spirits. The next few days just by chance I went into an analog section of a photo site I was looking at back then for fun, someone asked about the Nikon F100, and a I had a light-bulb moment in my heart, never looked back to digital since. After that I found all these photographers like Henri CB, Eugene Smith, Elliot Erwit, Willy Ronis and nothing would be the same.
Well at least you saw one, I have never seen one, doubt I ever will. By the time anyone has one in stock to hold, they will be discontinued.
You think?
I don't like waiting in line at restaurants or movies, and I am not going to buy a camera that is simply not on display where I shop.
Yet people will wait months to get Leica 'fabulous' lenses ... isn't it a strange world? :D
Snapper_uk
09-13-2011, 04:58
I should add that I didn't like the look of the M9 either:eek:
Gabriel M.A.
09-13-2011, 05:01
Have you just walked away?
Nope, still here, typing. ;)
Yesterday I went to my local hi-tech camera shop with the intention of getting an X100. I'm not anti-digital as such, but when I buy (another) digital camera, I want it to be the last one I'll need/want to buy.
In the digital world, it's impossible (as of this writing) for anything to be "the last one you'll need/want to buy". Its growth and implicit self-obsoletion (if that's a word) dictates you'll have to buy a replacement either due to relevance or failure within a few years, five years if you're sentimental, and ten if you're a pack rat.
At first sight of it in the display case, it looked even better in real life than on screen. The case was opened, I held it and... oh... felt nothing. I didn't like it, it just didn't feel good in the hand. And that EVF - horrid, what's that all about?
Expectations vs. Reality. Happened to me one night when I reached into the fridge expecting to pour orange juice but drank milk instead. It wasn't because the milk was bad: it was because I expected orange juice.
Kind of like a[n] internet date that's fallen flat within the first two minutes (I expect).
At least the date didn't cost $1,500?
After 5 minutes with it, I just said, you know what, I won't bother. I'll wait for the next one.
I knew a guy who did Palladium prints. He's waiting for the next one, too; never liked silver.
Anybody else just walked away?
Well, I'm about to navigate the rest of the forum. :angel:
Gabriel M.A.
09-13-2011, 05:03
Yet people will wait months to get Leica 'fabulous' lenses ... isn't it a strange world? :D
We all know that Nikon lenses don't need the fabulous in quotation marks. It's stated often. :D
I played with it a couple of times, and was likewise disappointed. I AM anti-digital in the sense that I find digital cameras very irritating, but I thought the X100 might be different. It is not. It replaces some irritations with others - has an optical view finder, but you can't use it to focus, for example. Has a "manual" focus ring, but it doesn't do much.
I recognize that many people on this forum take superb photos with digital cameras, so that tempers my feelings about these cameras. I have taken note of the new Richoh, with a module that takes M lenses (and specifically claims compatibility with the old ones I have), so I might look at it. Even though it has that hateful LCD screen.
Randy
Roger Hicks
09-13-2011, 05:38
Its growth and implicit self-obsoletion (if that's a word) dictates you'll have to buy a replacement either due to relevance or failure within a few years, five years if you're sentimental, and ten if you're a pack rat.
Dear Gabriel,
Why will I need an M10? How will the M9 become obsolete? If I can't see an improvement is a double-page spread (and you won't, over 18 megapixels), then what will a newer camera do?
Higher ISO would be nice, but not worth the money to me. That's about it. Leica promised 20 years support after the intro of the M9, and if I live long enough, I may well hold them to it.
Cheers,
R.
Kiyatkin
09-13-2011, 05:45
I love digital and bought X100 on Amazon when annouced. Now, after months of trying to like it, I don't, but dont see any alternatives. There are no small digital cameras with good high ISO IQ that can compete with the X100. Handling sucks, but I guess it could be worse.
Why did you use the EVF? The OVF is why you buy the camera! If you want an EVF buy a panasonic G or something...
Gabriel M.A.
