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

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, May 17, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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

    RichA, May 17, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    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

    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.
    Bruce, May 17, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Apteryx Guest

    I think you are missing the whole point of trolling

    Apteryx, May 18, 2011
  4. RichA

    Rich Guest

    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.
    Rich, May 18, 2011
  5. RichA

    Rich Guest

    Are the people who cancelled or reconsidered their orders for that product
    after seeing its shortcomings "trolls" too?
    Rich, May 18, 2011
  6. RichA

    Jeff R. Guest

    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.


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

    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

    ....and not whinge and whine about imaginary problems.
    Jeff R., May 20, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.