Well there you go, I don't think you're in the position to conclusively say "it isn't required", fully stop. For your shooting, no, you've explained how you don't need it. But it does have a place, it can be very useful even at these shorter focal lengths for some people. Nothing personal, I just don't like the way Fuji worded it
luminosity wrote:
None. I've never used one and don't feel a need to use one. I rely on that ancient method of stabilizing my lenses: I shoot with a shutter speed that's twice the focal length of the lens. I either increase my ISO to compensate or, if I'm shooting film, I either shoot anyway or just let the shot go.
Neither have I: normally shoot with 35mm lens or shorter; using Nikon F2 with its smooth shutter release and camera weight, I can safely shoot at 1/60 sec with ISO 100-200, and get sharp images.
The promotional website, however, detracts from that. At almost every step where a serious decision was made, they chose the Leica way. The little lever on the front, the top plate engraving, the silver/black, the whole thing is obviously a copy of the Leica M.
Yet all the little differences to the M were somehow less successful. The many odd curves in the top plate is one place. The cheap-looking plastic bit around the viewfinder is another. The one wheel the Leica does not have, the exposure compensation wheel, looks out of place (although it will probably work well enough). The aperture ring too close to the body (the Leica's is at the front). The overflow of buttons on the back. The thumbwheel with its odd-looking dent in the metal around it. The too-narrow flash masquerading as the light window for the rangefinder. The little flanges coming out from the hotshoe. The unnecessary bevel at the left end of the top plate. The odd indentation in the top plate around the viewfinder. And so on. It seems that each time they deviated from the Leica's traditional form, they lost something.
The camera is still very interesting, and I am still considering getting one, but I would wish that if they are going to so openly copy the Leica, that they would at least make improvements with each deviation, instead of subtracting from the purity of the concept. The understated simplicity of the Leica is still vastly more elegant.
The viewfinder (the inside, not the outside) is the one place where I think they might have made a step forward, but the depiction on the site make it look slightly busy. Surely they could have simplified that too, without making it less informative.
After seeing a camera like this, regardless of whether I end up buying it or not, I come away not with wonder at the cleverness of the Fuji engineers, but with awe for the Leica engineers, who made a camera more pure, more beautiful, than this one in 1954, and a worthy digital successor in 2006. If this camera succeeds, a large part of this success is owed to Leica. Imagine if this camera had exactly the same functionality, but was just black plastic, like almost everything else in this class from Japan. How attractive would it be then?
Carstenw
The Beatles used music from blues players from the 40's and 50's for inspiration
and Bob Dylan and Jimmy Hendrix etc etc
and they created wonderful music...
So what else is new...?
this is new... http://www.finepix-x100.com/story/viewfinder?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=jan
even if it looks like a very good German camera from the past
"Old" things must past...
Yes, but the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix didn't almost copy it, with just a slight, unsuccessful change. They used the basic notes in a whole new style. The Fuji doesn't.
Yes, as I mentioned, the viewfinder is very interesting. I will be interested to try it and see if there is an improvement there.
If old things must pass, then why doesn't Fuji design a new camera in new clothes?
I'm not really seeing "Leica copy" at all. There were countless cleanly designed, simple rangefinders in the 70s. This just takes the overall concept and modernizes. I think they did a great job adding modern controls without going overboard, but obviously haven't held one to truly judge.
edit: Also, if it was black plastic, that would be just fine with me. Metal is nice, but so is plastic. Look at the Hexar AF. If that camera had a shutter speed of 1/4000 (even 1/1000) I'd have one!
I don't think the X100 looks any more like an M camera than most other rangefinder cameras, and Fuji has been making their own rangefinders for quite a long time. The X100 reminds me a lot of the more affordable rangefinders from the 60's/70's, like my Olympus 35 SP.
I guess I just haven't seen these previous rangefinders in black/chrome with top-plate engraving and all the other little details which make an M so unmistakable. Any links?
Re. internal ND filters: pro video cameras have had these for 15+ years; very effective and extremely useful.
And who could not agree re. the hybrid finder—not particularly complex technically, but what a user experience it will be!
And @ Tariq: if this thing really takes off, I can see Fuji bringing out an interchangeable lens model quickly, and then who's to say that it might not compete with DSLRs—or even surpass them in ways (in-lens shutter, for example, and the finder)?
carlitos wrote:
Neither have I: normally shoot with 35mm lens or shorter; using Nikon F2 with its smooth shutter release and camera weight, I can safely shoot at 1/60 sec with ISO 100-200, and get sharp images.
i have wished for stabilization at this focal length countless times, and i have no difficulty handholding it down to at least 1/20 sec. also f/2 1/60 sec at iso 200 would severely underexpose half the images i take. obviously this would be useful for some people and not others depending on shooting style, but is there any reason not to want the option?
Douglas, I guess the Hexar RF Limited comes close. The others look kinda cheap, and apart from the black/chrome thing and the necessity of a rangefinder window somewhere, don't look much like the Leica M. The thing is that if you delta the look of the X100 with these cameras, some of the things which make it different are steps towards the M look, like the little film-rewind lever repurposed. Anyway, it is clearly an attractive camera, I just wish that the viewfinder new-think could have been applied to the look as well.
The M benefits from having been the first of something, which means that anything that came after was naturally going to look at least partly imitative.
luminosity wrote:
The M benefits from having been the first of something, which means that anything that came after was naturally going to look at least partly imitative.
Yes, and it was a nice design too, especially for the time. I suppose these other cameras could be said to be derivative as well. I don't mind in general, really, I just wish it wouldn't be so blatant with the X100. At least these other cameras belonged to an older era.
1banger wrote:
Yes, they could make it like the Pentax K-5. Sensor does the stabilizing. So. it does not matter which lens you use, as long as you can mount it!
Now if we could just get a FF with this feature.
um, both sony FF cameras have this feature, or did you mean from pentax?
sadly i get the feeling canon and nikon will never include this feature.
