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!
carstenw wrote:
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.
And, another perspective is that it is common that good design (re. hand/tool interface) tends to coalesce on certain common approaches. I see more of this aspect than Fuji blatantly ripping off Leica's design, personally—itself subject to many iterations that got closer and closer to perfection. They didn't get everything perfect, remember; don't forget the film loading system.
The barnack loading system wasn't much fun. The reason for the M being bottom loading is rigidity/durability, a compromise. As you may know the R8/9 are rear loading, and are older cameras than the M7. But then we're only talking aesthetics right? Since that is all the Fuji shares with a rangefinder
Kit Laughlin wrote:
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)?
True. I'm really curious to see what the files look like from this X100.
I would love for the Fuji X100 to live up to everyone's expectations. A FF version would be superb, preferably with interchangeable lenses. Having so much hype in the pre sales, I just hope they deliver now. The design concept is excellent, and hopefully this translates to great IQ, that is a step above what is already in the market.
charles.K wrote:
I would love for the Fuji X100 to live up to everyone's expectations. A FF version would be superb, preferably with interchangeable lenses. Having so much hype in the pre sales, I just hope they deliver now. The design concept is excellent, and hopefully this translates to great IQ, that is a step above what is already in the market.
They clearly state that this is a IQ oriented camera, with maximum compactness.
With that in mind compromises must be made.
The sensor is aligned with the lens, thus the lack of IS and interchangeable lens.
A compact high quality 35mm equivalent f2 was achieved.
You want FF and interch/ lens? Take you SLR.
You want to get out light with HIGH quality machine? Take this.
For me...IS would have been nice, but i can leave without it. I do now.
All the rest is just perfect if IQ lives up to their promise. I love the style, i love the size. This is a camera to "keep it simple".
I really don't think this looks like a Leica. It may have a retro rangefinder look, but don't think it is one that is necessarily derived from a Leica, but rather a broad range of classic non-SLR cameras. I think however, it will give Leica some competition by out-performing it and under-selling it.
safcraft wrote:
They clearly state that this is a IQ oriented camera, with maximum compactness.
With that in mind compromises must be made.
The sensor is aligned with the lens, thus the lack of IS and interchangeable lens.
A compact high quality 35mm equivalent f2 was achieved.
You want FF and interch/ lens? Take you SLR.
You want to get out light with HIGH quality machine? Take this.
For me...IS would have been nice, but i can leave without it. I do now.
All the rest is just perfect if IQ lives up to their promise. I love the style, i love the size. This is a camera to "keep it simple". ...Show more →
all cameras have sensors aligned with the lens, this is not a reason to forgo IS. it is not a curved sensor. it may or may not have offset microlenses, haven't seen any mention of it, but sensor IS doesn't move the sensor enough to cause problems with those. IS is an extra expense and fuji has never as far as i know made a large sensor camera with IS, so that is likely the real reason for its lack of inclusion. it certainly isn't necessary to take pictures, but it is very nice to have and i am always extremely annoyed when i see a manufacturer give some silly excuse for not having it. given two cameras that are not too far apart in IQ i would always choose the one with IS.
as far as the rest of the camera goes, it looks very attractive to me except for the size. looks to me to be about the size of an old pentax m series. this is certainly an improvement over modern dslrs (someday someone will make a compact dslr again ), but it still doesn't look that great for a jacket pocket and certainly not a cargo pocket. i'll keep my NEX for that.
douglasf13 wrote:
The X100 does have offset microlenses, according to their website.
yeah, i haven't done a thorough reading of the website since my only interest in the camera is a desire for it to do well, thus leading to more similar models from fuji and other producers. as i said, IS sensor movements shouldn't be big enough to cause a problem with microlenses (particularly with such a wide angle of view).
Oh, I agree, and I'm a big fan of sensor IS. Granted, without a mirror and a seemingly small shutter in the lens, it seems the X100 will be able to be handheld at low shutter speeds.
sebboh wrote:
sadly i get the feeling canon and nikon will never include this feature.
Considering the amount of money they have put into lens-based IS/VR, I think they've passed the point of no return (at least from a financial perspective).
corposant wrote:
Considering the amount of money they have put into lens-based IS/VR, I think they've passed the point of no return (at least from a financial perspective).
there is no functionality reason for exclusivity. there might be marketing reasons. i feel like canon/nikon have published enough white papers saying lens based IS is better that releasing a camera body with IBIS wouldn't really hurt the sales of their telephotos with built in IS/VR. unless their planning to suddenly releasing a bunch of short primes with IS/VR i don't think having IBIS would really impact lens sales. although to be fair having tried both i would buy the cheaper lens if i had IBIS, so they would lose a few sales.
but yeah, i don't think they'll ever add it. in which case i will continue complaining loudly about it indefinitely and not buying their products whenever there is a viable alternative.
sebboh wrote:
there is no functionality reason for exclusivity. there might be marketing reasons. i feel like canon/nikon have published enough white papers saying lens based IS is better that releasing a camera body with IBIS wouldn't really hurt the sales of their telephotos with built in IS/VR. unless their planning to suddenly releasing a bunch of short primes with IS/VR i don't think having IBIS would really impact lens sales. although to be fair having tried both i would buy the cheaper lens if i had IBIS, so they would lose a few sales.
but yeah, i don't think they'll ever add it. in which case i will continue complaining loudly about it indefinitely and not buying their products whenever there is a viable alternative....Show more →
I'm not really talking about exclusivity, more that they have put all their stabilization R&D into lens-based VR, so to reverse course and develop a sensor-based model will both waste a lot of money and "admit defeat."
), but it still doesn't look that great for a jacket pocket and certainly not a cargo pocket. i'll keep my NEX for that.