Fuji X100 Digital SOMETHING from Fujifilm

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I guarantee that this camera will not change much once it is introduced in March. The only thing I am scared of is that they never introduce it.

My prediction: Fuji will introduce the X100 on schedule. The Japanese are big on "face"...believe me. They may ignore the naysayers in RFF, but not the CEO's of Canikon...or the Japanese public [the domestic market alone is half the size of United States].

All the unknowns to be worked out are in manufacturing...the only tangible we know is the "Made in Japan" markings in the camera. These days, it has as much meaning as "Made in Germany". Don't worry about it.

Firmware evolves and changes are far easier than designing a production line...ever watch "How it's made" on Discovery Channel?

Also, this is the first time I have ever known a manufacturer invites [anyones'] input...via their dedicated web site; and not just a few hand-picked "professionals".

Brain is right: it is all about us...didn't Fuji say that in the press release?

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by malland

Then one simply negates the concept of the X100, which, apart from the hybrid viewfinder, is the optimization of lens and sensor without the compromise involved with interchangeable lenses, not to speak crop factor. But I take it you're thinking of a DIY project, to which my reaction is...this thread has gone on long enough...or DIY: [fill in whatever you want].

—Mitch/Bangkok
Tropical Light

Thinking ain't cost nothing.

[malland]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Thinking ain't cost nothing.

I didn't really mean that there shouldn't be more discussion or that this thread should end, although I do think it should continue in a new thread because it's gotten so long that it's difficult to search it. I was just reacting to what I saw as an idea of "taking a hacksaw" to remove the lens and embark on a DIY project.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Barrier

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by malland

I didn't really mean that there shouldn't be more discussion or that this thread should end, although I do think it should continue in a new thread because it's gotten so long that it's difficult to search it. I was just reacting to what I saw as an idea of "taking a hacksaw" to remove the lens and embark on a DIY project.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Barrier

I would dearly love to start a new thread on X100 [known] technical specifications ONLY. I have been updating my camera specification post [938] since day 1.

I don't know of any tool member can just add data...and once a while someone could clean it up a bit.

[digitalintrigue]

Originally Posted by semilog

It could well have serious flaws in its speed or interface that will not be exposed until cameras are shipping.

It could, but I find that highly doubtful. They are getting so many (all?) of the design absolutely right, it would make little engineering sense to cripple it with poor speed or interface. They are building a photographer's camera, not an engineer's idea of what a camera should be.

[Spyro]

Originally Posted by Frankie

I have now started thinking what if one adds an M-mount onto the X100 body?

You know: remove the lens assembly, clip the wires that drives the lens focusing motor, let the EVF does its thing in manual focusing mode, make up a menu-driven LUT for various focal length lens to be mounted [up to 25mm @ 85% coverage]...

But have you noticed the rear element of that fujinon? It's massive, much bigger than the front one. This is a very unusual lens, it seems customised for that specific sensor. I reckon these two would only work with eachother.

[Japan---Exposures]

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

It could, but I find that highly doubtful. They are getting so many (all?) of the design absolutely right, it would make little engineering sense to cripple it with poor speed or interface. They are building a photographer's camera, not an engineer's idea of what a camera should be.

Perhaps a photographer designed it, but it's still built by engineers

Who knows, we might be witnessing the result of a battle between the camera people and the computer people in these types of manufacturers. The computer people really abused their rule for about a decade now, time to fight back.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Also, this is the first time I have ever known a manufacturer invites [anyones'] input...via their dedicated web site; and not just a few hand-picked "professionals".

Yeah, that leads me to believe there could be delays... if they are still requesting input.

[ebino]

Just to go back to the question of the fixed lens and lens adopters.

If you install a lens adopter over the lens in X100, you would have to use an auxiliary viewfinder because the viewfinder on X100 is for 35mm only.

[Paul T.]

Originally Posted by semilog

While I'm certain that the camera will incorporate CDAF, another poster helpfully linked to this article a couple of pages back. It indicates that Fuji has developed – and is already shipping – digicams with on-chip PDAF.

An interesting (and of course, unconfirmed) possibility for the X-100. That custom CMOS sensor may have been necessary for more than merely its eccentric microlenses...

Once again, the warm-fuzzy retro styling of this camera is not enough to hide the truly serious and creative engineering that underlies its design. Note that I am not yet saying it will be a great camera to use. It could well have serious flaws in its speed or interface that will not be exposed until cameras are shipping. But it is unquestionably a statement of engineering ambition and intent.

I did see that; I would guess that this technology will emerge in the X100's successors. SO, if the X100 is a success, the PD autofocus discussed might be a way of keeping a technological lead over imitators.

However, it seems to me that, given an optical viewfinder in one location, and a sensor in the second, one could produce a triangulating rangefinder for this camera simply via software engineering. Feasible? Or fantasy?

[robbeiflex]

Originally Posted by ebino

Just to go back to the question of the fixed lens and lens adopters.

