carstenw wrote:
subtract the Pro out of it? Just makes no sense. They have an X10, they have an X100, are they really so insecure about the status of the X1 that they feel the need to add pro to it??
First, there is a Leica x1 which is also sort of the same retro style, so they may want to avoid confusion or maybe legal issues with Leica, then the "pro" is just a tradition with Fujifilm's top of the line models:
The S2. S3 and S5 all "spoke for themselves", in terms of image results, and yet they had "pro" in their name, although their camera bodies were clearly not "pro" like let's say a EOS 1d or Nikon D3 or even d700...
So although I'd prefer to have the "Pro" at least in the end of the name ("x1 pro" instead of Xpro 1"), it is irrelevant in the end, just another ugly camera name.
snowboarder wrote:
One thing is strange to me, everywhere I look people talk about weird problems
with X100, but they are saying the amazing image quality wins over those.
I've been looking for "amazing images" shot with X100 and I can't find them (?).
Even here on this board, the quality of pictures posted by NEX users
is way higher than anything I see from X100. The same with Leica X1.
Is it because there is so many more people here posting NEX images?
It's also probably because of all the great glass people use on NEX,
with X100 you're stuck with one lens, whatever it is...
Can you point me to a webpage with some great shots from X100, please?
Some cameras get out of your way to shoot, some get in your way. In my brief experience with the X100, it was more the latter than the former. 35mm is also not really my cup of tea - I had a hard time creative comps with it. Maybe it's a combination of the two (or more factors) that you're not seeing much?
Ironically the person I sold it to emailed me a few months later to say it developed the sticky aperture issue (thankfully I still had the receipt). I hope Fuji can learn from this with the X(pro)1.
hmm, looking at this more i don't think it'll be able to pull me away from the NEX. it looks like it'll be too big, the viewfinder probably won't be near as good as the NEX for manual focus, and it looks like it won't have a flip up lcd, which i have come to love for waist level and discrete shooting. if it had IBIS, which i haven't seen any mention of, that might still sway me. the lenses look awesome, those are exactly the type of lenses i would choose, but they're autofocus so they're probably not enough to draw me to the system. all autofocus annoys me, but it sounds like the x100's is particularly aggravating. if i hear these lenses have real focus rings i could be tempted...
anyway, it's good to have some more competition in this market segment, hopefully it'll push sony a little harder.
alba63 wrote:
So although I'd prefer to have the "Pro" at least in the end of the name ("x1 pro" instead of Xpro 1"), it is irrelevant in the end, just another ugly camera name.
Agreed -- none of the camera makers are creative with camera their names anyway, and with the few cases where they were (Canon calling their xx0D series "Digital Rebel" in US or "Kiss" in Japan) I haven't been impressed at all.
snowboarder wrote:
One thing is strange to me, everywhere I look people talk about weird problems
with X100, but they are saying the amazing image quality wins over those.
I've been looking for "amazing images" shot with X100 and I can't find them (?).
Even here on this board, the quality of pictures posted by NEX users
is way higher than anything I see from X100. The same with Leica X1.
Is it because there is so many more people here posting NEX images?
It's also probably because of all the great glass people use on NEX,
with X100 you're stuck with one lens, whatever it is...
Can you point me to a webpage with some great shots from X100, please?
There's 30 some odd pages of X100 images in this forum. All in one thread. If you cannot find good images in there, I seriously, and I mean seriously, question your judgement.
rattymouse wrote:
There's 30 some odd pages of X100 images in this forum. All in one thread. If you cannot find good images in there, I seriously, and I mean seriously, question your judgement.
rattymouse wrote:
There's 30 some odd pages of X100 images in this forum. All in one thread. If you cannot find good images in there, I seriously, and I mean seriously, question your judgement.
Ouch. However, I think you misinterpret his comment. I believe he is suggesting that from all the images that are around he really hasn't seen anything that stands out, in his view, as "great", or "amazing" as some people are claiming.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Ouch. However, I think you misinterpret his comment. I believe he is suggesting that from all the images that are around he really hasn't seen anything that stands out, in his view, as "great", or "amazing" as some people are claiming.
That is exactly how I interpreted his comment. My response still stands. If you can't find amazing images amongst those 30 some odd pages, then I question your judgement. And I am not including my own images in that thread.
sebboh wrote:
hmm, looking at this more i don't think it'll be able to pull me away from the NEX. it looks like it'll be too big, the viewfinder probably won't be near as good as the NEX for manual focus, and it looks like it won't have a flip up lcd, which i have come to love for waist level and discrete shooting.
