Apr 302011
 

Ok Ok, I know I said I wouldn’t be saying much more about the Fuji X100 until my review but I can’t help it! Went down the street with my son for a few minutes and brought along the X100 to see if I could grab anything cool while the light was getting good. I’ve only had this camera for most of the day but it’s already growing on me tremendously. I’ve been reading the manual and testing out the different metering modes, settings, ND filter, etc. So far so good! The next few images can be clicked on to see a the large 1800 pixel wide versions. Also, unlike the previous snaps from this morning, these have been tweaked during the RAW conversion.

Earlier I said the IQ may not match the Leica X1…well…scratch that – what I should have said is that the IQ is “different” than the X1. The X1 is all about the crispness, the contrast, and the Leica color and look. The X100 seems to be about the smoothness and a more “creamy” look as well as a lower contrast and possibly higher dynamic range image. The more I use it (and I have been messing with it ALL day) the more I am enjoying it. You can get creamier and more shallow DOF images with the X100 due t o being able to focus closer, having a longer focal length and a faster F2 aperture. BUT you do not get the crispness you get out of the X1. All depends on what flavor you like :)

I have noticed a few quirks that I will go over in the full review soon but the X1 also had quirks.

Facts…

The X100 IS built better than the X1, but it is also heavier. It is faster to focus than the X1, but has missed focus a few times. I like the color coming out of the Fuji more so than the X1 (personal preference), and damn, this camera is SEXY! I’m going to have fun reviewing this one :) I’m feeling a road trip coming on…

 

click the images for a larger view!

-

-

-

-

  68 Responses to “Few more shots from the X100 today…”

  1. Uh-oh! Are you about to talk me onto a third camera?

  2. Wow these are great pics, I’m really impressed with the IQ. Can you give us a sample of the video??

  3. Hi Steve,

    Just want to say I always have fun reading your posts and definitely got more knowledge from your reviews.

    But one more thing I’d like to add is to see your son growing up from all the photos you took and put on here make me feel like being a part of your family.

    PS. Brandon is now a grown-up young handsome lad, not a boy I saw from 1st review of yours that I read anymore. :D

  4. You’re getting some nice photographs out of the X100. Love the first two.

  5. Curious about the “crispness” of the Leica vs Fuji. Could this just be from the default settings? Is the Fuji not capable of the type of contrast the Leica produces? Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks for squaring up the IQ comment.

  6. “The X100 IS built better than the X1.”

    I’m so glad that you came out and said this. I own the X1 and for $2200 I really believe that the build quality of the X1 does not reflect the price or Leica’s reputation. Yes, I love the X1′s image quality but I really expected far better build quality. For instance, the “vulcanite” on the X1 feels cheap and it probably costs pennies to produce. On top of that, the dials and body of the camera are painted two different clashing shades of silver. Along with the loose dials and plastic lens barrel, I am a bit dismayed with Leica. With that said, I recognize that the X1 was the first in, perhaps, a renaissance of range finder style cameras with APS-C sensors and the X100 is clearly built on top of the X1′s foundation. Who would have thought that a tradional camera company like Leica would set off a trend but, alas, that is exactly what they did with the X1. My hat is off to Leica in this regard. As for the X100, I am holding off judgement for now, but I really suspect that the X100 is a better camera than the X1. Do you get a free X1 in every X100? Perhaps, and lucky for us, the X100 is half the price of an X1 too. Check out this other X100 vs. X1 comparison: http://translate.google.ru/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.jp%2Fdanjiri60%2Fx100.html&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

    • David, just for the sake of completeness. I have seen that link already and it was available before the firmware update of the X1. I guess that those photos are out-of-camera JPEG images and the X1 output was on several places commented that Leica used too much of large radius sharpening. But of course that does not make the X100 output look worse :-) In fact the X100 output looks very clean and “natural” and compares surprisingly well to the 5DmkII which is a camera with double the pixels and double the sensor area.