If you install a lens adopter over the lens in X100, you would have to use an auxiliary viewfinder because the viewfinder on X100 is for 35mm only.

I guess it would need goggles like the old Leica 35mm.

[digitalintrigue]

Originally Posted by Japan---Exposures

Perhaps a photographer designed it, but it's still built by engineers

As long as the engineering team is reporting to the photographer team.

Who knows, we might be witnessing the result of a battle between the camera people and the computer people in these types of manufacturers. The computer people really abused their rule for about a decade now, time to fight back.

That is also my wish.

[PKR]

Originally Posted by malland

I didn't really mean that there shouldn't be more discussion or that this thread should end, although I do think it should continue in a new thread because it's gotten so long that it's difficult to search it. I was just reacting to what I saw as an idea of "taking a hacksaw" to remove the lens and embark on a DIY project.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Barrier

I really liked the DIY idea. Firmware is a big problem. I did an approved hack on a nikon p+s a year or so ago. After getting all the hardware changes planned, the removal of the the large cap. (that subs as a battery) for memory retention was necessary. Getting a copy of the firmware for a reinstall killed the project. (They used an eprom/prom for firmware storage. a good portion of code would disappear with power down). I'll be in the market for broken, un-repairable X100 cameras.

I suggest that the mechanical and electronics are doable. Hacking the code is another story. If the AF AE and other lens related feedback systems are removed, changes in the firmware will need addressing. I wonder if Frankie knows any engineers at Fuji? I'm in if Frankie wants to try this.. pkr.

[tapesonthefloor]

Originally Posted by DNG

Or, will the available light that is present be enough.t, If it is enough, why not just use the AF system?

Autofocus never factors into my photography. It doesn't exist to me. I'm holding on to a hope that this camera might still be a good, compact, digital street camera for someone like me, though I realize it's a faint hope.

Before the X100 was announced, I would spend hours agonizing over which dSLR body to compromise with, and I would weep softly the whole time. I still haven't bought into anyone's digital SLR system. I don't want to compromise. I don't want to haul around a big ******* dSLR body, or use big ******* Canon AF lenses (I mean, really... has anyone looked at these things objectively in awhile? They've become tree trunks. It's absurd.) I do want to use all my delicious old FD glass, and I would like to use it on a body that is built with a focus on manual. I need a big viewfinder. Digital did not kill the VF, in my opinion, but digital manufacturers did. I have my work D40 right here, which is a camera that does not have a live view of any sort, and still the viewfinder is a dark, narrow tunnel. What sort of photography is this built for? Certainly not mine. I...

...well, I'm rambling again, aren't I. Pardon me, folks. My point is, the X100 is one of the first new cameras I've seen in two decades that acknowledges multiple photography paradigms. I don't use autofocus. Ever. I don't want to look at pixels until they're on my Mac. I like happy accidents, and sometimes I like blurry subjects. I also have disposable income for a camera that will satisfy all these strange needs, and I can't be entirely alone in all this. Fujifilm! Is the X100 my camera?

[tapesonthefloor]

Wow. I wish I had just linked to this and left it at that. Thanks, raytoei!

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by tapesonthefloor

I don't use autofocus. Ever. I don't want to look at pixels until they're on my Mac. I like happy accidents, and sometimes I like blurry subjects. I also have disposable income for a camera that will satisfy all these strange needs, and I can't be entirely alone in all this. Fujifilm! Is the X100 my camera?

I may have missed it, but why don't you like the M8 or M9?

[tapesonthefloor]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I may have missed it, but why don't you like the M8 or M9?

I'd maim kittens for an M9, but I don't have that much disposable income. I'm still pursuing my next-best option, which is, of course, using cheap b&w film in old rangefinders and having a friend at a lab scan them for me fairly inexpensively. It gets me through, but I do wish I had something half-decent to shoot digital, for quick snaps. Hence my hanging out in the X100 thread.

[Matus]

Tapesonthefloor - you've got a point - in particular about the viewfidner. But - if Fuji keeps on the specs - that makes it 0.5x and 90% coverage. Now - I do not really understand what do they mean by the 90% coverage (the viewfinder is larger than the image taken, so ... ?), but 0.5x magnification is nothing to write home about. Even the Hexar AF is 0.6x. Now if one wants to focus manually this could be a problem, but this of course depends how the manual focusing will be implemented.

[tapesonthefloor]

You're probably right, Matus. I don't even think I can picture in my head a VF with such a wide angle. Are there other examples of similar viewfinders that I may have put up to my eye sometime in the past year for comparison? dSLRs? P&Ss? Fujifilm disposable 35mm cameras?

[ebino]

Originally Posted by Matus

I do not really understand what do they mean by the 90% coverage (the viewfinder is larger than the image taken, so ... ?),

what it means is that you only see 90% of what will be in the picture taken. Most budget DSLR's are 95% but with a DSLR you see exactly what will be in the frame, but with X100's 10% of the picture out of the frame and factor in the inevitable parallax (which is inevitable when you don't look through the lens), i see why Fuji has gone to the trouble of including the EVF through the OVF as well.

