Finally, fullsize, v1.0 Fuji samples

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by GSNfan

Even if this is the D90 sensor, the images should be a lot better than these low contrast and bland samples... But it could also be that the lens is low contrast and even softish.

So when people see clipped highlights and black shadows in a jpeg file, they go on about digital has no dynamic range, and then when they see a jpeg with large dynamic range and very little highlight clipping and deep shadows, they complain that it's flat and bland.

It's flat and bland because thats what professional photographers want from their cameras. They want the original picture to be a good base, retaining as much contrast and color detail as possible. As soon as you ramp up contrast and saturation you're throwing away information and potential to tune the image to exactly how you want it.

Exact reason PnS cameras are always oversaturated, but pro cams like the 1ds and phase one digital MF backs are ALWAYS muted and low contrast straight out of the camera.

[sper]

Originally Posted by fdigital

So when people see clipped highlights and black shadows in a jpeg file, they go on about digital has no dynamic range, and then when they see a jpeg with large dynamic range and very little highlight clipping and deep shadows, they complain that it's flat and bland.

It's flat and bland because thats what professional photographers want from their cameras. They want the original picture to be a good base, retaining as much contrast and color detail as possible. As soon as you ramp up contrast and saturation you're throwing away information and potential to tune the image to exactly how you want it.

Exact reason PnS cameras are always oversaturated, but pro cams like the 1ds and phase one digital MF backs are ALWAYS muted and low contrast straight out of the camera.

Yeah +1.

You want a low contrast base, you want this kind of performance. Tweak it anywhere from here,. that's an advantage.

[jamesjt]

Originally Posted by fdigital

So when people see clipped highlights and black shadows in a jpeg file, they go on about digital has no dynamic range, and then when they see a jpeg with large dynamic range and very little highlight clipping and deep shadows, they complain that it's flat and bland.

It's flat and bland because thats what professional photographers want from their cameras. They want the original picture to be a good base, retaining as much contrast and color detail as possible. As soon as you ramp up contrast and saturation you're throwing away information and potential to tune the image to exactly how you want it.

Exact reason PnS cameras are always oversaturated, but pro cams like the 1ds and phase one digital MF backs are ALWAYS muted and low contrast straight out of the camera.

Excellent point. I just grabbed some full sized jpegs off this flickr stream and pulled them in to lightroom. I'm quite pleased with results when I apply some of the presets I use on my M8 files.

[wjlapier]

Originally Posted by Keith

I'm underwhelmed!

Partly because I can't damned well afford one ... but mostly because these public, ceremonial, salivating unboxings repulse me!

FWIW, I won't be taking pics, or video of my unboxing of the X100. Get the battery charged and go out shooting. Might even shoot and image or two RAW

[jsrockit]

[steveyork]

Originally Posted by sper

That's like saying a view camera is a ground glass. An SLR is a pentaprism. So what if you don't focus with a distance finding split image system?

It's got an offset optical viewfinder that allows you too see outside of the capture area, small form factor, discrete shutter and focusing sound, and simple dials for selecting aperture and shutter speed. You can't just define a Leica by the actual rangefinder mechanism, there are a lot of things about using these types of cameras that people enjoy. The simplicity of design for one, which the X100 has in droves.

So now I would actually counter by asking, how is it not a similar experience? The key word there being similar, which does not mean same.

You make good points. But much of what made Leica Ms unique has already evaporated in the digital world (e.g. small size, lack of mirror slap, superior low light capability , quiet, ect.). About the only area (in my mind) where Leica Ms still rule is the near instantaneous shutter. [Leaving the benefits of manual focus aside (which are many)]. My point is that much of the "Leica M attributes" you alluded to as being desirous have already been captured by other digital cameras. You state a few new ones, but that's hardly enough to justify all the clamor.

[sper]

Originally Posted by steveyork

You make good points. But much of what made Leica Ms unique has already evaporated in the digital world (e.g. small size, lack of mirror slap, quiet, ect.). About the only area (in my mind) where Leica Ms still rule is the superior optics and the near instantaneous shutter. [Leaving the benefits of manual focus aside (which are many)]. My point is that much of the "Leica M attributes" you alluded to as being desirous have already been captured by other digital cameras. You state a few new ones, but that's hardly enough to justify all the clamor.

Which digital cameras, at this price point? Name them. I can't think of any.

[tom in mpls]

Originally Posted by steveyork

My point is that much of the "Leica M attributes" you alluded to as being desirous have already been captured by other digital cameras. You state a few new ones, but that's hardly enough to justify all the clamor.

I will not speak for others. But for myself, the unique and compelling combination of characteristics that this camera promises is the reason that I am "clamoring" for it.

We all have things that we would like to see added or altered; that's true for every camera.

I clamor for the Fuji!

[Ronny]

Originally Posted by Moriturii

Just pick up a camera and take pictures? It's called an M2 with a 35 lens.

