I own an XP1 and X100s. I've never owned the X100, but if it's AF is as slow as my XP1 then I'd definitely opt for the X100s (for my needs). I have a toddler who runs around with his cousin and snapping photos on the XP1 is frustrating unless I'm shooting my 18mm at f5.6 -8 or so.
If AF performance is important then get the X100s otherwise I think the X100 would make a great camera and save you some money.
I wrestled with this as well and decided the x100 would be worth getting to check it out. If I don't like it it won't be hard to recoup and the lot I got had a bunch of extras that will work on the s as well. Can't wait to get my hands on it.
luminosity wrote:
The X100s's autofocus isn't much better than an X100 with updated firmware.
In my brief experience I would say it is just enough better to make a substantial difference in how I use the camera.
Shooting people standing still in decent or even somewhat poor light was never a problem with the x100. Shooting while walking, or shooting people in the street walking towards me was absolutely impossible with the x100. Not so with the x100s.
But I manually focus most of the time with my SLR cameras, in fact I only own 1 or 2 AF lenses. So being able to MF reliably is a massive improvement, at least for me.
Also love that they finally sorted the MF-AF switch. That and the af selector button going to the right side means I rarely have to take the camera away from my face.
DTOB wrote:
That seems a bit narrow minded. I've seen some amazing photos come out of all kinds of x-trans cameras and I'm sure you have too.
It's a terrible sensor, and I'll keep on saying that until X-Trans sensors go away, or until RAW converters for them catch up to their Bayer counterparts.
The X100 has a beautiful sensor. The X100s does not, to put it charitably.
Also, no, I have not seen any "amazing photos" from any X100s.
luminosity wrote:
It's a terrible sensor, and I'll keep on saying that until X-Trans sensors go away, or until RAW converters for them catch up to their Bayer counterparts.
The X100 has a beautiful sensor. The X100s does not, to put it charitably.
Please back off on the X-Trans sensors already, I very much doubt that they are going any place anytime soon.
luminosity wrote:
It's a terrible sensor, and I'll keep on saying that until X-Trans sensors go away, or until RAW converters for them catch up to their Bayer counterparts.
The X100 has a beautiful sensor. The X100s does not, to put it charitably.
Also, no, I have not seen any "amazing photos" from any X100s.
Who do you think you are punishing by posting like this? Fuji, or the people who enjoy using their cameras?
Also, I find it a bit amusing that you say how terrible it is, but then acknowledge that it is more a problem with the raw converters than anything else.
I've only had mine a couple days. I am sure I can learn to work around it's shortcomings/limitations and make just as many memorable photos with it as I did with my x100, but quite likely more.
I'm definitely going a bit too far. But, I will say that it results in part from feeling like I was fooled by all the great press the X100s got early on, which is when I got my X100s I feel like the hype didn't match the actual camera. I'd like people to see that there's more than just glowing reviews about it.
Fuji made a choice to use a type of sensor that no RAW converter has to really deal with, despite many attempts at it. This is also problematic to me because they had such a great sensor in the X100 and then didn't build on it. They just went with the X-Trans system, which seems tremendously overrated to me.
The autofocus isn't much better than the X100's if you have the firmware updates for the latter. The three things that are better about the X100s are the EVF, the manual focus, and the overall speed of the camera (i.e. the menus and such).
luminosity wrote:
I'm definitely going a bit too far. But, I will say that it results in part from feeling like I was fooled by all the great press the X100s got early on, which is when I got my X100s I feel like the hype didn't match the actual camera. I'd like people to see that there's more than just glowing reviews about it.
Fuji made a choice to use a type of sensor that no RAW converter has to really deal with, despite many attempts at it. This is also problematic to me because they had such a great sensor in the X100 and then didn't build on it. They just went with the X-Trans system, which seems tremendously overrated to me.
The autofocus isn't much better than the X100's if you have the firmware updates for the latter. The three things that are better about the X100s are the EVF, the manual focus, and the overall speed of the camera (i.e. the menus and such). ...Show more →
Well now this is a post I can appreciate. Thanks for elaborating on your thoughts.
I've still got my x100 and just added the x100s. I'll be shooting them both for a couple weeks before I decide what's what. I can say, that even if I do prefer the files from the x100, I will be staying with the x100s, strictly because of the improved usability.
Got my x100 and I really dig this camera. It's a nice substitute to my 7D and L lenses when I need something compact. The images I'm able to make with it are astounding. While having the newer and somewhat nicer features of the x100s would've been nice I think for the money the x100 was the better choice.
Smackeral wrote:
Got my x100 and I really dig this camera. It's a nice substitute to my 7D and L lenses when I need something compact. The images I'm able to make with it are astounding. While having the newer and somewhat nicer features of the x100s would've been nice I think for the money the x100 was the better choice.
The x100 is no slouch, and at the prices they are going for used the represent a tremendous value. I think you hit the nail on the head: "newer and somewhat nicer features of the x100s".
It isn't a massive jump, but something you might come to appreciate a year or 2 down the line after you are well versed with the x100.
I owned both an X 100 and now an X100s. I love the X100s and shoot it more often than my other two X cams.
I would love to try an X 100 with the newest firmware. I thought that its sensor had it's strengths, and would like to see what the latest firmware has added.
I owned an X100 and then upgraded it when the X100S came out, due to the better EVF and better MF/AF. When I sold the X100, the most recent FW wasn't out yet, so I hadn't seen the AF improvements, etc.
I like my X100S, but I sometimes wish I still had my X100. I can't quantify it, but the files from the original seemed to have a special "feel" to them in terms of color, exposure and contrast that I don't seem to get with the S. It could just be in my head!
I bought the first X100, sold it, and after a year or so I find myself missing it so much on certain occasions. So after the latest firmware update, I bought back a new X100 (on a deal with Euro version package that comes with leather case and a flash, for about $700).
Besides the normal traits people talked about, I find the video output very pleasing, with this cinematic color tone that's hard to replicate with other cameras. One other thing I find is that video playback directly in X100 has a lot more shadow details which are lost when I play it on computer, still not sure what it is...
It's the aluminum 24inch iMac and I thought I calibrated it (although this is long time back).
The dark tone in video definitely feels clipped when I playback on my computers (e.g. hair, shadow..), almost feels like someone put a S-curve on it and drop too much in the shadow...
I would try reprofiling the monitor first and see if that changes anything. If not, then the video conversion/playback software would be the next thing to look at. I can't imagine that the video file actually changes after it has been recorded to the camera.
