Technically, I'd say nothing. But in today's market, who wants it apart from the few weirdos that hang out here?99% of the market is perfectly comfortable with other forms of focus confirmation.
I want one.
And it is way cheaper than my Minolta Hi-Matic 9. I spent the whole Summer of 1969 mowing lawns to buy it. I would only have to mow 40 lawns to buy an X100, and I have a John Deere.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
As for the price of the Fuji ... $1000 is fine with me if it does what it should be capable of ... I'd like a compact digicam to replace my ailing faithful Canon A620 at some stage and this thing looks a hell of a lot better than any Canon!
The 35mm f2 Fujinon lens should be a gem and what's a top shelf 35mm worth these days? And this one comes with it's own digital back.
The 35mm f2 Fujinon lens should be a gem and what's a top shelf 35mm worth these days? And this one comes with it's own digital back.
Last edited:
bgb
Well-known
When does this camera hit the stores?
I think it's cool and i will be considering one, I'm hoping it will be a digital GSN
Until there has been a review, comments by owners and hands on shooting it's all just bull****
$1000 USD is about $1297. New Zealand dollars and maybe more ... I hope it offers good value for that money.
I think it's cool and i will be considering one, I'm hoping it will be a digital GSN
Until there has been a review, comments by owners and hands on shooting it's all just bull****
$1000 USD is about $1297. New Zealand dollars and maybe more ... I hope it offers good value for that money.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
gekopaca
French photographer
Here you are : http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=146
"Micro 4/3 & Micro PK Cameras & Sony NEX Micro 4/3 cameras from Panasonic and Olympus, the new Micro PK mount from Samsung, and the new Sony NEX cameras all offer the photo enthusiast an incredible array of adopted lenses which was not possible before these new digital formats. The MICRO 4/3 / PK forum is here at RFF because via adapters these cameras offer an inexpensive way to use rangefinder lenses on digital cameras -- in addition of just about every 35mm SLR lens you can think of. Not everyone wants to spend $7000 for a Leica M9, or even $1600 for a used Epson RD1 in order to use their Leica lenses on a digital body. Using Leica M or screw mount lenses on a relatively inexpensive digital body is a big deal. Who knows, in time we might see a rangefinders in these new mounts. Take note the Micro 4/3 format is NOT the same format as 4/3! Will other MICRO formats follow based upon established SLR mounts? HMMMM. Time will tell..."
Steve_F
Well-known
$1000 would be great but here in 'Rip-off Britain' as we natives like to call it that'd be £1000 or $1500. Always pans out like that.
Don't know about the fixed lens discussion - I'm always reaching for 35'cron on my M6TTL. Haven't used the others in a while - does that count.
An M9 is way way out if reach. This could serve me very well.
Steve.
Don't know about the fixed lens discussion - I'm always reaching for 35'cron on my M6TTL. Haven't used the others in a while - does that count.
An M9 is way way out if reach. This could serve me very well.
Steve.
Last edited:
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Cute.
But a Leica viewfinder does pretty much the same thing, really. Just much less fooferaw to look at...and you get to do your own focusing.....
But a Leica viewfinder does pretty much the same thing, really. Just much less fooferaw to look at...and you get to do your own focusing.....
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Ye Gods, it really must have turned into an old-style Photo.net donnybrook here! I remember some of the knock-down, drag-out fights that took place over there...especially in the Leica section, for some reason....
I prefer removable lens cameras myself, just for versatility's sake, but a lot of the time when I head out, I'll just take one camera and one lens....guess that's a de facto "single-lens camera"....
Of course, in the end , it's not how many lenses you have, it's what you do with them. As the old saying goes, "Watch out for the man who uses only one gun. He's apt to be pretty good with it." Same likely goes for someone who uses a single-lens camera....
I prefer removable lens cameras myself, just for versatility's sake, but a lot of the time when I head out, I'll just take one camera and one lens....guess that's a de facto "single-lens camera"....
Of course, in the end , it's not how many lenses you have, it's what you do with them. As the old saying goes, "Watch out for the man who uses only one gun. He's apt to be pretty good with it." Same likely goes for someone who uses a single-lens camera....
Last edited by a moderator:
gekopaca
French photographer
Fixed Lens:
People who use a camera with interchangeable lenses are looking for their ideal lens, people who use a fixed lens have already found it.
X-100: I will certainly buy a Fuji X-100 because I did not have enough money to buy an M9 ... What a pity!