    • 1- List X1 on ebay
      2- Handle X100 first to see if you like it
      3- Buy X100 (from money you got for it in step 1)*
      4- Enjoy life**

      * do not switch step 2 and 3, or you would not reach step 4
      ** I wish life was that simple :)

    • I have the X1 for ore more than a year and the X100 for about three weeks. The Fuji is not only better built, but it it is simply the better camera, irrespective of price. It beats the Leica by about two stops and has this brilliant OVF. This alone justifies my conclusion. Movie or panorama mode etc don’t matter to me, but they are there and some might like the X100 just because of these options. Size and weight wise, to level the playing field hand grip and external OVF have to be added to the X1. Put these overpriced goodies on the X1 and the size question ends with a tie, though I find the X100 shape and form more pleasant to handle. As far as IQ goes, they are both excellent and the X100 lens is anywhere as sharp as the Leica’s. Some might perceive the output comparison differently, but this is only a matter of in camera settings which can be easily tweaked to ones liking.
      Seeing the world with both eyes open, with one looking through this brilliant OVF window is the way to use the X100. And this asks for a comparison with the M9.

    • Acually Sigma started the trend as they have two APS-C compact camereas, the DP1 and DP2, the former at 28mm equivalent, the latter at 40mm equivalent.

  7. Damn the X100 files respond good to PP. Colours are different to the Leica’s, but this is amazing. I knew the most reviews I read until now were utter crap, now I can finally say it out loud. The only other person that came with awesome X100 files were that guy of flickr,

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/ramdiboy/

    Cheers
    Vlad

  8. The IQ is fantastic, as far as the samples are concerned, I dont see anything that I dont like. From a personal standpoint, what really excites me is the great B&W shots this camera takes. This is one category in which I have found digital cameras lacking — and Fuji seems to come close to delivering the kind of contrast and richness I prefer in my prints. Also, I am not sure what the big deal is about the price that everybody keeps complaining about, although I am not contending that it is cheap in any way. Entry level DSLRs cost 6 to $700, if you add a good lens capable of delivering the IQ that the Fuji does then you will have to drop at-least another 6-$700 (thats being conservative), which means that you will end up spending more in the long term for a comparable system while sacrificing compactness, unless of course, this is not a concern. On the other end of the spectrum, its closest competitor with regards to IQ for its class is (supposedly) the X1, which costs more than twice the amount, with half the features and a slow AF. Therefore, taking the above into consideration, the X100 is a great package for its intended purpose.

    Steve, thank you so much for taking the time to review and share your thoughts, I look forward to your detailed appraisal. As a small request, would it be possible for you to do a comparison with Panasonics GF1/2 with the pancake?? I have recently come across a lot of GF1 owners who are considering this camera as a replacement..

    • Sure man the cameras IQ is fantastic. What about yours?

      • Not sure I catch your drift..unless posting one liners is your primary vocation

        • OK then. A question. what`s IQ after all? Is a piece of glass, metal and plastic intelligent? What 150 means to you. Noctilux is only 50, that would rate it an idiot. Okeydokey, just getting tired a bit of all that neuroaffectionate, pseudosciencific, chummy yummy attitude toward a piece of industrial merchandise. Nothing personal.

          • We’re talking about image quality – the technical part of it removed from the individual photographer, but focused on gear; not intelligence quotient.

  9. Steve
    Please don’t forget to throw the GXR in the mix, it would be great to see your thoughts on the GXR, X1 and X100 all together.
    Thank you.
    am

  10. Good samples, Steve! Keep them coming!

    Greg

  11. Damn! I think I’ll buy one if Fuji make a model with interchangeable lenses! Pics look great!

    • I agree…if this camera could be produced with fast, prime interchangeable lenses I would post all my micro 4/3′s equipment on eBay. ….but I will probably have enough money saved up for a Leica M10 (LOL) and a Nocti by the time that that happens!!!! :-)

      • You must be crazy BoB. Are you going to spend something equivalent to a carefree year in India with all luxury included for a M10 and Noctilux which has, i some depth of field gurus opinion, sharpness amounting to nothing, which means your fotos are not going to be sharp nowhere. All you will get is a variable circle of confusion, your confusion I mean. Keep of raving. We are all lunatics.

    • And I will buy it damm sure if they fit it with four wheel drive

  12. I’m so glad the review samples are so good. I sold my x1 because it just wasn’t right there for me. Man you’re making my wait til Tuesday impossible. I had already decided that after a couple days in the week to get acclimated I was heading out for a road trip..maybe tombstone….or vulture mines.