I agree with Moriturii > M2+35

[tomtofa]

1600 ISO - not bad:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotois/...n/photostream/

[tomtofa]

Another at 1600. Kind of shaky for 1/240th - guess the adrenaline was surging...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotois/...7626187132582/

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by tom in mpls

I will not speak for others. But for myself, the unique and compelling combination of characteristics that this camera promises is the reason that I am "clamoring" for it.

You can speak for me too...

[steveyork]

Originally Posted by sper

Which digital cameras, at this price point? Name them. I can't think of any.

Any of the 4/3 cameras from Panasonic and Olympus. Too many to recite.

[sper]

Originally Posted by steveyork

Any of the 4/3 cameras from Panasonic and Olympus. Too many to recite.

None of those cameras have simple mechanical interfaces, good optical view finders, or a rangefinder like shooting experience. I want the X100 because I DON'T want to have to compose on a live view LCD. All of those cameras force you to go through menus more frustraiting than DSLRs to activate the key features. On an M43rds camera you can't even use exposure compensation via a simple dial.

These are VERY big differences in design and usablility. So if you would, please do name a camera that has the features of the X100, at the general price point. I'm waiting. I could round up for the Leica X1, but that's 800 bucks more expensive and you don't even get an OVF, or f2 for that matter.

[PatrickONeill]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

cute. almost sexy.

[BMacW]

Originally Posted by sper

None of those cameras have simple mechanical interfaces, good optical view finders, or a rangefinder like shooting experience. I want the X100 because I DON'T want to have to compose on a live view LCD. All of those cameras force you to go through menus more frustraiting than DSLRs to activate the key features. On an M43rds camera you can't even use exposure compensation via a simple dial.

These are VERY big differences in design and usablility. So if you would, please do name a camera that has the features of the X100, at the general price point. I'm waiting. I could round up for the Leica X1, but that's 800 bucks more expensive and you don't even get an OVF, or f2 for that matter.

You make many good points, except the experience is simply not the same. If you want to manual focus, you almost have to use the EVF on the x100. I'm drawn by the x100 because of it's size vs IQ. For the money you can get GXR. I still think GXR takes better pictures than x100, even though it doesn't have all the 'looks' and VF everyone raves about the x100.

You want to just point and shoot (AutoFocus), x100 will give you advantage with the hybrid VF.

It's a point and shoot that takes EXCEPTIONAL pictures for its compact size.

I'm not saying one form is better than the other. It's highly subjective anyways. One day, a robot can probably factor in everything around a sene and take a perfect shot. X100 does not have to be better than M9 or 'feels' like M9 to be a great camera.
I wanted the rangefinder manual focus experience and I want to shoot digital, to this date, I only have 3 choices. I will get an x100 in additional to the M camera I have, but I chose the GXR since takes just as good pictures and it has more flexibility.

[kuzano]

The hype on this camera is WAY over the top. We won't know what it is until it's in the marketplace.

I've read all the pandering about this camera with jaded interest.

However, on a note more important to me, I'm interested more in what this camera says about Fujifilm-The Company.

Continuing to maintain a wide range of film product, bringing NEW medium format camera's to market, and now, products like this. Are there many other camera manufacturers who have been reaching out with creative and new products.

While I still use 40 year old Fuji rangefinders to my great satisfaction, I have also been impressed by more than a few Fuji digital offerings, such as the F30 (low light cult camera) F31fd (same) E550 and my Fuji S2 Pro. All superb in their rankings. I may soon get a S5 Pro.

But I still use my G690, 100 3.5, 65 f8, and AE100 lenses.

Would love to have the new F670W non folder, but $$$?

Fujifilm-The Company has been a fun watch over the years. I wouldn't say they have always set he benchmark for other manufacturers, but I would be inclined to say that they meet others benchmarks and often exceed them through good decisions and creativity.

If film should disappear, and I seriously doubt that. I truly expect to see a resurgence. But if it does go away, I fully expect Fujifilm to be the last holdout on supply and range of emulsions. They seem to be exerting much effort into film while creating some interesting digital cameras as well.

[bhop73]

I would love to have an X100. Sure it's not a Leica and it's not a rangefinder, but so what?

Image quality looks good enough to me, but what appeals to me most about it is the viewfinder and the ergonomics. There is no other digital camera currently on the market (other than the M9) that you can hold up to your eye and look through an optical viewfinder in typical rangefinder fashion and adjust shutter speed knob with your finger like you would a typical rangefinder.

Lack of viewfinders in smaller digital cameras is the #1 reason for my lack of interest in them, and $250+ add-on electronic viewfinders don't count.

[JoeV]

Originally Posted by ChrisN

Hmmm. Have you been reading this forum long? You do realise that this IS a gear forum?

I guess you didn't see this sticky, indicating that "There is no such thing as a Gear Forum or Photography Forum at RFF!!!"
?