09-13-2011, 05:54
Dear Gabriel,
Why will I need an M10?
If the M9 dies before or soon after the M10 does, you will. Repairing the M9 may yet be cheaper, but it depends on what component we're talking about. If it's the sensor, I doubt Kodak would crank an "old" one if a "new" one is already out on the market; best to hope for stock.
As much as we'd like to, the current electronics industry thrives on "buying new", and it has virtually no incentive to make things last in the same sense that, say, an M2 was built to last.
How will the M9 become obsolete?
There are many ways, and it is not exclusive to Leica:
1) DNG file support. Even though it's "open", Adobe owns the baby. If they go belly-up, along with the ACR infrastructure, that's it: it'll be a slow death. The whole reason for its existence, to have a file format that is not proprietary, ironically, would come full circle.
Files created with the first versions of DNG can be opened right now, but they (Adobe) keep on accessorizing it with new features that are exploited by Lightroom, Photoshop, etc.
2) Microsoft and Apple seize to exist (natural disaster, sudden market crash, etc.): bye-bye support for the very thing you need to process the files (Nikon's, Canon's, Leica's, Panasonic's...)
3) Raw materials availability, prices, viability: the CCD for a specific camera has this weak point, as well as the long chain of companies tied to it (Kodak, Sony, Canon, Leica, Chinese government...it's a veritable bordel).
Those are just few. It's a subset of the whole "digital vs. film archival" debate.
If I can't see an improvement is a double-page spread (and you won't, over 18 megapixels), then what will a newer camera do?
I did not discuss that, only the inherent short (or "not very long") lifespan of all things "digital". Within the context of buying "any" digital camera, never into M9 vs. M10.
Higher ISO would be nice, but not worth the money to me. That's about it. Leica promised 20 years support after the intro of the M9, and if I live long enough, I may well hold them to it.
Same. Again, my point was on the pseudo-pointlessness of "waiting" for "the next one" in the digital world.
The "digital" reality vs. the "mechanical/film" reality cannot be compared (yet). A different expectation for electronics (as of this writing) must be had when coming from an analog point of view. Shopping in 2011 is not the same as it was in 1980. Most corporations have sold their soul to Wall Street.
Regards.
Austerby
09-13-2011, 06:14
I recall being in a minority when the X100 was announced in that I thought the M9/T was a more interesting and significant camera.
I've seen nothing about the X100 that has changed my opinion.
I'm happy to accept that it's a fine camera in its own right, with its own strengths and weaknesses.
But it's clearly not the camera it was anticipated to be by some.
But it's clearly not the camera it was anticipated to be by some.
Maybe a very few - there's a lot of people who absolutely love the camera. I know there's a few magnum photographers using them right now...
sparrow6224
09-13-2011, 06:41
Kiyatkin: sell the x100 and try the Nikon D7000. Amazing -- putatively far better -- high ISO image quality and for a dslr, quite small. with the AF 50mm 1.8 a coat-pocketable (maybe....) size. Or the AF 20mm or the 24mm or the Nikon 35mm DX 1.8 which is just an outstanding $200 lens. It glows. Superior viewfinder (though still not up to analog standards) and better in all respects. Just doesn't look like an old Leica. Other than that, better in every way. Really. Check one out. They're on display and everything.
tom.w.bn
09-13-2011, 06:47
and for a dslr, quite small.
It's one of the bigger crop DSLRs on the market and I don't know how someone can call this small when we are talking about the x100?
A friend of mine, who normally sports just a 5D, got an X100. He seems to love it, uses both, and seamlessly moves from one to the other. This was the first time I had seen one. I was amazed! Much smaller than I had imagined, lovely viewfinder, and a nice feel in the hand.
What do they say on the 'net? Haters gonna hate...
I was an early adopter of the X100 and I love the quality of the shots. Yes, it may not be perfect but what is? The OVF is what made it for me. The EVF, any EVF for that matter, is just like sitting too close to the TV and I just don't like them.
