I think we can say Fuji's X100 is a prototype, not a finished camera

The Dpreview review and what I saw of it at the show convinced me that
for $1200, you can do a lot better if your goal is to take pictures
and not to walk around being seen with a poor man's Leica clone. This
camera is really no different than its lineage brothers, the Russian
knocks offs of Leicas that appeared after WW2. They didn't work too
well, but they looked like Leicas. Stopped down, on static images,
it's capable of some good work, but then what camera today (with a
decent-sized sensor) isn't? The two most disconcerting things are the
sluggish focus and the dull lens. I'm actually surprised by the lens,
I figured Fuji had the chops to produce a good one. As it stands,
Samsung and Panasonic seem to make the best compact lenses, followed
by Olympus, Fuji and last, Sony. I'd include Pentax for lenses like
the 40mm f2.8 pancake, but then they have no compact mirrorless body
yet.

http://dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmx100/

 

It's funny how you claim to read reviews then state the exact opposite
of what the reviews say.

Actually, it's not funny, it's repetitive and tiresome.

The lens in the X100 is excellent. It is superbly sharp in the centre
at all apertures. Like most reasonably priced f/2 35mm (and
equivalent) lenses it gets softer at the edges wide open. But stop it
down to f/4 and it is sharp across the frame.

Fujifilm decided to allow the lens to focus very close even though it
is not specifically designed for macro use. Used wide open at the
closest focusing distance, it is decidedly soft. But at normal
non-macro focusing distances it is pin sharp, apart from soft edges at
f/2.

To summarise, it is a very fine lens that, like most lenses not
specifically designed for macro use, isn't great at macro distances.

The review on DPReview.com makes all the above points. Yet, according
to you, having read that review, the lens is "dull".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In other words, Rich, you are telling lies. Again.

I does you absolutely no credit to lie about this on a public forum.

 

I think you are missing the whole point of trolling

Aptertyx

 

Very soft below f4 and lots of CA.

Take a look at the crops from their example image. The lens is not good
at the edge at f2.0 or f2.8.

Dull in this case means it suffers from aberrations that render it very
poor as the choice you'd want for a FIXED lens. Reason? This is not a
portrait lens it is for SCENES. Scenes often stretch from corner to
corner and bad corners are...bad. The lens can't be removed. So, your
chances of getting good images in dim conditions with such a "street"
focal length are not good.

 

Are the people who cancelled or reconsidered their orders for that product
after seeing its shortcomings "trolls" too?

 

What a strange idea.
Who GAS what other people think of the camera you carry around?

I ordered my X100 because it has a manual shutter speed dial, a manual
aperture ring and a manual focus ring. The manual exposure compensation on
top was a bonus.

The only disappointment is the focus. It seems to take half an hour to wind
the focus between extremes, and my poor old eyes have trouble achieving
spot-on focus through the otherwise excellent EVF.

**HOWEVER**

The lowlight/ high-ISO performance is astounding!
In conditions that would render my G10 useless, the X100 shines -
noise-free!

The controls and menus are quirky; its saves awfully slowly, but overall
it's an excellent backup camera.
Motion panos seem to work better than the HS10, and videos are fine.

I took a few star shots at 30 secs, and the NR is faultless. I can't find a
single noise artefact - in a 30 sec (!) exposure!

WTF does that have to do with an analysis of the X100?
I owned a Leica in the 70s. Ditched it and bought an Olympus 35RC which was
was wildly superior in every respect.
But so what? This is 2011.

Also wide open, on moving images, in very low light.
Its lack of noise is amazing, and much, much more relevant than some
imagined "softness" at the corners of the frame when shooting wide open in a
blizzard while holding a gas oven over your head, standng on one leg and
whistling "Clementine".

High ISO, low-light noise is really objectionable in every other small,
compact digital I've used. The X100 doesn't suffer from this *at all*.
It's only measurabatory pixel-peepers who could possibly object to the
quality of the lens.
(...and who cares what they think?)

No - the auto focus is OK, and the lens is not "dull".
The *manual* focus, OTOH, is close to useless. :-(

So am I.
My Fuji HS10 is crap by comparison. Unusable anywhere near the long end. CA
like crazy!
The X100, however....

Honestly, what is it with this desperate need to bag out this little camera?
It does exactly what it is designed to do.

As I said before, my only serious beef is with the manual focus.
If Fuji bring out an X200 (or whatever) with split-image or
superimposed-image rangefinder focussing *and* no more than 120deg between
close focus and infinity, I'd fork out -oh I dunno- $1500 for it on the
spot.

....and not whinge and whine about imaginary problems.