AbramG: Let me be a bit heretic: I really like the X100 a lot, but for me it would be a substitute for a M9 which I cannot afford in the moment. And for a substitute it would be too much money and too much a compromise, because of the non interchangeable lenses. If it had interchangeable lenses I would buy it tomorrow. Got a Nex-3 for 199 instead, can use all lenses from my M2 plus all my DSRL lenses and I am as happy as could be. Yes, I know, the Nex is ugly compared to the X100 and it is not a rangefinder...
AbramG wrote:
Seeing this thread keeps pushing me in the direction of trading over to the X100. I'm currently a m4/3 user (for my around town, and fun shooting) and I also work with a 35mm rangefinder.
Obviously I would like interchangeable lenses, but being limited to a 35mm f/2 doesn't bother me in the slightest as it's my favorite working focal length.
Do you guys think it would be a worthwhile switch from a decent micro 4/3 system?
I have a gf1 +20mm and decided it didn't cut it in a few areas for me.. that said I was not heavily invested in a system. I fluctuate as to whether I should sell it or keep it and get a few lenses.. but at the end of the day and speaking in terms of one lens... I prefer the x100 to the gf1/20 combo.. and I changed from a Leica x1 (and am more than happy I did so).
So yah, if you are good with one focal length, it's a really fun camera and for me, is capable of producing better results than I am at present.
The one rub, if I was choosing a system, I would prefer at this point 24/50 to 35 - again for me, but as a single small camera to carry everywhere, I really really enjoy the x100 and am really glad I ignored the original images and lackluster reviews... the bottom line is, I have fun with it.
Hey anorphirith - sorry for the delay. Here's the 'before' with more natural color and some levels... no drastic processing. I did increase contrast. , I may prefer the before to the after I think. It has more depth imo. I could probably do a better job spending more time dodging and burning without the global contrast.. I may give that a go. It's all a learning process for me.
h00ligan wrote:
Hey anorphirith - sorry for the delay. Here's the 'before' with more natural color and some levels... no drastic processing. I did increase contrast. , I may prefer the before to the after I think. It has more depth imo. I could probably do a better job spending more time dodging and burning without the global contrast.. I may give that a go. It's all a learning process for me.
Actually due to not being too familiar with this camera and the rapid change in light it was , iirc, basically andocus decompose on the sun to create the silhouette. I felt that any lack of sharpness inthee foreground wouldn't be a concern and it was easier for me tbh
I failed to adhere to the nothing greater than 1/1000 rule stated earlier and will have to look into why that is, clearly I could have engaged the nd, but iirc this one was iso 200 /f8 / 1/1700
I've never found any issues with shooting faster than 1/1000th as long as you stop own a bit. The 1/1000th max shutter is only at f2, as you stop down you can go up to 1/4000th. This is just due to the nature of the leaf shutter and the distance it has to cover. Stop down = smaller opening = less distance to cover = higher speeds possible.
Would be nice if the ND could be set to be automatic because it can be a bit of a pain turning it on/off if your going into bright light and then into shady areas turning it on/off
I'm perfectly happy with the GF1 honestly, I have the 14mm & 20mm pancakes, and an adapted minolta 45mm. It makes a great small kit.
My main setups are Canon DSLRs and I use them for all my work. The GF1 is more of a "fun" camera if anything, and less of a "Travel system" though it is ideally suited for such a task. In my mind, when I am going on a vacation, I want to capture the best possible image quality so I will go through the hassle of lugging my DSLR (or two) + lenses. I don't mind it really as I'm used to it.
I do still actively shoot film, mostly for fun, and I feel like the X100 would be a great compliment to that system. I am perfectly ok with 35mm honestly. If I could only have one lens, it would be a 35mm.
My other consideration is the fact that I am simply too much of a gadget freak. I bought the GF1 and 20mm thinking I would just stick with that, but before you know it I had more lenses and adapters and old lenses, and all kinds of junk for it. I finally forced myself to sell off everything I didn't NEED from the system and paired it down to the essentials.
I feel like having the X100 will help curb that problem as I won't even have other lenses to consider! Lol (it's a personal problem) Basically what it boils down to is the fact that I don't like having to pack up yet another bag to take my m4/3 kit out now. sure I could just get rid of everything but the gf1 and 20mm, but I am not a fan of the little viewfinder attachment and I'd rather use the built in one on the X100.
I keep my rangefinder bag packed at all times so I can grab it and go (all I have to do is grab film from the fridge) the X100 would seamlessly integrate into that mindset. I only shoot 35 and 50mm on my rangefinder anyways so it would work really well I think.
h00ligan wrote:
Hey anorphirith - sorry for the delay. Here's the 'before' with more natural color and some levels... no drastic processing. I did increase contrast. , I may prefer the before to the after I think. It has more depth imo. I could probably do a better job spending more time dodging and burning without the global contrast.. I may give that a go. It's all a learning process for me.
thanks ! I like the after shot as well, but the before is amazing straight out of camera !
AbramG wrote:
I do still actively shoot film, mostly for fun, and I feel like the X100 would be a great compliment to that system. I am perfectly ok with 35mm honestly. If I could only have one lens, it would be a 35mm.