[Frankie]

My hindsight is 20/20.

Fuji can and did keep a secret...but need not worry about the Leicaphiles because they won't believe it and won't look, even now...

I believe the development must have started soon after Photokina '08 where Leica only had the cropped M8...yes 1.33, Pany G1 EVF emerged, and soon Oly E-P1 as well. But most important, Epson's development of the EVF panel would have been known to potential OEM customers, long before mass production announced a few month later in October '09.

The X100 announcement in Photokina '10 was opportune and well timed: Canikon had no EVIL news and Leica had nothing for the X1 worth talking about... A press conference, e-literature and web-site can be preplanned and pre-made; and Fuji would have many prototypes [the ones used were labeled PKINA-2 and -3...I said I was very careful looking and reading.]

Inviting "our" comments in the X100 web site was merely political and marketing moves...not because they needed engineering ideas. There were scanty NEW ideas here anyway, but lots of dogma.

I believe the hardware as shown is frozen; firmware is not yet published and might benefit from good ideas. Ignoring or deleting junk-emails could even be automated. Comments like "all menus suck" are useless anyway.

Counter-X100 arguments floated to the surface in RFF are: RF and M-mount.

Truth is: any and every camera, even P&S, has something for finding the range. The question is how well and how fast. Leicaphiles believe in only the parallax-wedge method, some believe studying the ground glass under a dark cloth. Others believe contrast- or phase-detection with automation is better yet. Everyone agreed that parallax-wedge method depends on the human eye [CoC and all that], while contrast or phase detection is not...

The M-mount is 50+ years old and had not been improved [on what?] one bit. The M8 6-bit coding was laughable...but generated a little upgrade business in Solms for a short while.

[How tough is it to make blank M-mounts with 6 empty slots for self-highlighting, even cheap no-name LTM to M adapters sold on eBay are now sporting such feature. Undoing a few screws cannot be so tough.]

The irony here is: M-mount lens owners complained only because Leica had no alternative offered...except the unaffordable M8/9. The M9/T was a slap in their face..."let them eat cake". I think they should just revolt.

Encouraging rather than criticizing Fuji will get outsider pre-M8 Leicaphiles what they want quicker...please don't start again with engineering problem counter-arguments. JFK was not an engineer then either...yet man landed on the moon.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by tapesonthefloor

You're probably right, Matus. I don't even think I can picture in my head a VF with such a wide angle. Are there other examples of similar viewfinders that I may have put up to my eye sometime in the past year for comparison? dSLRs? P&Ss? Fujifilm disposable 35mm cameras?

The CV Bessa R4a/m has a .52 viewfinder I believe... but it also has framelines starting at 21mm.

[Matus]

Originally Posted by tapesonthefloor

You're probably right, Matus. I don't even think I can picture in my head a VF with such a wide angle. Are there other examples of similar viewfinders that I may have put up to my eye sometime in the past year for comparison? dSLRs? P&Ss? Fujifilm disposable 35mm cameras?

I guess the easiest is to check low-end DLSRs as these are around 0.5x (after the 1.5 crop factor for APS-C sensors and m4/3 camras):
Nikon D3100 - 0.53x
Canon 550D (T2i) - 0.58x
Pentax K-X - 0.56x
Nikon D7000 - 0.62x
Panasonic G2 - 0.7x
Panasonic G10 - 0.52x
Samsung NX10 - 0.57x
Olympus EP cameras with VF-2 finder - 0.57x

[semilog]

Originally Posted by tapesonthefloor

You're probably right, Matus. I don't even think I can picture in my head a VF with such a wide angle.

It's not at all difficult to imagine.

Think of a Nikon FM (0.9X with 50mm lens) but with a 28mm lens mounted. That's the magnification. The FOV is probably a bit wider, equivalent to a 21-24mm lens.

If the eye relief is reasonable, and the VF is bright and clear, without too much geometric distortion, it should be fine.

(I'll add that I prefer higher-mag VF's -- I shoot a 35 on an M6 0.85 -- but that's a preference, not a cast-in-stone requirement.)

[ampguy]

like say the D3, d700, canon 5d, etc.?

The old film Nikons varied, but the F3 with DE finder is .8x, the HP which gives more eye relief distance, is .75x.

Originally Posted by Matus

I guess the easiest is to check low-end DLSRs as these are around 0.5x (after the 1.5 crop factor for APS-C sensors and m4/3 camras):
Nikon D3100 - 0.53x
Canon 550D (T2i) - 0.58x
Pentax K-X - 0.56x
Nikon D7000 - 0.62x
Panasonic G2 - 0.7x
Panasonic G10 - 0.52x
Samsung NX10 - 0.57x
Olympus EP cameras with VF-2 finder - 0.57x