+1
I would add some software issues, that's a given looking at X100, no touch screen,
I wouldn't be surprised if the LCD was not as great as in NEX (I hope it's not
some 460K crap). It will have some charm and an old-school look, but I honestly
prefer the modern NEX approach. Also 1st of all - how easy is it gonna be to use alt lenses.
I think Ricoh might be a more serious competition, if they upgrade the sensor.
Oly is stuck with a 2x crop so out of the question.
Nikon is lost in their stupid idea of self-competition, Canon is completely lost.
It just seems like we are stuck with our NEX cameras
rattymouse wrote:
There's 30 some odd pages of X100 images in this forum. All in one thread. If you cannot find good images in there, I seriously, and I mean seriously, question your judgement.
At the risk of being politically incorrect and presenting myself as "judgment" impaired, could you please point out to me which images in that thread you consider to be "great shots," per the original request? There's a handful of decent images in there, but I couldn't find one image great enough to inspire me to consider the X100.
I would seriously consider the X1 Pro if they release an UWA (i.e. >20mm equivalent) lens for it.
Spyro P. wrote:
I'm sure it does Douglas, but it's not built primarily for MF
When you hold a camera that is made with MF in mind, you know it. Just one look through the VF is usually enough.
plus you get other bonuses like less battery needs, no adapters for proper MF lenses, a simpler machine with no irrelevant buttons and menus, lower cost or more investment in crucial parts like the VF etc
For the MF shooter these are small annoyances that ultimately make one big annoyance.
I've got plenty of manual focus cameras around my house, from rangefinders to Hasselblads, and I'm telling you that there isn't a more complete, better manual focus system than a NEX camera with the tilt LCD and EVF. I shoot the camera just like I would a 30 year old film camera, and it is quite intuitive, if you know how to set it up initially.
I think this new Fuji is super cool. It would most likely be a step back for me if I want to go manual focus, but it has interesting AF implications. Can't wait to find out more.
lordarka wrote:
At the risk of being politically incorrect and presenting myself as "judgment" impaired, could you please point out to me which images in that thread you consider to be "great shots," per the original request? There's a handful of decent images in there, but I couldn't find one image great enough to inspire me to consider the X100.
I would seriously consider the X1 Pro if they release an UWA (i.e. >20mm equivalent) lens for it.
Arka C.
At the risk of being mr smart guy, "great shots" are more a result of the photographer than the equipment. Hence, you have to look at the images and see if you believe the quality of the pictures in combination with the possibilities of the camera are sufficient to create what you call great photos.
That being said, kadamian's pictures (see link below) almost sold me the X100. These results SOOC are pretty amazing, not many cameras can do that. But I must also say that scrolling through the thread looking for those pics showed a lot of really good photos that shows the IQ of the camera.
In comparison with the Nex you must also consider the focal length. It's much easier to find a good normal lens, especially considering the cost, than something that matches the 23/2 lens of the X100. How many great photos taken with the Nex have you seen with a matching lens?
JonasY wrote:
At the risk of being mr smart guy, "great shots" are more a result of the photographer than the equipment. Hence, you have to look at the images and see if you believe the quality of the pictures in combination with the possibilities of the camera are sufficient to create what you call great photos.
Exactly my point. There are great images in both the NEX and X100 threads, but none in the NEX thread which I would attribute to the camera, and few in the X100 thread. I regularly see images in the ZE/ZF/ZM, Zeiss and Leica M threads which would have been meh without the fantastic cameras and lenses in those systems. There is nothing wrong with that, using the equipment to its best is one way of arriving at an excellent result, and certainly not everyone can even pull it off.
The opposite actually, i see some amazing images in the nex thread because of the weak aa filter. I also see some great images in the x100 thread because of the great iso performance. X100 images never appear crisply sharp to me but that lens has its own rendering characteristics that are pleasing, its smoother.
JonasY wrote:
........
That being said, kadamian's pictures (see link below) almost sold me the X100. These results SOOC are pretty amazing, not many cameras can do that. But I must also say that scrolling through the thread looking for those pics showed a lot of really good photos that shows the IQ of the camera.
There are some amazing shots on that page alone. I don't own an X100, but from images I have seen I think its very capable. Those of you who are saying that there aren't incredible images in that X100 thread must have insanely high standards, and that's coming from someone who has posted three 5d vs 5N image threads here, obsessively looking at the differences between the two sensors.
