No reason to be disappointed, that Sony sensor is one of the best available right now, especially if you want to work at high ISO. It was the sensor on the Pentax K-x, which for some time was the APS-C camera with best low light performance on the market, and it was a $500 DSLR!
At DxOmark.com the top 3 APS-C cameras by score are the Nikon D90, Nikon D5000 and Pentax K-x, all of which feature this Sony sensor. They are ahead of cameras such as the Canon 1D mkIII and 5D or the Leica M9.
Fuji sensor would have been better.
Fuji haven't updated their APS-C Super CCD in a long, long time. If they planned to, I suspect they'd put into an S7 Pro (or whatever the S5 successor would be called), not into this little X100 side project they cooked up this year.
If they were to use the sensor from other company, Kodak would have been much better too.
This isn't a landscape camera, it's a carry-around, inconspicuous street camera, and as such, will often be shot at high ISO. It needed to be a CMOS sensor, not a CCD (which is what Kodak make). And as Tariq notes, the Kodak sensor would have been a lot more expensive than the Sony.
Miserere wrote:
Fuji have said it's "custom made", which you wouldn't say unless you ordered it from someone else. After all, if you make it yourself, by definition it's "custom made". Fuji manufactures EXR CCDs for their compacts, but in the X100 they explicitly say the processor is EXR, not the sensor.
But let's cut to the chase, it's 12.3MP, and CMOS, so I would say the manufacturer has to be Sony. Sony also has a track record of making "custom" sensors for others, like Nikon.
When I hear the term "it's custom made" I take that to mean built by some else to my specs. In other words, they don't have an off-the-shelf product for Fuji, so they have to custom make it to Fuji's requirements. I've never heard it implied as you say.
Not saying you're wrong though, maybe the phrase means a different thing in the NH?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
When I hear the term "it's custom made" I take that to mean built by some else to my specs. In other words, they don't have an off-the-shelf product for Fuji, so they have to custom make it to Fuji's requirements. I've never heard it implied as you say.
Not saying you're wrong though, maybe the phrase means a different thing in the NH?
I think it's a case of yes and no Sony have the machines ready for manufacturing 12.3MP sensors, then whoever's buying them can probably change some specifications, but the overall manufacturing process and underlying technology remains the same. Like you might buy a car and have it customised so it's the colour you want, the upholstery is leather and it has the audio system you like. It's customised for you, but the car is, in essence, the same as the "standard" model.
One thing that was clearly customised were the lenslets over each photosite, which Fuji have said are offset towards the edges.
In any case, I'm just giving my thoughts as to why I believe the sensor is manufactured by Sony, and why I think that's a good thing.
Spyro P. wrote:
Yeah I read Thom's comments. He bags the camera because the hotshoe and tripod socket are not in the centre
Umm. While I would totally "bag' the camera becuase of these features, they are certainly not optimal. I wouldn't be so fussy about the hot-shoe, but the tripod socket should definitely be centered on the lens axis. It's a shame they could not do this. It's probably becuase the space needed in the center was being taken up by lens/lens mechanisms -- it a trade-off for a compact design. You could compensate with a tripod bracket/rail.
" there are numerous design flaws I see in just looking at the prototype. Indeed, the front looks overly retro, but the back looks like a very busy and poorly thought out kludge between digital and retro rangefinder. Little touches, like the tripod socket and flash shoe being offset from the center of the lens shows that the engineers who designed it don't actually shoot much or think about what users might be interested in. 35mm f/2 is also a relatively conservative choice that isn't exactly where the sweet spot of the market would be, either (either wider or 50mm would do better). But the big problem is that the bar is set high for these fixed-lens, large-sensor compacts: the m4/3 and the Sony NEX bodies do quite well and are much more flexible."
Isolating the tripod and hotshoe alone isn't exactly fair?
I'm surprised Thom thinks that the 35mm lens (equiv.) isn't the right choice. I'm a 50mm (equiv.) guy myself, but 35mm tends to be a popular focal length...especially for Leica shooters.
He doesn't mention how the "busy" back could be improved. I think it looks fine. The 35/2 bashing is really just personal preference. The Hexar AF did pretty well (as did many many FLRFs with 35s and 40s) so I think he's wrong there as well. He is right about the m43 and NEX bodies doing very well, but this is a very different concept. The hybrid VF is really what sets this camera apart. Many photographers I know prefer to put the camera up to their eye and crappy clip-on EVFs just don't cut it.
