Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


The Fujifilm FinePix X100 has arrived! (Interactive review!)


18 Mar 2011 8:41AM
Well it does look better than a lot of modern cameras to be fair. I'm not a fan of the way compacts were going before Panasonic and others started a retro look to them. The main fuss is the sensor size combined with a f2.0 lens in a compact and also a viewfinder.

However, if it was at 500 I'd still consider it prohibitively expensive for a compact. Especially considering it doesn't push back the boundaries enough to warrant to price tag.

Although having said that if it takes pictures at the same speed as a dSLR from button press to picture taken then it would be worth 500 to me Smile

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

MeanGreeny e2
9 3.7k England
18 Mar 2011 9:50AM

Quote:However, if it was at 500 I'd still consider it prohibitively expensive for a compact.


You're missing the point, it's not a compact camera - it has an APS-C sized sensor
keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
18 Mar 2011 9:57AM
But what us correct is that here us a camera that I think will appeal to 'photographers' rather than the compact users of every day life and you're asking people to spend 1000 on what will be a second or even third camera.
MeanGreeny e2
9 3.7k England
18 Mar 2011 10:10AM
I think we assume [and judge] too much.

Lots of people had a conventional DSLR system purely for the quality [pro] with the weight and size definitely as a 'con'.

After a period of time, having gained confidence, some m4/3 users have sold off their CaNikOlyPen systems and gone with a system that has acceptable quality [OK, not the absolute best] that can fit in a coat pocket.

My carry around camera was a GRD2 - it still is in fact because it is so small that I can carry it in addition to my GF-1 with 20mm f/1.7 and hardly notice it. When I get a 28mm pancake for the GF-1 I'll probably leave the Ricoh at home unless I'm specifically going for 'Street' photos [at which it excels].

I digress. I'm sure we can't assume that the X100 will be anything approaching 'everyones' 2nd or 3rd camera
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
18 Mar 2011 10:45AM
I understand your logic there. I even find that the top compacts (s90/S95/G11/G12/LX3/LX5) have raised their game enough to make them perfectly acceptable for much of my photography and they are so portable. also using one has made me alter how I approach photography. So I can see a lot of people getting all they need from a m4/3 camera and a couple of lenses.

I actually wonder if I could cut my SLR kit to 10-20 and 100-400 lens.
keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
18 Mar 2011 11:56AM
I feel that I'd go out with the intention of buying one and come back with a G12.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
18 Mar 2011 5:23PM
For a 'carry around' camera a compact such as, just for example, my Panny TZ10 - currently around 235 - with its 25-300mm (FF equiv) lens is quite sufficient and a greatly more flexible tool than the Fuji X100. And it fits in my coat pocket.

The Fuji with its fixed lens and 1000 price tag is strictly in the league of nostalgic male jewellery, IMO. The only problem is Fujifilm is not exactly a prestige tag is it? Stick a Leica or Contax badge on and it would sell much better.... in fact you could probably put up the price! Wink
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
18 Mar 2011 6:02PM

Quote:I feel that I'd go out with the intention of buying one and come back with a G12


You would be better off looking at M4/3 Keith, some kits work out even cheaper than the G12 and there just so much better with the bigger sensor Smile
keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
18 Mar 2011 6:21PM
Already on the 4/3, Paul, just thinking of what I'd got for with a non-interchangeable lens.
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
18 Mar 2011 6:31PM
There`s some lovely new glass, with more on the way if I was in work I`d be very tempted Smile

http://www.digitalphotographywriter.com/2010/11/voigtlander-nokton-25mm-f095-micro-four.html
joshwa e2
4 710 United Kingdom
19 Mar 2011 8:07AM
I've added more example photos outside - and removed this image from the article: (but left it here just in case you want it - it's a macro photo showing lots of background blur)

dscf5116.jpg


http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/fujifilm-finepix-x100-15857/images/DSCF5116.JPG
Macro - ISO200, 1/58, f/2, Flash off
19 Mar 2011 11:16AM
I'll wait until Fuji makes some follow ups. This cameras is expensive to the point of being silly. I love love love the image quality, speed, and silent operation. The Nex-5 I was considering is louder than my DSLR. Silly to make a small camera that is the loudest in the room.