The Fuji is a great device ... for rennoncement
People who use a camera with interchangeable lenses are looking for their ideal lens, people who use a fixed lens have already found it.
X-100: I will certainly buy a Fuji X-100 because I did not have enough money to buy an M9 ... What a pity!
The Fuji is a great device ... for rennoncement
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Technically, I'd say nothing. But in today's market, who wants it apart from the few weirdos that hang out here?
There. Fixed it for ya.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
In inflation-adjusted currency, the x100 will be considerably cheaper than the Hexar AF. It will be closer in real price to the original Ricoh GR-1.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Calling the X100 sensor a "crop sensor" makes no sense.
Even if you are concerned with relative DoF. Still doesn't make sense.
Before digital you still had to make these adjustments if 35mm was your frame of reference and you were looking at MF or LF. So was 35mm the original "crop sensor"? No.
IMO, crop sensor can only be used logically when referring to DSLR families that use lenses designed for full-frame or 35mm film but contain a sensor smaller than full-frame/35mm.
Also, it's amazing what you can accomplish with one lens. Especially a 35mm lens.
Even if you are concerned with relative DoF. Still doesn't make sense.
Before digital you still had to make these adjustments if 35mm was your frame of reference and you were looking at MF or LF. So was 35mm the original "crop sensor"? No.
IMO, crop sensor can only be used logically when referring to DSLR families that use lenses designed for full-frame or 35mm film but contain a sensor smaller than full-frame/35mm.
Also, it's amazing what you can accomplish with one lens. Especially a 35mm lens.
FrankS
Registered User
This falls apart because of cameras that can mount both 35mm FF lenses and dedicated cropped frame lenses. I'm thinking of say a Nikon D90 and Nikon's 2 lines of lenses.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
A little OT Frank but I was stunned to discover that when I put a DX crop lens on my D700 it brings up a set of frame lines in the viewfinder giving the actual field of view ...
Last edited by a moderator:
No one referred to 110, Minox, Minolta 16 as "Cropped Frame Film". No one ever referred to the Robot or Tessina as Cropped frame. Or the APS format, which you could crop in camera. Weird one. Funny how sensors are APS-C or full-frame. It's very confusing.
18x24 format on 35mm film, Half-Frame cameras. Go figure. 35mm film was developed for movie cameras, which used 18x24. Therefore, 24x36 format should be called double-frame.
The X100 has a fixed-lens and sensor that are matched for each other. That should produce some good results. Kind of like my Minolta Hi-Matic 9.
18x24 format on 35mm film, Half-Frame cameras. Go figure. 35mm film was developed for movie cameras, which used 18x24. Therefore, 24x36 format should be called double-frame.
The X100 has a fixed-lens and sensor that are matched for each other. That should produce some good results. Kind of like my Minolta Hi-Matic 9.
Arjay
Time Traveller
DOF comparisons between full-format 35mm and APS-C cameras are a tricky business. You can't just compare focal lengths with your normal (35mm-based) DOF scale. You also have to take into account the applicable circle of confusion (i.e. the maximum acceptable 'blurry disk' size, in which a point light source will be projected on the film/sensor and still be perceived as 'sharp').
I fired up the Dofmaster software on my Palm PDA and had it do the math (gogle Dofmaster, the website also has an online calculator):
So, even the DOF differences between full format and 'crop' cameras are far less relevant than one might think.
I fired up the Dofmaster software on my Palm PDA and had it do the math (gogle Dofmaster, the website also has an online calculator):
- Circle of confusion for full-frame (135 film) image size = 0.03mm (that's the accepted value since the 1930s)
- Circle of confusion for APS-C image size = 0.02mm (as calculated from the same premises as above)
- 35mm/FF ..... near DOF limit = 5.52ft; far DOF limit = 6.58ft; DOF = 1.06ft
- 24mm/APS-C near DOF limit = 5.33ft; far DOF limit = 6.86ft; DOF = 1.53ft
So, even the DOF differences between full format and 'crop' cameras are far less relevant than one might think.
Last edited:
Arjay
Time Traveller
Sorry, I initially entered incorrect values for APS-C - actual DOF is much closer.
Depth of Field is content sensitive. It depends on scene content.
Arjay
Time Traveller
That's the first time I heard that. Can you please explain that some more?
Yeah, but ostensibly when someone is discussing one lens vs another, or one film/sensor size vs the other, they are imagining a magic switch from one to the other shooting the same scene or type of photography they normally shoot.