I'm gonna sell my G11 soon now that I'm happy with the Fuji.
The only camera I walked away from was the M8. I ended up getting the RD1 instead.
Kiyatkin: sell the x100 and try the Nikon D7000. Amazing -- putatively far better -- high ISO image quality and for a dslr, quite small. with the AF 50mm 1.8 a coat-pocketable (maybe....) size. Or the AF 20mm or the 24mm or the Nikon 35mm DX 1.8 which is just an outstanding $200 lens. It glows. Superior viewfinder (though still not up to analog standards) and better in all respects. Just doesn't look like an old Leica. Other than that, better in every way. Really. Check one out. They're on display and everything.
Really? It's like twice the size of the x100, three times the weight, you can't get a 35mm f2 lens for it (unless you buy a 24mm f1.4G for $2200), it's an SLR with a loud shutter, doesn't have framelines or the ability to see outside of them, and don't get me started on nikon skin tones...
They're two very different cameras, really.
EVERYBODY has walked away from something. If it doesn't feel right, don't do it (unless you have to). I remember being a bit disappointed when I first handled an M3. Nothing wrong with the M3, just the amount of crap on the internet about this Leica had increased my expectations to a level probably beyond reason (I was probably expecting God's-own buttery smooth peach-tasting and peppermint-scented camera covered in the hide of Unicorns). I did not expect it to belong to the real world. I also had high expectations because the Nikon F2 is not chopped liver - not at all. In short, the choir didn't sing for me and I was underwhelmed whilst recognising my expectations were probably unrealistically high. If it doesn't feel right, walk away. Try again later. Rinse and repeat.
Yesterday I went to my local hi-tech camera shop with the intention of getting an X100. I'm not anti-digital as such, but when I buy (another) digital camera, I want it to be the last one I'll need/want to buy.
At first sight of it in the display case, it looked even better in real life than on screen. The case was opened, I held it and... oh... felt nothing. I didn't like it, it just didn't feel good in the hand. And that EVF - horrid, what's that all about?
Kind of like a internet date that's fallen flat within the first two minutes (I expect).
After 5 minutes with it, I just said, you know what, I won't bother. I'll wait for the next one.
Anybody else just walked away?
Interesting, I had exactly the same experience with X100!
back alley
09-13-2011, 08:26
my experience was the opposite...
i didn't want to buy one without handling it first, when i had the opportunity to play with one i was hoping not to like it.
i left the shop with no intention of buying one but went back the next day and did buy one...have not looked back.
my other gear has been gathering dust since.
Backalley's experience is almost identical to mine, except that I didn't return to the shop until about two weeks later. Likewise, most of my other kit (Canon) is hardly used now.
Vincent.G
09-13-2011, 08:49
The X100 was good enough for me and I sold my D700.
CK Dexter Haven
09-13-2011, 09:15
I remember going to B&H, excited to check out the new (at that time) Olympus Pen and other m4/3 cameras. I had read so many posts about how wonderful they were. But, ick. It only took a minute of futzing with them to know they weren't right for me.
I've had a few other small digitals that were highly-regarded (Panasonic LX3, Canon s90, Sigma SD-something, and Ricoh GR-d), but, each for only a couple of months. They do whatever they do, pretty well, in a relative sense.... But, i just hated holding and using them.
I know these things are 'compacts,' but why aren't manufacturers building MORE into them? Not in terms of features, but in terms of FEEL? They really are just electronic gadgets. And, while i do loves my gadgets, they have to be engineered by someone with a certain sense of 'the sensual.' Apple does it. I remember, on that same day, (almost) liking the Samsung NX10. It felt and worked more like a real camera than the others.
I wish compacts could feel like a Rollei 35, Contax T2, Contax G2, Nikon FE2.... Metal. Dense. REAL. I don't want a Playstation 3 controller with a glass bit on the front.