Personally, I think this camera has a lot of fuss for things I generally am not that concerned with. I could care less about the retro styling and actually wished it had a more modern and streamlined look. I could care less about the fancy boxing which probably adds a 10% higher cost to the product alone. Finally, the optical viewfinder is nice but does that really justify the camera being 50% higher than any other in its category. All gimmicks if you ask me.

But I think Fuji is definitely on the right track if they plan on making simplified versions of this camera for a cheaper price.
19 Mar 2011 12:07PM
well, I was thinking : "if this were my one and only camera?"
in this case - if it would fulfill 80% of my photographic needs - I would go for it, and cough up the money. But I figure it only fulfills about 40% of my needs. For portraiture the use seems rather limited, for street it would be quite interesting/useable, but, at the same time, sometimes I would just miss having a 80/110 mm lens on the camera. I already miss it now with the 24-70mm on my 5D. same if I were to use it to snap my daughter. She's quite camera conscious, so even with the 70mm on my dslr, photographing her is difficult. Often I wish I had something like a 200 mm to photograph her.
Not saying they have to fit all these things on the x100, just saying that if I were to have this as my sole camera, I would quite limit myself. And probably often curse and wish for another camera as well.
Think you would have to be very disciplined and determined to only use this camera (to only shoot at 35 mm), two things I hardly am lol.

Now, I do have the 5D, so what if I use this as a second camera? In this case coughing up the money seems a bit hard to justify. I could use the 5D for portraits, use the x100 for street, but there would still be limitations (snapping my daughter would still be a problem; for some events, I just feel the 70mm on my 5D is too short, which the purchase of the x100 wouldn't solve) and I probably would still have to buy some extra lenses for the 5D to fill those gaps.
So my needs would still only be fulfilled for say 60% if I had both the 5D (with the lens I have now) and the x100.

So it would probably make more sense to buy an extra lens for the 5D, and buy something cheaper for street. The GF1/GF2, Olympus EPL2, Sony Nex-5 seem overall like a wiser choice. As I understand it the quality they offer is quite (very) good (though not equal to the x100). You do lose out in certain areas (those high iso pictures of the x100 seems mighty impressive), but on the other hand they do have interchangeable lenses.

this is probably a stupid question (I don't know too much about these things), but why didn't they make the x100 with interchangeable lens system? I mean, was it only possible to get this quality if a fitted lens was on it? Is an interchangeable lens system a completely different ball game? I just would like to understand that bit. Or is it just that they really wanted to make a digital equivalent of - as Paul says - fixed lens rangefinders, allthough they could have done it with interchangeable lens system I they had wanted to?
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
19 Mar 2011 1:48PM

Quote:this is probably a stupid question (I don't know too much about these things), but why didn't they make the x100 with interchangeable lens system


Then it would be pretty much the same as every thing else already available, just a different shape and offering a nice viewfinder, the x100 fills a niche not supplied by any one else.

As for lenses I understand there`s going to be a couple of adapters, wide and telephoto, nice and compact to slip in the pocket and a whole lot cheaper than conventional lenses Smile


Quote:This cameras is expensive to the point of being silly


I believe that its priced about right, and its bound to drop a couple of hundred quid.

I guess you have never seen this Smile

http://www.cameraquest.com/nrfblsp2005.htm
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
19 Mar 2011 1:51PM

Quote:why didn't they make the x100 with interchangeable lens system


It wouldn't qualify as male jewellery if they did! biggrin-light.jpg




Quote:I understand there`s going to be a couple of adapters, wide and telephoto


That might make the camera more interesting, but I'll bet they won't be cheap..............

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.