Dogman
Mentor
On a purely subjective and aesthetic note, I think the X100S is the only model with the X-Trans sensor that shares the classic sculpted look of the original X100. To my eyes, it's a gorgeous and practical general use camera. Subsequent X100 models took on a blocky design and lost visual appeal but still function as excellent general use cameras.
As for AF, it's slower than most of us are used to. Is that really a big deal? It's still faster than I can focus manually and it's definitely more consistently accurate. Are you really gonna shoot an NBA game with an X100?
As for AF, it's slower than most of us are used to. Is that really a big deal? It's still faster than I can focus manually and it's definitely more consistently accurate. Are you really gonna shoot an NBA game with an X100?
Dogman
Mentor
Beautiful dog, shawn.
shawn
Mentor
Definitely agree that the original body style is prettier but functionally I like the x100f control layout more since all buttons moved to the right of the LCD. They can be used one handed. The x100f also gained a larger battery that is the same as the X mount cameras.
Agreed that even the original x100 AF does fine in good light with most subjects. Something flat with no contrast it can miss and it slows down in lower light.
Shawn
shawn
Mentor
Well, it doesn’t have to be an NBA game. It will hesitate for a second after you press the shutter button. My newer Fuji’s do not do that. That enough to miss the right moment on the street when you only have a second to react.
shawn
Mentor
I just took my x100 outside and measured it (daylight) and had anywhere from about 7 frames of video between AF activation and taking a shot (233ms) up to 19 or 20 frames from focused at a distance to taking a shot in close, about 627 or 650ms.
In low light it will slow down more.
Shawn
Sure, many firmware updates later it is usable. However, in 2011...oh boy was it slooooooow. I'm not sure what the 7 frames of video part means though. I'm talking about lifting the camera and taking a photo... once you press the shutter, 650ms is probably about right after FW updates. Still slow enough to miss a moment. Of course there are work arounds, but I'd rather use my newer cameras.
shawn
Mentor
I took a video of the camera focusing and taking a shot. Video was at 30fps so each frame is about 33.3 ms of time. For shots at reasonably similar distances it was about 7 frames of video from focus activation to firing. Watching the LED on the side tells you when it starts focusing and when it fires along with the shutter sound. That is about a 1/4 of a second of delay if the lens isn't changing a lot of distance.
The delay was around 650ms if the lens had to shift from focused at distance to a couple of feet away.
Shawn
The delay was around 650ms if the lens had to shift from focused at distance to a couple of feet away.
Shawn
Thank you...yes, this makes sense at this point in time. Slow, but depending on what you are doing, and how you are doing it, usable. In the past though.... :bang:
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Zone focus? I’ve been going through my X-Pro1 manual and, along with AF-C, I can get 6fps, but what is the zone focus? I have area focus where I can choose the focus point and “multi”, where it selects areas of high contrast automatically. Maybe the Pro2 is significantly different than the Pro1 in this aspect.
shawn
Mentor
I don't think the X Pro 1 had that option. When it comes to AF performance on moving objects, or when continuously shooting, the XP1 and XP2 are *very* different cameras. I had both. The XP1 can't reliably follow moving subjects in AF-C and if you shoot in burst mode (6 fps) it sets focus and exposure on the first frame and doesn't adjust either while firing the burst. The XP2 continues to meter and AF during the burst and as shown above can keep up with a fast moving object in close.
The XP2 really shoots like a fast DSLR in a rangefinder body.
Shawn
The XP2 really shoots like a fast DSLR in a rangefinder body.
Shawn
willie_901
Mentor
As Pál_K showed above, the newer FUJIFILM APS-C cameras have AF performance that works very well with subjects in motion. However, it does take some time to learn how to configure the AF menu parameters to achieve success. Another problem is X-Series APS-C menu parameter nomenclature and operational strategies are different from other brands. In general, trying operate a FUJIFILM camera AF system exactly as another brand works for subjects in motion will be frustrating.
There are free guides on the FUJIFILM web site. At the least, these are useful to understand how the AF sensor areas are designed to work. Of course, other user guides are available in the usual places.
Older FUJIFILM cameras do not have the CPU computational power to support AF on-sensor hardware or sophisticated firmware algorithms required for subjects in motion.
The XF lens AF hardware is also a factor. The newer AF motor technologies are important for subjects in motion. Using a first-generation XF lens for subjects in motion is a mistake. A different matter is the original XF 60 mm macro lens (which is not optically a macro lens) is completely useless for subjects in motion as the lens AF gearing is designed for critical focusing of static objects very close to the camera.