  13. Superb examples which tell me all I need about X100, X1, F, F-16. Just one thing. Talking about IQ of this and IQ of that in literary form can be interesting, but then I prefer Graham Green to Cooperation Green . To satisfy us you could just take X1 and X100 and shoot side by side picts of: Half shot of a person wearing a coarse fabric with background few meters behind plus night scene with bright lights and deep shadows. Both on lowest ISO and on 1600. How complicated is that? That could be for a teaser, followed later by a longer dissertations on everything the camera can dish up with. Honestly, you have to make more purposefull test shots then casuall snapshots. It remindes me a guy reviewing wonderfull Sonnar 2/85 portrait lens par exellence and without a single full resolution head to waist shot of a girl with stormy hair wearing embroided kimono.(Preferably compared with APO 2/90.) SAYONARA. Stanis Mikimoto me Like Foto

    • Hurry up Steve, it’s been 18 hours since you got the camera. I demand a shot of a unicorn wearing a suit (preferably half wool – half satin).

  14. The X100 looks like it will be an amazing step forward in this class of camera, something that sets peoples hearts racing. The architecture of it seems to be first class and the images Steve posted have a beautiful quality to them. I’m really looking forward to the review from Steve because from reading his past posts I know his sensibilities are similar to mine.

    I know everyone will be in a rush to stack the X100 against other cameras, namely the X1. Either way I don’t think you could go wrong. The X1 really helped me compose pictures in a different way and for that reason I’m going to hold on to it.

    [img]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/sirdemon2u/L12207051.jpg[/img]

  15. For me the jury is still out. I like my X1, but have to say that it does have it’s issues, but IQ is great. Been recently using the GF1 which is such a joy to shoot with. However, I can’t see the X100 as a replacement for the GF1. You’d lose access to those great lenses.

    I’ll wait for Steve’s full review and a personal hands on before deciding.

    • Calvin ….I am in your mind set, too. I bought into a GF1 and a range of lenses because of the small form factor and the versatility. (It gives me a nice option to the DSLR…but a 5DMkII with an 85mm f/1.2 attached to it is hard to beat by ANY standard except the M9 with a Nocti on it)…That being said..although the Fuji is very sexy and a full-on great photo machine…I just can’t confuse my mind by adding another menu-set to my world on a camera that is limited to just one lens. The X100 does look like a fun little side junket tho!!!!!!

    • Hi Calvin, I almost bought the GF1 / 20mm combo on sale the last going out but had the lingering Fuji desires torpedoing my decision. I went so far as to see if my old Leica 35mm Briteline finder would fit the GF1. Like a glove. Perspective and framing were satisfyingly (35 vs 40) close and the pop-up flash cleared the finder as though it was made for it. Vanity bonus: great looking too.
      Chris

    • You know what kills the gf1 for me…. Iso performance. Shooting something casual like a party is a pain without flash. And inboard flash is…meh…and adding a bigger one defeats the point.

      I doubt I’ll ev end up selling my gf1 though at this point. My girlfriend uses it tomtake the shelter videos, and I can add the 17-14 for a lightweight travel combo..just waiting to find one used.

      • The dynamic range and excessive dof is what killed it for me… the look of the final prints just looked somewhat “plastic.” I love the camera–even got some wonderful images from it–but conditions really had to be perfect.

        • Dynamic range here, as Steve can attest to, is important..I agree is an issue..however a grad nd seems to sort that out well. Te dof is an issue not so easily remedied! Well…photoshop and time isn’t convenient.

  16. Hi Steve!
    I must admit I much better like the files from the X1 (don’t have one though) and from the Ricoh GXR.
    From what I can see around the IQ in the X1 seems clearer, sharper, more “well-defined” (and more sharp in the corners!) and with colours that better suites me (somewhere some has claimed there are an different approach between US and Europe (more vivid and soft colours in US?-tend).
    Looking forward to the M-modul for the Ricoh GXR for my M-lenses and the fast handling of these (and the rendening..!).
    But like the physical look of the X100-camera itself though.
    Best
    Thorkil

    • Stop talking about IQ!. I heard that Paris Hiltons IQ is sky high and still she looks on most of her pictures pretty dumb. Like probably all your folks faces looking for all those pixels and die for bokeh, and best ever and I want that baby and I`m going to have it for breakfast and it`going to be mine and I cannot wait any minute and gorgious and clearer and sharper and Jesus Christ, GIVE ME A BREAK!