That said, i sorta felt similarly unenthused with the Leica M8 when it was current. I went in expecting it to feel like an M7. Disappointing - both in the sensual aspect as well as the operation.... At some point, i'll have to adapt. But, it will always feel like a compromise when i have an F100 and FE2 in the bag.
dogbunny
09-13-2011, 09:28
I'm not anti-digital as such, but when I buy (another) digital camera, I want it to be the last one I'll need/want to buy.
This quote is equally as funny if you substitute the the words "digital camera" for: computer, car, tv, microwave, refrigerator.
I just don't think that stuff exists anymore...except maybe a cast-iron fry pan--if you buy a good one, it should be the last you ever buy. Even the most expensive cameras have a shelf life. I guess it depends on whether you keep it on a shelf or not.
Roger Hicks
09-13-2011, 09:32
This quote is equally as funny if you substitute the the words "digital camera" for: computer, car, tv, microwave, refrigerator.
I just don't think that stuff exists anymore...except maybe a cast-iron fry pan--if you buy a good one, it should be the last you ever buy. Even the most expensive cameras have a shelf life. I guess it depends on whether you keep it on a shelf or not.
Also depends on how old you are...
But plenty of people buy cars for decades, and possibly for life. They're just quite expensive (Bristol, Bentley, Morgan...)
Cheers,
R.
Nikon Bob
09-13-2011, 10:02
If you are predisposed to not liking digital, not liking EVFs and not anything that is not a Leica M you are just doomed to walk away. The only cure would be to shell out for an M9 but then that too is digital. I did manage to get an X100 in my hands and thought I could easily get used to it, even thought the EVF was very decent. No I did not buy one having other priorities at the moment. It sure is on the short list for a lightweight camera sometime in the future.
Bob
I just got my X100 yesterday. Yes there are little quirks to get used to, but I can already tell i'm going to like this camera.
I don't care for the EVF, the optical finder is why I wanted this camera compared to ANY other 'affordable' small digital camera. However, the EVF isn't useless it seems, it's used for macro or focusing closer than the OVF limit. I can't stand using LCDs to compose my shots, and there simply is no other pocketable digital camera with a better viewfinder that also has amazing image quality. Hopefully my opinion won't change within the next few weeks.
Brian Sweeney
09-13-2011, 11:42
I lost interest in the X100 after reading RFF member's experience with Manual Focus on the camera. My thoughts were- great camera, great hardware, lots of potential, all screwed up by the firmware.
Not sure if the camera will be discontinued before the waiting list grows short, but I doubt the firmware will ever meet half the potential of the camera. Now- if they go open source for the firmware, and I can take over writing it, I would buy one. THEN we would get decent manual focus.
NickTrop
09-13-2011, 11:48
C'mon - who hasn't had the experience of being "underwhelmed" when they meet the real thing in person? For the poster it's the X100.
Steve Bellayr
09-13-2011, 12:12
Gear I handled but did not have the right Zen: Nikon F5, Canon G10, Leica D-Lux 4.
Brian Sweeney
09-13-2011, 12:40
How come everyone is underwhelmed or overwhelmed?
How many have just been whelmed by the X100?
back alley
09-13-2011, 12:46
i'm just very pleased with the images it can produce.
David_Manning
09-13-2011, 12:52
I travel for a living. I've been bringing along an M6 and single 35mm Biogon lens for space-saving considerations. In the back of my mind, however, I always dreaded the trip to the lab, or all the time spent timing, or worst of all, scanning.
The X100, when introduced, seemed to me to be perfect for travel...about like my M6 but without the film post-production.
After waiting and waiting...I bought one, sight unseen. And guess what? I'm whelmed :D
It's not perfect, but no single camera is. It's much more pleasant to travel with than say a dSLR like my 5DII or previous D700, but it's image quality is on par with the D300 I used to have (but better in low light).