Sam N wrote:
He doesn't mention how the "busy" back could be improved. I think it looks fine. The 35/2 bashing is really just personal preference. The Hexar AF did pretty well (as did many many FLRFs with 35s and 40s) so I think he's wrong there as well. He is right about the m43 and NEX bodies doing very well, but this is a very different concept. The hybrid VF is really what sets this camera apart. Many photographers I know prefer to put the camera up to their eye and crappy clip-on EVFs just don't cut it.
I never thought the back looked busy. In fact, the only button I find superfluous is the 'RAW" button. As for the focal length, I agree that it's a preference; I would have liked 40mm-equiv., others 28mm-equiv., but 35mm-equiv. is a middle of the road value that will probably please many shooters, while others like me will have to adapt and make do. Oh the sacrifices we make
But what I was really quoting you for was to emphasise that the HVF is what differentiates this camera and makes it different to other MILCs. And it's the feature that's going to sell this camera more than any other.
" there are numerous design flaws I see in just looking at the prototype. Indeed, the front looks overly retro, but the back looks like a very busy and poorly thought out kludge between digital and retro rangefinder. Little touches, like the tripod socket and flash shoe being offset from the center of the lens shows that the engineers who designed it don't actually shoot much or think about what users might be interested in. 35mm f/2 is also a relatively conservative choice that isn't exactly where the sweet spot of the market would be, either (either wider or 50mm would do better). But the big problem is that the bar is set high for these fixed-lens, large-sensor compacts: the m4/3 and the Sony NEX bodies do quite well and are much more flexible."
Well, given the already thousands of posts of enthusiastic potential buyers - far, far more than I've noticed for any other non SLR - it seems he is way off in his remarks about the 35/2. It might be precisely the sweet spot even if it is conservative (by no means mutually exclusive). The Leica X1 uses an approximate 35mm fov - albeit a feeble full stop slower - and is a premium product, selling well. You can buy a 50mm equivalent on the Ricoh gadget, but that's not selling well it seems, we'll have to see about the new (after-thought) 28mm.
For me, and I guess from their remarks, for many others, the m4/3 and Sony Nex bodies just don't cut it given their kludgy optical viewfinder solutions or the alternative of trying to compose from a rear screen at arms length - awkward enough in optimal conditions and pitiful in sunlight.
As for his design remarks, well, I think he's just searching for reasons to be niggardly and exposing the limits of his aesthetic development.
I guess there's no point arguing when it comes to what is important in a camera, everybody has their own opinion. Time will tell if the misaligned tripod socket will keep people from buying this camera.
- Front looks overly retro...Check!
- Tripod socket offset from the center of the lens... Check!
- Flash shoe offset from the center of the lens... Check!
- 35mm f/2 which isn't the sweet spot of the market... Check!
- Not flexible like the m4/3 and the Sony NEX bodies... Check!
Looks like my Leica M4 was designed by engineers who didn't actually shoot much or think about what users might be interested in. Oh, well, time to load some more Fuji Press 800.
Yeah, this talk about flexibility is just stupid. There are thousands of "flexible" cameras already. I'd buy this one becaus it's NOT flexible. I hate flexibility.
If you want a knife, you don't buy a swiss army knife. That's not a knife.
Then why do so many of us buy DSLRs? They are the swiss army knives of photodom. Flexible compromises.
I find that I make better photos with more limited equipment, such as my Contax 645 or my Linhof Master Technika. The less flexible, the more it focuses the mind on certain opportunities. This is also behind the success of cameras like the Leica M6. Really not flexible, but amazingly good at a few things.
I think for certain kinds of street/reportage/candid type photography where you need to be quick and ready at all times there are benefits to the single-lens approach, you learn your lens inside out and you can make most decisions re framing, dof, perspective/how far from subject you want to be before you even bring the camera to your eye.
For other photographers who can afford to take their time maybe this advantage is not so relevant.
Personally when I change focal length I feel like I have to rediscover the wheel and my end result definitely suffers for a while, sometimes weeks. But maybe I'm just stupid
Sony have the machines ready for manufacturing 12.3MP sensors, then whoever's buying them can probably change some specifications, but the overall manufacturing process and underlying technology remains the same. Like you might buy a car and have it customised so it's the colour you want, the upholstery is leather and it has the audio system you like. It's customised for you, but the car is, in essence, the same as the "standard" model.
)
Sep 25, 2010 at 12:15 AM