    • There is no IQ in camera. There may be some IQ in the human brain that can be used for composing pictures and taking them using a camera.

  17. Hi Steve,

    Love to read your full review soon. I have been shooting with the X1 since October and have some images shot the X1 on my personal site (http://www.chaiporn.com). I am an amateur photographer, so my images may not be that good but if they are in any way help other readers on your site to compare the X1 images with the X100, I would be more than happy. Having updated the firmware on the X1, I feel that it is much easier to shoot with (in a sense that it becomes more versatile due to a speedier autofocusing). I just uploaded a few images shot with the X1 with the new firmware from my trip to Macau last week.
    http://www.chaiporn.com/Home/News/Entries/2011/5/1_Macau_with_the_Leica_X1.html

    Best,

    Chaiporn

    [img]http://www.chaiporn.com/Home/News/Entries/2011/5/1_Macau_with_the_Leica_X1_files/X1_L1015300_ISO%20100.jpg[/img]

  18. Hi Steve,
    First, my apologies; I was about to write you off with the apparent acceptance of a $5k Leica lens leaving the mothership in need of what many of the fanboys ( and I have been one) dubbed a simple adjustment. I know it was a ‘loaner’ but… absolutely unacceptable unless you clubbed it.
    I look more forward to your opinions on the Fuji’s usability more than the comparison but that’s up to you. I’m also curious as to whether you feel if any shortcomings are firmware fixable.
    Now, about the different ‘look’ ie. creamy vs crisp. For years I resisted sharpening in PS because I stubbornly felt I could work within the limitations of the camera ( remember film?) and because it was usually a frustrating process to be subtle enough and produce a noticeably ‘better’ image. My discovery of the year: Smart Sharpen. The default is subtle but in my opinion looks better and allows slight tweaking. I feel so dumb that I didn’t discover this before. So… maybe a simple addition to the batch workflow. Sorry if I bored anyone. Shameless plug: at Lynda.com I got one months access to their tutorials for 25 bucks.
    Thanks for the honesty,
    Chris

  19. Color me impressed! Regarding the ‘dreamy’ look…might I add that i think this is the closest to the “Leica glow’” that I’ve seen yet. My partner has the X1 and, IMHO, it’s IQ is fantastic, but a bit on the clinical side-really almost too sharp at times. But then, I own the M9 and the Noctilux f/1 and I especially love to shoot wide open and the resulting look is what appeals to me, that said, always a matter of personal choice-horses for courses.

    Great sample images and I can now say without a doubt that I’m glad that I have a couple of these on preorder… hopefully one will be shipping soon! This may very well become my other “go to” camera other than my M9. As a side note, it’s interesting that the DXO sensor rating for the X100 out scores the M9 and the X1… and than again, the other camera I own, the Pentax K-5, scored higher than any of the aforementioned.

    • Hi Susan,
      yea…it’s funny that isn’t it, the DXO rating. I’m not quite sure what the criteria is over there but whatever I guess. I have the X1 too and I totally agree with you, I’ve been saying it since the time it was released. Yes, the X1 has good IQ but for my money the images have ALWAYS been massively (very uncharacteristic of Leica) over-sharpened by default and as soon as you turn that option off it’s a different result altogether. My opinion is that a lot of us tend to confuse this with the X1 having great IQ

      I too have the K-5 and love it. I saw the DXO ratings on that camera too and can kind of understand it’s comparison to the D3x and some MF cameras but I couldn’t allow myself to get too carried away. However I’m curious how they (DXO) rate the X100 sensor higher that that of the M9 as well, I don’t even know what that means to be honest and how it translates to the real, every day world.

      `6

      • Hi ~6,

        I am surprised they rate the Sony NEX as having wider DR than the M9. Personally, I think all this data is as subjective as anyone else’s opinion. So, I trust my own ‘data’. I look at the files and form an opinion and rely on that.