I'm glad I have it. I work with it like I did my M6...except the focus is faster ;)
Archiver
09-13-2011, 17:31
Yesterday I went to my local hi-tech camera shop with the intention of getting an X100. I'm not anti-digital as such, but when I buy (another) digital camera, I want it to be the last one I'll need/want to buy.
At first sight of it in the display case, it looked even better in real life than on screen. The case was opened, I held it and... oh... felt nothing. I didn't like it, it just didn't feel good in the hand. And that EVF - horrid, what's that all about?
Kind of like a internet date that's fallen flat within the first two minutes (I expect).
After 5 minutes with it, I just said, you know what, I won't bother. I'll wait for the next one.
Not the X100, but I had a weirdly similar experience with the Leica M8 and the MP.
A few years back I was a dedicated DSLR shooter, although I had a Zeiss Ikon and several compacts. I held a M8 in the shop and it didn't do a thing for me. It even felt a bit wrong somehow.
Yet a few years later, I held a M8 and suddenly it felt right! That lead to the purchase of a M9.
Likewise, I handled a chrome MP and it didn't do a thing for me. Last year I handled a M7 after several months of M9 ownership, and it felt right, so I bought it. Now I imagine that I'd feel similarly if I had a MP.
As far as a camera that will last goes, I think it's pretty obvious now that this is becoming less and less likely with technological advancement. Cameras are simply not designed for lifetimes of decades any more. Electronics will become harder to repair, specialized parts can't be fabricated.
The romantic notion of a 'camera for life' is best left with film cameras, no matter what Leica's current marketing for the M9 says.
willie_901
09-13-2011, 19:57
I think manual focus operation is not a firmware issue, but rather a hardware design/marketing issue. I doubt lens has encoding hardware compatible with usage similar to how an analog lens operates. After using a X100 for 4 1/2 months I believe the camera was designed from day one as an autofocus platform. Manual focus mode is just another way to use autofocus where you can a) check the AF focus point with a zoomed view b) make fine adjustments to the AF focus point, c) set a hyperfocal point or zone focus point and d) decouple AF from the shutter button.
Fuji really screwed up by not making this clear from day one.
I lost interest in the X100 after reading RFF member's experience with Manual Focus on the camera. My thoughts were- great camera, great hardware, lots of potential, all screwed up by the firmware.
Not sure if the camera will be discontinued before the waiting list grows short, but I doubt the firmware will ever meet half the potential of the camera. Now- if they go open source for the firmware, and I can take over writing it, I would buy one. THEN we would get decent manual focus.
"I want it to be the last one I'll need/want to buy"
oh come on.. how long has digital been around now? 15 years? time to get over the everything's changing so fast/I dont like the feel of the new stuff, rhetoric.. I remember very clearly before digital there was the same winging 'I want it to be the last one I'll need/want to buy' ..digital has nothing to do with it, its all down to you and your interest in the gear more then the pictures out of it.
See the cameras as for what they are not what you wanted them to have been..
ZlatkoBatistich
09-13-2011, 20:28
It's not perfect, but no single camera is.
I agree. There is no perfect camera, so being just 'whelmed' is often good enough. The X100 is quite appealing. The designers seem to have had good intentions. I imagine that version 2 (whenever it comes) will really rock.
There was a comment above to try the Nikon D7000 instead. It has a lot to offer, but just isn't in the same size/type category. The D7000 has a quiet shutter, is lightweight and very responsive -- it is quite good overall. But as it relates to this discussion, it is not pocketable not matter which lens you put on it.
willie_901
09-13-2011, 20:42
The binary or love phenomena is interesting and real.
I think the X100 underwhelms different groups of people such as those who never used a rangefinder, or previously used a P&S camera where DOF obscured AF performance, or previously used DSLRs with phase detection AF and relied on highly automated operation methods. People who hate or distrust AF would also be underwhelmed. People who really don't care about or need the performance gains from using an APS-C sensor compared to a smaller sensor are likely to be underwhelmed. People who refuse to read the manual or are not motivated to think and experiment about how to operate the camera will certainly be underwhelmed.
