Fuji X100

Ray Kilby · 08-25-2011

I have been away for a while. partly because I was an early user of the M8 which was always going wrong and I lost heart. But I still covet my M6 and use it on occasion, but work forces me to use my DSLR for ninety percent of the time.

But I have discovered joy of joys the Fuji X100. This has been the most fun since I got my hands on the glorious Rd1.

But is it a rangefinder? I would say most definitely. Well more or less. Just because you have the option to us the electronic view through the eye piece doesn't mean that when this option is off you are not 'range finding'. OK OK, the focus is not a range finder, but my oh my shouldn't we make an exception for this fantastic little camera? Fuji could soon be wiping the floor with Leica if they go that one step further. Any comments?

Bobfrance · 08-25-2011

Lovely camera, but it's not a rangefinder - sorry.

jsrockit · 08-25-2011

It's not a mechanical rangefinder, but it is a rangefinder like camera. Also, Leica has nothing to worry about regarding competition.

Bobfrance · 08-25-2011

Is it even an electronic rangefinder?

I may be wrong, but I'd assumed it used contrast detection autofocus which I didn't think could calculate range.

jsrockit · 08-25-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobfrance

Is it even an electronic rangefinder?

I may be wrong, but I'd assumed it used contrast detection autofocus which I didn't think could calculate range.

You can manual focus it through the optical VF and it has a depth of field scale. Pretty close even if not technically speaking. MF sucks though since you cannot do it by feel (ala true manual focus lenses).

KM-25 · 08-25-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Also, Leica has nothing to worry about regarding competition.

Sure they do, I know at least 8 pro Leica M film shooters who have said to hell with Leica's overpriced digital goods since using the X100, I would be number 9...

Bobfrance · 08-25-2011

If the camera does not measure distance I guess it's a auto focus 'viewfinder camera' not a 'rangefinder'.
This description should also pass muster if you're basing judgement merely on how it looks as many viewfinder cameras generally looked like the X100 too.

However if you really want it be a rangefinder because rangefinders seem cooler, then that means that Leica isn't beat yet.

coelacanth · 08-25-2011

I -- personally -- think/recognize "rangefinder camera" is a camera with a rangefinder focusing mechanism. It's just a name for this particular type of camera, nothing more, nothing less. Not being a rangefinder camera doesn't make X100 any lesser being, but at the same time, I don't get the concept of making "exception" and calling X100 a rangefinder camera because it's an exceptionally fantastic camera (it is) or it looks like a rangefinder camera. I don't see why it has to be called a rangefinder camera.

I really liked the X100 myself, but I wasn't a big fan of not being able to focus truly manually without serbo-driven ring. It didn't have to have focusing patch like rangefinder camera or an actual rangefinder mechanism, but I just wanted mechanical focusing ring with focus scale on it. That would have given me the ability to shoot with it just like I do with a film rangefinder camera with a wide-angle lens on it.

btgc · 08-25-2011

"Rangefinder" is obscure term. In the past some magazines (Pop Mechanics? Pop Photo?) have used word "rangefinder" reviewing compact cameras which do not have rangefinder focusing. Same situation with a "coupe" which is even more slippy. Some makers (let users alone) call small 2-door cars a coupes, despite they are hatchbacks or sedans (too sedans to be coupes

). Of course, calling bull a cow doesn't make it a cow but....words don't hold true value - if we aren't talking about Marlboro country

Paul T. · 08-25-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by coelacanth

I -- personally -- think/recognize "rangefinder camera" is a camera with a rangefinder focusing mechanism. It's just a name for this particular type of camera, nothing more, nothing less. Not being a rangefinder camera doesn't make X100 any lesser being, but at the same time, I don't get the concept of making "exception" and calling X100 a rangefinder camera.

Yes indeed.

tapesonthefloor · 08-25-2011

I think we all know that Ray is using the term "rangefinder" to mean a small, quick-operating, Leica-like, built-for-street, VF on the left, bright-line frameline, etc, etc...

Is there a safer term for these clear SLR antitheses? Rangefinder-like? I don't see any benefit to maintaining and imposing on others a precise, technical definition of the term "rangefinder" when it has taken on a life of its own for decades now.

jsrockit · 08-25-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by KM-25

Sure they do, I know at least 8 pro Leica M film shooters who have said to hell with Leica's overpriced digital goods since using the X100, I would be number 9...

But Pros aren't Leica's main customer right? The people who buy special editions are not pros. People who go a la carte aren't Pros. People still buy Leica glass at more than MSRP even though there are alternatives.

Most of the time I see people buy the X100 as another camera to use along side their M digital or they were never going to buy the M digital anyway so the X100 is a great alternative at a good price. The amount of people who abandoned the M9 for the X100 is miniscule I would think.

tom.w.bn · 08-25-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsrockit

But Pros aren't Leica's main customer right?

I think so. Their main customer base are Prosumers (aka demanding or ambitious amateurs)

jsrockit · 08-25-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom.w.bn

I think so. Their main customer base are Prosumers (aka demanding or ambitious amateurs)

and label whores...

willie_901 · 08-25-2011

The X100 does not have a rangefinder.