        Cheers,
        Greg

        • I don’t think the data is subjective..to the contrary, they use the same testing. Their overall rating on the other hand is. There are some really interesting data points that can imply certain characteristics..but they are found inside the charts, not in the simple numbers.

          • Azx1, I meant not the data per se but the info, the rating, which people seem to rely too much upon. I think, subjective opinion is good but it has to be mine, not other people’s. I can read this or that review and see what others are saying but I have to check a certain product myself and form my own opinion before I can make a decision whether I need it or not. I believe in test drive as ultimate decision tool. But of course, info sharing and reviews are great, too. Steve is doing a very nice thing and I like his ‘real world’ approach.

            Cheers,
            Greg

          • There’s no reason to assume that the NEX-5 (or X100, which has the same EXMOR sensor tech) doesn’t have a better DR than the M9. It is a much more mature sensor technology than the M9′s, regardless of sensor size. I’ll trust DxO’s data before trusting those that take various snapshots under varying lighting conditions with different scenes and then attempt to compare various cameras.

            The odd thing to me is that, I see so many commenting on the large DR of their M9, but nearly every shot I see has blacks that are at least slightly clipped?? Testing DR isn’t just seeing which camera’s meter doesn’t blow highlights. Raising shadows shows how well the DR performs.

      • Hi `6,

        Yes, exactly…I think many people confuse or equate sharpness with IQ…and for what my partner uses her X1 for-to photograph her paintings before she ships them to galleries and to catalogue them- it’s perfect! She wants to capture as much detail as possible and wants aclean, sharp image and the X1 does a fine job compared to any camera that shes’s used-including my M9 and Canon 5D Mark ll (which I sold along with 3 L lenses to help finance my Leica, Noct, and 35 Lux).
        Again, another interesting note is that the Pentax K-5 is also ranked higher than the Canon Mark ll per DXO…I too, am curious about what criteria they use to rate
        sensors…not that I put that much emphasis on it in my purchasing decisions, but I do find it interesting. In the end, I purchase what is pleasing to my eyes-not on test result data…and the Fuji X100 is turning out some fine images…especially with Steve at the helm!

        • Well thank you so much for that explanation DF. There I was sitting in the dark, completely unaware that my NEX sensor was “much more mature” than my M9′s sensor.

          You say “there’s no reason to assume that the NEX or X100 doesn’t have better DR than the M9″, but what about my eyes? What about the prints I make from my M9? Is that not reason enough to doubt that the NEX sensor can give me more DR than my M9?
          This isn’t about me being a Leica fanboy who thinks that anything not bearing the red dot is crap, I have all of these cameras mentioned here so I’ve no axe to grind.

          I’m assuming you don’t have an M9 because you said “nearly every shot I see has blacks that are at least slightly clipped”. Well I suggest you try one, use it then form an opinion.

          Look, it’s this simple, the X100, NEX and X1 just do not come close to overall IQ and that includes DR, to the M9. I don’t care what DXO writes, I care about how the cameras performance translates to my day to day real world photography and in that regard, the NEX in particular stinks by comparison. It isn’t just about the sensor, it’s about the processing engine, choice and design of algorithms, glass, the list goes on. All of these things go into making up the eventual IQ and DR and the overall effect is that an NEX or an X100 will not give you the DR of an M9. Only this morning I was telling a friend who’s about to buy an M9 that I will frame in harsh afternoon sunlight and will intentionally expose at two under knowing that I can pull the detail back out of the shadows…that’s how good the M is. There’s no way I can do that with the NEX

          `6

          • I routinely underexpose with my M9 to protect the highlights and I am always confident that I can pull every detail out of the shadows. With M9 it’s never an issue. I’ve been shooting with it for about a year now and I am still amazed at how great a camera it is! Every time I look at my computer screen with an M9 file up I go “Wow, what a marvel!”

            And every time I look at the M9′s own screen… well, I don’t anymore. Can’t stand it. But back when I did I used to think “Wow, what a crap!” Well, I wanted a ‘film experience’, didn’t I? I got it! And I’m so glad I did, believe me. Who needs to look at the screen and spoil the surprise in the lightroom?

            M9′s DR is fantastic. I don’t care who says what. I have my own eyes to believe.