Finally, Both the camera and lens firmware must be up to date.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Actually, it was Shawn with those amazing photos of his running dog.
silverhalidedreamer
Established
I don't know if this is proven empirically or not. I generally dislike digital cameras. The only ones I can stomach are/were made by Fuji.
That being said, I bought the x100s a few years back. I liked it a lot. But I ended up selling it.
I bought the original x100 about 2 years ago.
I will never sell it.
Why?
The images look more like 35mm film to me. Just better than other digital stuff I have owned, and I have owned a considerable number of cameras.
It is slower, more difficult to use, but I used to shoot real cameras (read 8x10), so that does not bother me.
As they say, your mileage may vary.
Just opinin'.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
No stickey F-stop like the original X100 were notorious for.
willie_901
Mentor
Here's some data that compares the technical performance of the X100T, V and F. These measurements indicate the signal-to-noise ratio is similar for these three cameras.
Similar data compares the camera read noise increase with ISO. The F and V models are about 2/3 stops better than than the T.
I can not find data for the original X100 or X100S. I started using the first generation X100 in February 2011. I sold it to buy the X-Pro 1. Then in November 2015 I purchased a X100T.
Unlike the original X100, the 100T, F and V use XTrans sensor technology. My X100 displayed color banding in shadow regions at camera ISO settings above 800. My X100T has no observable color banding up to ISO 3200. Neither did my X-Pro 1, X-T1 or X-Pro 2. The original X100 sensor technology is four years older than the T. The technical performance (analog signal-to-noise ratio) for all camera brands improved significantly between 2011 and 2016. I do not consider it speculation to say the X100 cameras did as well.
Increased technical image quality offers more flexibility. At the same time increased technical image quality does not necessarily translate to superior aesthetic image quality. Image rendering preferences are entirely subjective. I agree X100 images render differently than the T, F or V. Speaking for myself, I find it naive to doubt any photographer's image aesthetic preferences. For instance, I happen to like how X100T low light (i.e. low exposure) images render in monochrome.
silverhalidedreamer
Established
I will preface what I am about to say by first saying that I am a painter; a "fine artist", for lack of a better term. I use cameras to make art in the same way I use gouache, ink, watercolor or oils to make paintings. Technically, I probably suck at photography.
All of what you wrote may indeed be true.That being said, I still find that the images I get from the original are superior. Perhaps not from a "technical" standpoint, but superior nevertheless.
Visual artists don't bother with numbers. We use the tools and materials that yield the results we require.
It is why I prefer oils to acrylics. Acrylics make sense economically, are easier to use, and clean up with plain water.
But oil paint has a resonance that even the best acrylic painters have a difficult time achieving, if they can achieve it at all.
The X100s, in my opinion, is a fantastic DIGITAL camera.
The x100 is a fantastic camera, in SPITE of being digital.
Numbers, mft charts, yada yada yada, is all fine and dandy. I use what allows me to make pretty pictures. The original X100 produced images that do not look digital to me. I don't like the "digital look".
I also think the Fuji S3, slow and cumbersome as it is, is a a better camera for making art than the X100s, or any of the legion of digital cameras I have owned and used (Nikon D1x, D100, D200, D300, D300S, 5D, 7D, D70 Fuji s5, and countless digital Rebels) and some others I have likely forgotten.
Just opinin'.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
He would have had to stop running long enough to do that.
He was just barking in excitement, not attacking. Poodles are very vocal and he had lots of fun testing AF that day.
Beautiful images of a beautiful dog. Many thanks. These have encouraged us to keep looking at Fujis.
I truly could not have done better with any of our felines, but they mostly sleep anyway. Unlike your lively canine.
I do wonder, however, would your Fuji have focused the same if your baby had been black?
Much much good information in this thread. I intend to read all and keep notes.
We are back in lockdown here in Victoria (Australia) for almost two weeks. September will be our time to buy a Fuji. Whichever Fuji.
Again, thanks to everyone who posted.
tbhv55
Well-known
You 'nailed it', with these comments, @silverhalidedreamer.
I bought the x100 shortly after it was introduced in 2010. It's still great, I still use it a lot....... and it's STILL far better at making pictures than I am.
shawn
Mentor
My guess is yes since the X Pro 2 has phase detect pixels. But I never tested that.
Shawn