The favorably impressed are people who are comfortable with focus and recompose, and who understand when to use zone and hyperfocal methods. They are people who want to hold the camera up to their face. They prefer the convenience of using a small, light camera without sacrificing performance. They are willing to sacrifice flexibility in angle-of-view. They either set up the X100 to work one way that is is compatible with how they work, or they figure out how and when to use the different combinations of EVF/OVF and focus modes to do what they need to do. They invest this level of effort because they routinely get excellent RAW or jpeg files without carrying a large, heavy, noisy camera, or having to spend at least twice as much to get a similar results. They are motivated to get the results they need and their efforts are rewarded.
skibeerr
09-13-2011, 22:28
There are few members here who own a Hexar af (or Contax G1/2 )and dont like it.
When I read about the manual focussing issue on the x100 I would say try doing that with the Hexar/G1 or 2 :-).
Same with the evf, stay on the ovf and do not look back.
So the automatic iso is buried in the menu, do you remember changing iso on your 35mm filmcamera? Wind back, try to leave the lip out, remember the framenumber you where on, load other iso film, take shot and repeat the above.
My only digital camera is the Panasonic G1, by now an obsolete camera, and it still works good enough for me.
The lifespan of any Digital camera is mainly in our heads, don't believe the marketing crap.
Just like you i ran to the local shop in order to check this little gem, put an eye into it and... feel disapointed to. I'm not into digital and i was like "that's the camera i'm waiting for since so many years..." but i guess it tries too hard to be a Leica but it's far from it... so i passed my turn and i'm working hard for getting a M9
dogbunny
09-13-2011, 22:42
But plenty of people buy cars for decades, and possibly for life. They're just quite expensive (Bristol, Bentley, Morgan...)
Cheers,
R.
As someone who has spent time working on expensive cars, I can say with confidence that they are not built to last for decades. They are simply maintained, at an expensive price, for decades. They are usually weekend cruisers, or they spend most of their existence parked at the winter home on Palm Beach Island and driven a few times a year. Every time a Bentley or Rolls, or vintage Benz was dropped off to have something done to it--yet again, there was always the wife waiting with the daily driver to give the husband a lift back home.
If those British cars were meant to last surely they wouldn't have allowed Lucas, the Prince of Darkness, do the wiring. ;)
DB
They are simply maintained, at an expensive price, for decades.
which brings to mind how important the CLA is when buying M2 from eBay :D
but when I buy (another) digital camera, I want it to be the last one I'll need/want to buy.
I think, this is wrong assumption to start with. Needs change also with film gear, add here short life cycle (normally) of digital devices and you have set up constraints no current camera can match. Any camera is compromise - we just have to choose between pluses and minuses we can accept. There is no perfect camera. Why one would expect X100 is perfect?
They are usually weekend cruisers, or they spend most of their existence parked at the winter home on Palm Beach Island and driven a few times a year.
My limited experience tells irregular use is source for a lot of problems with cars. Drive it daily, spend about same money on maintenance as driving it once a week (assuming conditions are similar) and it will be in better shape. Sounds right?
Roger Hicks
09-13-2011, 23:20
As someone who has spent time working on expensive cars, I can say with confidence that they are not built to last for decades. They are simply maintained, at an expensive price, for decades. They are usually weekend cruisers, or they spend most of their existence parked at the winter home on Palm Beach Island and driven a few times a year. Every time a Bentley or Rolls, or vintage Benz was dropped off to have something done to it--yet again, there was always the wife waiting with the daily driver to give the husband a lift back home.
If those British cars were meant to last surely they wouldn't have allowed Lucas, the Prince of Darkness, do the wiring. ;)
DB
Well, yes, maintenance is part of what it's about. A car that is designed to last for decades is also designed to be maintained. And yes, maintenance is expensive: it requires skilled labour which is often very hard to find.