            Cheers,
            Greg

          • `6, the underlying silicon design of the Kodak sensor in the M9 has only moderately improved over the last 6-7 years. This isn’t wild speculation. Speaking to many that work in the industry will confirm this…unless you only speak to Leica. ;) Sony EXMOR, with its on-chip AD conversion, is a far more cutting edge design, and that is why their smaller sensor is even in this DR conversation. The newest iteration of it is even better, and it is essentially an ISO-less CMOS.

            My point about the clipped blacks is that people shooting the M9 (and most shooters in general) tend to clip blacks slightly when processing, so I’ve yet to see clear comparisons of DR. I wasn’t intending to criticize anyone. Raising shadows with both cameras should certainly be no problem, and I’d say both cameras have great DR.

            I do believe that you’re seeing DR differences between the M9 and NEX-5 in regards to DR. What I’m questioning is your vision, and unless you can provide sample RAWs that are at least somewhat static in regards to lens choice, scene selection, lighting, etc, I’m going to have a tough time believing the “because I see it with my own eyes” argument, regardless of the source of the endorsement, as I am not a religious man, either.

            Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been a reader of this blog for a long time, and I certainly enjoy the kind of “feeling” reviews that Steve writes, but I think some technical claims like this should have a little factual backup.

            p.s. did you know that lens selection affects DR as well?

          • “unless you can provide sample RAW’s that are somewhat static in regards to lens choice, scene, lighting etc. I’m going to have a tough time believing the “because I see it with my own eyes” argument.

            WOW, you’re now questioning what MY eyes are seeing, that’s impressive but the funniest part in your quote above is the bit where you suggest I send some static RAW’s. I’m interested in making photographs, not shooting for MTF charts so what on earth leads you to believe that I would even consider doing that?

            `6

          • DF, what does all of this have to do with photography? In my (sometimes not so humble) opinion, photography can be of two general types: documentary and art. No, cross that. Silly me. There is only one type and that is art.

            Who cares about all those technical details unless he or she is an engineer? Photography is art and it’s about expression of artistic vision. So, what’s wrong with having one’s eyes as an ultimate judgement tool? Your eyes are directly connected to your vision. Not charts, graphs or even someone else’s eyes.

            In my view, all technical evaluations of various gear are more or less useless. I like reviews but only those which reflect someone’s personal real life experience. That’s why I come to this site. The other type of reviews and tests are painfully boring to me.

            I love cooking. And I know there are two types of cooks: those who go by the book and those who improvise. They also read books for general information but then they go and create great tasting dishes. I think the same goes for photography. You either go by the book and produce boring clinical files or you go and improvise and unleash your passions, and make mistakes, and create great art.

            Cheers,
            Greg

  20. Steve, why are there no pictures from today? We need more stuff!!!

  21. Steve, I assume the vignetting is just post-processing the way you prefer (bike rider image 174 for example) and the images out of the camera aren’t vignetting this way?

    • Didnt add vignetting but when processing it in RAW, when I altered the colors and contrast the vignetting popped up. Overall though, I do not notice any vignetting with the X100.

  22. I hate you and love you in equal measures. I brought a Leica M7 + 50mm Summilux Asph. because of you. Are you now going to cost me another £1200?

    All joking aside, it looks to be a good camera, but for now I stick with my Leica M. I said that, however, about my Nikon D700, so who knows? And thats why I hate you, yet I come back for more, so perhaps it isn’t really hate. Keep the good work up, this site is wonderful!

    – Matt

  23. J’aime ces clichés, surtout les vues dans les rétroviseurs! L’image est précise, même agrandie, même en s’éloignant du sujet central…X100. !!! WOW!

  24. Steve,

    I’m really glad you got your X100, and I’m following your experience with great interest, but I have some critical comments. Please don’t think I’m being negative about your effort; I’m totally on your side (as if there are “sides”.)

    First, I looked at the exif data and all of your shots are at f2, except the desert house (and that one seems to have been shot from a moving car.) With the exception of a very few lenses that cost $3000 dollars and up, all lenses are “dreamier” at f2 than they are if they are stopped down just a little. (Including my pre-ASPH Leica lenses.) Please do some, like the old house shots you used to do up North, where you’re shooting something with detail and trying to optimize sharpness. This means smaller stops. Maybe f5.6?