The X100 is not designed to be operated without using AF. This means MF mode is really just a variant of AF-S mode that allows zooming and manual fine adjustment as needed.

I use the X100 as I used my Zeiss Ikon M. The only difference is: I set the initial focus using AF instead of using an analog lens barrel.

I focus and recompose using AF-S mode and finder mode that are appropriate for the circumstances.

In manual focus mode I:

o set the initial focus using AF to set the distance scale. I use the distance scale to zone focus, pre-focus or set a hyperfocus distance.

o I use the AF button to focus, when needed use the zoom function to check/fine adjust focus.

With practice and experience my focus success rate became similar to my success rate with the ZI-M.

Ray Kilby · 10-21-2011

I just came back to this thread today (21October 2011) as I have been busy of late. I do know that the X100 is not strictly a range finder, but as "Tapesonthefloor" said I think we all know that Ray is using the term "rangefinder" to mean a small, quick-operating, Leica-like, built-for-street, VF on the left, bright-line frameline, etc, etc..." and for me it does do the trick in the way that my M6 dos. It it would have been nice to manually focus. But then again, I control the focus by having it centre weighted and lock the focus and shift the frame to where I want it to be. So there is the control.

But I do think that bar the lenses, which are my just breathtaking still, the electronics of the M8 M9 are just that and Leica had better wake up to the fact that the 'luxury goods' way it seems to be going is just sad. The cost of the body of the M's is blatantly daft. (in my humble opinion) I loved Leica, still do to be honest, but not enough to fall for the nonsense. If the bodies were a third of the price I'd be tempted, but I'm no mug. The Fuji X100 and now the X10 are great cameras and are wonderful reportage tools. Please if somebody from Fuji reads these forums, make us an M mount rangefinder, I would be queuing up like a 'Steve Jobs acolyte' for the first camera.

emraphoto · 10-21-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by KM-25

Sure they do, I know at least 8 pro Leica M film shooters who have said to hell with Leica's overpriced digital goods since using the X100, I would be number 9...

number 10 here. considering a second one at this point.

just came back from teaching workshops where many a 'pro' was present. you wouldn't believe how many x100's were in attendance.

jsrockit · 10-21-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Kilby

Leica had better wake up to the fact that the 'luxury goods' way it seems to be going is just sad. The cost of the body of the M's is blatantly daft. (in my humble opinion) I loved Leica, still do to be honest, but not enough to fall for the nonsense.

Leica's recent earnings are anything but sad (for them anyway, not for us).

Turtle · 10-22-2011

Me too.

I was thinking long and hard about the M9 and just decided to order a X100 instead, as a stop gap 'small light innocuous camera.' I will wait for the M10, or M9 successor with better high ISO, and assuming they achieve this, I will not want for anything. Really. But for now, the high ISO of the X100 and dramatically lower price just made more sense. If they get he M10 right and I buy one, hey presto, I have a competent back up in the X100.

Were it not for the X100 I would likely have bought a M9. If there is no successor to the M9, I can always buy a used one later if it turns out to be the pinnacle of digital M evolution for whatever reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KM-25

Sure they do, I know at least 8 pro Leica M film shooters who have said to hell with Leica's overpriced digital goods since using the X100, I would be number 9...

huntjump · 10-22-2011

I sold my x100 last month. Fine camera, nothing really to complain about...other than the fact it wasn't really a rangefinder, no useable manual focus and could not use any of my lenses.

For my purposes, the r-d1 with my lenses works in just about every situation i need, and is just a more pleasurable user experience. The x100 has a lot of pros, and some cons, and in the end i'd prefer to use what i have and wait for whats next to come.

le vrai rdu · 10-22-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobfrance

Is it even an electronic rangefinder?

I may be wrong, but I'd assumed it used contrast detection autofocus which I didn't think could calculate range.

to me it is like a RF beacause of the frame and clear view finder
but anyway, it is an excellent camera ...

Red Robin · 10-23-2011

It's a freaking camera! Now that a lot of the hipe has left the conversation about it ,it just seems that some folks like it. .. ... and some do not. Me well I'll keep checking the camera bin at Good Willeys.

gavinlg · 10-23-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Robin

It's a freaking camera! Now that a lot of the hipe has left the conversation about it ,it just seems that some folks like it. .. ... and some do not. Me well I'll keep checking the camera bin at Good Willeys.

Correction... It's a freaking unbelievable camera!
Used mine tonight at a local hardcore concert in the city, It was extremely dark inside so I had to sit around iso3200-5000, f2, 1/40th, JPEG only. The results are froth-worthy. Truly epic for something so small, quiet and cheap. The lens is absolutely wonderful too!

Kent · 10-23-2011

Yes, it's a great camera. And even if the viewfinder is not a rangefinder, it's bloody good!
But as good as the cam is, it's not that fantastic, not as amazing as I have wished for.

I had the chance to shoot with it for two months and I liked it a lot, but not enough to buy one. If I lived in a big city, I perhaps would think differently. To me it seems to be a really good "street cam".

I now hope that the NEX-7 offers all the nice things that the X100 has plus some new featuers, such as exchangeable lenses and a faster AF.