If you can afford a Rolls-Royce or a Bentley, or better still a Bristol, you can almost certainly afford more than one car, so it's logical that when you drop one off for service, your wife accompanies you in another car.
When I look back, I've known quite a few owners of seriously expensive motor cars, and (with the exception of Ferrari owners) many have indeed used these cars the same way that someone else might use a Ford.
Cheers,
R.
Kiyatkin: sell the x100 and try the Nikon D7000. Amazing -- putatively far better -- high ISO image quality and for a dslr, quite small. with the AF 50mm 1.8 a coat-pocketable (maybe....) size. Or the AF 20mm or the 24mm or the Nikon 35mm DX 1.8 which is just an outstanding $200 lens. It glows. Superior viewfinder (though still not up to analog standards) and better in all respects. Just doesn't look like an old Leica. Other than that, better in every way. Really. Check one out. They're on display and everything.
Kumquats vs. footballs. I mean, really, what an utterly pointless comparison.
The favorably impressed are people who are comfortable with focus and recompose, and who understand when to use zone and hyperfocal methods. They are people who want to hold the camera up to their face. They prefer the convenience of using a small, light camera without sacrificing performance. They are willing to sacrifice flexibility in angle-of-view. They either set up the X100 to work one way that is is compatible with how they work, or they figure out how and when to use the different combinations of EVF/OVF and focus modes to do what they need to do. They invest this level of effort because they routinely get excellent RAW or jpeg files without carrying a large, heavy, noisy camera, or having to spend at least twice as much to get a similar results. They are motivated to get the results they need and their efforts are rewarded.
Wow - that's exactly me. (I've been impressed by your posts before - willie 901) I was going to write something about what I like about the X100, how I use the MF etc, but you did it better than I could! Thanks!
peripatetic
09-14-2011, 11:11
When I was upgrading from a Canon 20D I was all set to get a Leica M8. Tried it in a shop and felt hugely disappointed. I had thought I would love it, but didn't.
Ended up getting a 5D instead, which I did like. Then a Zeiss Ikon, still love that. Canon 5D2 good tool, no soul.
Absolutely love my X100 though!
Also depends on how old you are...
But plenty of people buy cars for decades, and possibly for life. They're just quite expensive (Bristol, Bentley, Morgan...)
Cheers,
R.
Not to forget the practical ones like "classic" Land Rovers or Jeep Models.
They were/are expensive too, but most repairs are worth it and that's how the things last for decades...
I should add that I didn't like the look of the M9 either:eek:
I have to add to this. After JOnesing for months for an M9, i was fortunate to try out a colleagues and while the quality was amazing, I was dissapointed that I didn't get the same feel as I do when I shoot with my M2, Hasselblad or Cambo 4x5. With film I feel like I'm making my picture, with digital, I'm just a bystander. So, I picked up a used Canon 40D with grip, for $450.00 and the inexpensive 17-85 zoom. This will be useful for the times I need digital. But for film, it's the M2, the 500CM or the Cambo SC.
CK Dexter Haven
09-14-2011, 11:33
I believe the camera was designed from day one as an autofocus platform.... Fuji really screwed up by not making this clear from day one.
I thought that was clear. I kinda feel like anytime you buy an AF camera expecting to use manual focus, you should expect that the 'manual' aspect is sort of a 'second tier' feature. You get that option, but it's not going to be anything more than a last resort thing. Use it if you have to, but it's going to be implemented in a way that doesn't make it very palatable.
Same with the Hexar AF, Contax G2s and T2 and T3s i've had. I probably used manual focus less than a handful of times. Even with an SLR, if the screen was designed for AF, it's just not going to work as well with manual focus as a camera designed for manual focus.
How Fuji screwed up is that they designed for and marketed to the most persnickety photographic niche audience possible. An audience that clearly has a "Leica über alles" mentality. Anything by any other manufacturer is evaluated one way, and anything by Leica is worshipped...er, i mean evaluated in a different way.
jsrockit
09-14-2011, 12:03
I thought that was clear. I kinda feel like anytime you buy an AF camera expecting to use manual focus, you should expect that the 'manual' aspect is sort of a 'second tier' feature.