My X100 comes with me along with my Ikon/Leica gear. It's a nice complement, especially when it gets too dark to shoot film at ISO 400.
millsart wrote:
Would be nice if the ND could be set to be automatic because it can be a bit of a pain turning it on/off if your going into bright light and then into shady areas turning it on/off
This would be a great feature - I have the Fn set to activate the ND filter and it'd be great to free that up.
I find the lens correction in ACR simply amazing. As you can see in the first pic, there's really NO distortion. I've cropped it a little bit, but done nothing with the distortion. The JPG:s have a tiny bit of mustache distortion, which you'll also see in ACR if you switch the correction off.
Vignetting is fairly heavy with no correction even when stopped down to f/8. So, the micro lenses don't fully make up for the tiny lens design. But the great DR and low noise makes it into a non-issue.
corposant wrote:
This would be a great feature - I have the Fn set to activate the ND filter and it'd be great to free that up.
Yeah doesn't seem like it would be too hard to make it an option to automatically come on when shutter speed is in excessive of the max for a given fstop.
Of course it should be an option for those who don't want it automatic as well but I do admit I find it a bit of a PITA having to deal with it so often during the daytime
Problem is I might be shooting at f8 for one shot in the sun, and everything is fine with it off, then I'll want to open up for another and need to turn it on, but then I'll shoot something on a shady side of the street etc and then my shutter speed is too slow unless I'm using auto ISO, so I'll turn it off to shoot at base, so on and so forth
No that big of deal I suppose but just would be so much easier if it was automatic.
I think the main thing that gets me is that the max shutter depends on the fstop, which I understand as its a leaf shutter and all, but its just confusing to keep track off as you open the lens open for some shots and have to remember the ND. Easy to get a bit spoiled by cameras with 1/8000th sync speed where you just don't really have to worry about such things, even with a f2 lens in most cases
john_edwards wrote:
Unless I missed it somewhere (probably), I haven't seen or read how big of a print this little camera is good for. Anyone print A3 or thereabouts?
John
Thats a rather subjective question John.
Some people feel that an old 4 or 6 meg camera could produce perfectly fine A3 prints, others obviously prefer the higher resolution FF body they can afford.
Its a 12 meg APS-C sensor with very good per pixel sharpness and a good lens, so its about equal with a NEX or any of the current APS-C DSLR's in that range, give or take, perhaps a little better even.
As always though, what one person considers acceptable for a large print may or my not agree with your own taste and findings.
AbramG wrote:
My main setups are Canon DSLRs and I use them for all my work.
I think you'd be perfectly happy with the X100. If you can swing it, buy it without selling your GF1.
As long as your not depending on the X100 to be your only camera, I think you're going into it with the right expectations. Especially since you like a 35mm rangefinder with 35 & 50. You can crop the X100 to a 50mm perspective, and still use the same sensor size as the GF1.
eric_m wrote:
I think you'd be perfectly happy with the X100. If you can swing it, buy it without selling your GF1.
As long as your not depending on the X100 to be your only camera, I think you're going into it with the right expectations. Especially since you like a 35mm rangefinder with 35 & 50. You can crop the X100 to a 50mm perspective, and still use the same sensor size as the GF1.
Eric
Eric,
I'd have to sell the GF1 for sure to be able to purchase the X100, which I'm presently in the middle of doing. The X100 would certainly not be my only camera as I have multiple systems that I work with (The main two being a 5DmkII and a 1DmkIII with a host of Canon L and Carl Zeiss lenses) but this would be my every day camera, and a digital counterpart to my Bessa R2 (especially when it's too dark for ISO 100 or 400 film)
I'm making the move! Just going to have to save for a bit to make up the difference since the prices are so high....
Makten, looks like we have both been slowing down with the Zeiss thread. Hopefully all of these wonderful X100 shooters start posting more of their lovely work. Here are my contribution to the thread..
Have you also consider some of the larger sensor compacts for an everyday camera ? Olympus XZ1, LX5, S95 etc ?
X100 is fantastic, however, if your looking something to truly take everywhere and always carry it could still prove a little big and perhaps a little limiting.
Its great for wearing around when you want to go take pictures, but I don't think I'd carry in my jacket pocket everyday I go to work etc. Little bulky and valuable for leaving in the car glovebox etc type rolls too.
Smaller compact can still take some nice shots and really is small enough (and cheap enough) to really be something that lives in your laptop bag or briefcase etc and especially with the S95 something you can literally slip into a pocket everytime you leave the house along with a set of car keys
AbramG wrote:
I'd have to sell the GF1 for sure to be able to purchase the X100, which I'm presently in the middle of doing. The X100 would certainly not be my only camera as I have multiple systems that I work with (The main two being a 5DmkII and a 1DmkIII with a host of Canon L and Carl Zeiss lenses) but this would be my every day camera, and a digital counterpart to my Bessa R2 (especially when it's too dark for ISO 100 or 400 film)
I'm making the move! Just going to have to save for a bit to make up the difference since the prices are so high.......Show more →
Been through a few different versions of that type of camera and it just wasn't for me.
It's not the size of the camera really, I have large hands and I find bigger cameras comfortable, I just am attracted to the simplicity of the X100. I think I honestly am its ideal target customer
, I may prefer the before to the after I think. It has more depth imo. I could probably do a better job spending more time dodging and burning without the global contrast.. I may give that a go. It's all a learning process for me.