~Joe

[Spyro]

Originally Posted by steveyork

Any of the 4/3 cameras from Panasonic and Olympus. Too many to recite.

Just to recap, let me list the reasons why a x100 is different to these cameras:

1. the real viewfinder (not an expensive mini-TV that you buy separately and destroys the form factor of your camera - which is the main reason one bothers with m4:3). In fact you get one of those mini-TV's too, but built-in, not attachable.
2. the quiet leaf shutter with crazy sync speeds
3. the bigger sensor with better dof control and high ISO capabilities,
4. the manual controls
5. the 35/f2 combination which is the most popular lens and still doesnt exist in m4:3 or NEX, let alone exist in such a size
6. The distance scale which enables hyperfocal shooting for landscape and zone focussing for street.
7. Seeing outside your frame in OVF mode, like a rangefinder. Awesome for moving subjects.
8. Electronic overlay in OVF, which means histogram, dof scales etc. Not even DSLRs have that in the viewfinder.

As for the p&s comment, what can I say. It seems the popular internet forum rule is that if the camera doesnt change lenses its a p&s. Not to be rude but there's only one answer to this: whatever.

[sper]

Originally Posted by Spyro

Just to recap, let me list the reasons why a x100 is different to these cameras:

1. the real viewfinder (not an expensive mini-TV that you buy separately and destroys the form factor of your camera - which is the main reason one bothers with m4:3). In fact you get one of those mini-TV's too, but built-in, not attachable.
2. the quiet leaf shutter with crazy sync speeds
3. the bigger sensor with better dof control and high ISO capabilities,
4. the manual controls
5. the 35/f2 combination which is the most popular lens and still doesnt exist in m4:3 or NEX, let alone exist in such a size
6. The distance scale which enables hyperfocal shooting for landscape and zone focussing for street.
7. Seeing outside your frame in OVF mode, like a rangefinder. Awesome for moving subjects.
8. Electronic overlay in OVF, which means histogram, dof scales etc. Not even DSLRs have that in the viewfinder.

As for the p&s comment, what can I say. It seems the popular internet forum rule is that if the camera doesnt change lenses its a p&s. Not to be rude but there's only one answer to this: whatever.

+ a million. Exactly what I'm saying.

[PatrickT]

Originally Posted by Spyro

Just to recap, let me list the reasons why a x100 is different to these cameras:

1. the real viewfinder (not an expensive mini-TV that you buy separately and destroys the form factor of your camera - which is the main reason one bothers with m4:3). In fact you get one of those mini-TV's too, but built-in, not attachable.
2. the quiet leaf shutter with crazy sync speeds
3. the bigger sensor with better dof control and high ISO capabilities,
4. the manual controls
5. the 35/f2 combination which is the most popular lens and still doesnt exist in m4:3 or NEX, let alone exist in such a size
6. The distance scale which enables hyperfocal shooting for landscape and zone focussing for street.
7. Seeing outside your frame in OVF mode, like a rangefinder. Awesome for moving subjects.
8. Electronic overlay in OVF, which means histogram, dof scales etc. Not even DSLRs have that in the viewfinder.

As for the p&s comment, what can I say. It seems the popular internet forum rule is that if the camera doesnt change lenses its a p&s. Not to be rude but there's only one answer to this: whatever.

Bingo!

10char

[alt4852]

Originally Posted by Moriturii

Well yes. More and more people are starting to realize how utterly RIDICULOUS this material obsession is with buy "the new thing" and thinking it will make you a better photographer.

It's not BS when they say "just use the camera you have!". Buying the newest thing does NOTHING to make you a better photographer AT ALL but just putting a bigger hole in your wallet. Get over it!

The OP has confessed that he has a camera already, in fact, a whole mess of them, USE THEM.

wow, you should read the posts preceding yours before lashing out in a tirade like that. nobody said that newer cameras make you a better photographer.

..nobody.

the purpose of buying newer equipment is mostly ease of use, and technical advances. you're the only one so far who has alluded to a correlation between equipment and skill.

[Faintandfuzzy]

Originally Posted by sper

Which digital cameras, at this price point? Name them. I can't think of any.

I completely agree!

[GSNfan]

Originally Posted by fdigital

So when people see clipped highlights and black shadows in a jpeg file, they go on about digital has no dynamic range, and then when they see a jpeg with large dynamic range and very little highlight clipping and deep shadows, they complain that it's flat and bland.

It's flat and bland because thats what professional photographers want from their cameras. They want the original picture to be a good base, retaining as much contrast and color detail as possible. As soon as you ramp up contrast and saturation you're throwing away information and potential to tune the image to exactly how you want it.

Exact reason PnS cameras are always oversaturated, but pro cams like the 1ds and phase one digital MF backs are ALWAYS muted and low contrast straight out of the camera.

You claim that you see deep shadows, a lot of dynamic range and many other stuff, but I don't and neither are a lot of experienced members in this forum...