I agree completely.
How Fuji screwed up is that they designed for and marketed to the most persnickety photographic niche audience possible. An audience that clearly has a "Leica über alles" mentality. Anything by any other manufacturer is evaluated one way, and anything by Leica is worshipped...er, i mean evaluated in a different way.
I can't agree with this... I mean, saying Fuji screwed up when they still cannot keep this camera in stock is a bit harsh. Most companies would love to screw up so bad. :)
I would say that people had unrealistic expectations for this camera. By the way, I've met two commercial pros who said they use the X100 over their Hasslebalds now. That seems a little much, but they were adament about it.
willie_901
09-14-2011, 12:12
I thought that was clear. I kinda feel like anytime you buy an AF camera expecting to use manual focus, you should expect that the 'manual' aspect is sort of a 'second tier' feature. You get that option, but it's not going to be anything more than a last resort thing. Use it if you have to, but it's going to be implemented in a way that doesn't make it very palatable.
....
Unfortunately there are a significant number of people who thought otherwise.
I didn't expect the X100 lens would focus like a mechanical lens from day one. I was excited about the on-screen focus/DOF bar even though the displayed DOF is rather conservative. As an aside, the on-screen level has improved my framing too.
Roger Hicks
09-14-2011, 12:24
Not to forget the practical ones like "classic" Land Rovers or Jeep Models.
They were/are expensive too, but most repairs are worth it and that's how the things last for decades...
Well, yes. I've read (though never verified) that 50% of all 'proper' Land Rovers (Series + Defender) ever built are still on the road. I expect my 1972 Series III 88 inch to outlast me. I've spent a lot more on it than it's 'worth' (i.e. what I could sell it for), with a new chassis, rebuilt engine and gearbox, and so forth, but I've had it about 10 years; it's now 'worth' more than it was when I bought it; and the depreciation on any but the cheapest of new cars, plus maintenance, would have cost me as much or more. An ADAC guy once described the Land Rover to me as 'unkaputbar'.
Cheers,
R.
I think to be completely happy with any digital camera first of all you have to be completely comfortable with the medium itself. Seems to me that a lot of the people who haven't really taken to the X100 had expectations beyond what the camera is actually capable of.
sojournerphoto
09-14-2011, 14:54
I tried one in a shop and didn't buy it. It seemed nice enough, but I just preferred my M9. For what it's worth, I prefer my Ikons and MP to the M9 for using, but the digital is usefu too.
Gabriel M.A.
09-15-2011, 11:49
How come everyone is underwhelmed or overwhelmed?
How many have just been whelmed by the X100?
'tis the law of "best ever" and "worst ever": superlatives are now used to express the slightest emotions. 'tis the way of the Intertoobes. I don't agree with it.
It's the strangest thing ever.
I've been using mine for a few days now and have to say i'll be keeping it. Once you realize its limitations, it's really not half as bad as people seem to be saying. (unless they're pro-manual focus, which is a legit complaint)
Snapper_uk
09-17-2011, 11:40
"I want it to be the last one I'll need/want to buy"
oh come on.. how long has digital been around now? 15 years? time to get over the everything's changing so fast/I dont like the feel of the new stuff, rhetoric.. I remember very clearly before digital there was the same winging 'I want it to be the last one I'll need/want to buy' ..digital has nothing to do with it, its all down to you and your interest in the gear more then the pictures out of it.
See the cameras as for what they are not what you wanted them to have been..
You got me there. Let's just say I don't 'need' a digital camera, and I have other cameras to use. But to get me to shell out £1000 (which is still quite a lot of money in the impoverished United Kingdom these days), it would have to have something that would make me pick it off the shelf over my other (film) cameras. The X100 didn't have that for me - maybe there will be something else in the next few years, but I'm in no rush.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.