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

skuzzbag

3

18 Mar 2011 - 8:41 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

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

keithh (e2 Member)

9

18 Mar 2011 - 9:57 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

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.

strawman (e2 Member)

9

18 Mar 2011 - 10:45 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

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.

Carabosse (e2 Member)

10

18 Mar 2011 - 5:23 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

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!

keithh (e2 Member)

9

18 Mar 2011 - 6:21 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Already on the 4/3, Paul, just thinking of what I'd got for with a non-interchangeable lens.

joshwa (ePHOTOzine Staff)

2

19 Mar 2011 - 8:07 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

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)


http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/fujifilm-finepix-x100-15857/images/DSCF5116.J...
Macro - ISO200, 1/58, f/2, Flash off

MediumSizeUnavailable

7

19 Mar 2011 - 12:07 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

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?

Carabosse (e2 Member)

10

19 Mar 2011 - 1:51 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

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

It wouldn't qualify as male jewellery if they did!


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..............