    Second, and related, if you want to compare image quality between the X100 with the X1, you can’t shoot one at f2, and the other at f2.8. You’ll have to stop the X100 down to f2.8. Otherwise it’s apples and oranges. I won’t be surprised if the X1 is still a little better, but fair is fair.

    Again, a real test of ultimate sharpness would have both cameras at optimal apertures, like f4 or 5.6.

    Of course it’s a matter of style and preference, but I pretty much never shoot wide open in bright sunlight. So pictures in that style don’t help me to know what I could expect from the camera.

    It’s hard to get the tone right in a post, so I want to be sure that you don’t see this as a angry rant, or a challenge. I’m really excited to follow your experience with this great new camera, and these are just suggestions to help make your articles more helpful to a broader range of photographers.

    • I will have shots at all apertures in the REVIEW. This is not a review, just snaps I took on the first day. The building was not shot from a moving car, bit a parked car. I have 10-15 images I shot today from F4-F8. No worries…

      Also, I am aware that when comparing cameras that the aperture should be the same :)

      Im not out to test absolute sharpness and detail – just the real use of the camera for every day shooting. I shoot at F2 in daylight all the time, have been for many years. I also shoot at F5.6 alot like I did today.

      No worries – the review will have it all.

      Thanks!

      Steve

  25. Steve,

    I can’t wait for the review. It’s very exciting! This camera has been hyped up for a while before it ever came out! When it finally did, there were issues, and that’s all I could find on the internet. This bummed me out. Now I’m hearing good things again. Yippee! I was hoping Fuji would hit a home run with this camera. I’m not in the market right now for any other gear, but when the dust settles after my move, it will be nice to have good choices to pick from in gear.

  26. What we can confirm for those who haven’t yet handled this camera is that you can tell Fuji genuinely attempted to do this camera right. It really is built solidly and with thought. It will take a couple of generations to mature (probably needs a faster processor and bigger buffer to more quickly process raw; needs live image adjustments for incamera raw conversion; needs dedicated iso top dial; needs faster manual focus dial adjustments and manual focus confirmation.) But, it’s off to a great start and Fuji can rightfully take pride in what it has accomplished. If Fuji ever did a full frame version of this camera with interchangeable lens, that would make another company shake in its boots.

    For those wondering about how close you can focus, the answer is as close as macro without turninng on macro. Switching from ovf to evf allows you to get closer. Then switching to mf and focusing via pressing ae/af button gets you much closer without needing to manual focus. Close enough for a tight headshot, if anyone can tolerate a 23mm lens that close to their face.

    It’s a solid cam.

  27. Thanks for these “pre-reviews”. They’ve been pretty reassuring for all of us waiting for our own x100.
    I see here some people asking you technical data (IQ, head-to-head comparissons, different exposures… yada yada yada). By now, for me all these technical stuff are sheer noise.
    By contrast I, If I may, would like to ask you about all the subjectiveness, the subtleties, the nuances, the usability (does that word exists?), the feeling of the thing in the hand and in front of the eye. You are an experienced photographer and, by seing your photos, a sensitive one, so it would be of maximum interest for me to read this kind of nothingness from you. The MTF charts can be checked anywhere.
    With respect of the usability issue, I’ve read with a lot of concern some reports on the net (see:

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/fujifilm_x100_test_report.shtml

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/fuji_x100_follow_up.shtml ), that have been less than complimentary.

    Thank you.

  28. Hi Steve,

    Your first 2 pictures are excellent!
    Would you mind sharing she camera settings?
    I have my idea…but just out of curiosity as I am playing with the x100 since a few days as well…

    Excellent blog by the way. Too many reviews with very boring pictures… Good to see a real photographer’s review ;-)

  29. Check this out folks ( http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/ ) I like the way he’s using the X100. Awesome B&W’s. Can’t wait to get mine tomorrow :-). Look forward to Steve’s full review…

    Cheers All!
    Kelvin

Don't just sit there! Join in and leave a comment!

© 2009-2014 STEVE HUFF PHOTOS All Rights Reserved
21