Fuji X100 will be my next camera. Page 2

  • Page

    of 8 First / Last

  • Deleted user 14 December 2010 15:52:14
    Luxury item indeed.

    Old video cameras had 2 ND filters you could rotate manually or electromechanically by a button. One was ND1 the other was ND2 and they could even be combined for taking the brightness down 3 full steps. Can't see why they don't do this in this compact, Fuji has lots of experience from the video cam field.

    I've looked at this and the micro 4:3 format. Compactness and good quality of pictures are my main requirements, zoom would be nice but a fixed pancake lens is okay.

    This is just too expensive though, Samsung is more attractive. Also, Sony NEX-3 and NEX-5 have "full size" APS-C sensors in them.
  • Lukus 14 Dec 2010 15:58:38 19,468 posts
    Seen 42 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    mal wrote:
    What have you got at the moment?

    I don't think the X100 is designed as an upgrade path from compacts, or even as a follow on or second camera for DSLR users. It's a definite luxury item.

    Yeah, its price is far too high to be anything else.

    I have my trusty Powershot G3, which was incredible at the time I bought it and has served me well (other than the faults I've previously mentioned) over the years.

    Paintings & Photographs

  • Nth 15 Dec 2010 07:51:43 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    For a grand you could have an SLR *and* a good compact like an LX5 or S95.
  • Nth 15 Dec 2010 14:12:09 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Doesn't appear to have IS - is that right?
  • smoothpete 15 Dec 2010 14:18:21 31,826 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I might flog my 24-70 2.8L and buy this, if it's any good. I never use that lens anymore.
  • Jeepers 15 Dec 2010 14:25:08 13,313 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    smoothpete wrote:
    I might flog my 24-70 2.8L and buy this, if it's any good. I never use that lens anymore.

    You're a Canon man, aren't you Pete?
  • smoothpete 15 Dec 2010 14:26:53 31,826 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Yeah
  • Deleted user 15 December 2010 14:43:20
    That "L" sort of gave it away. :) What's wrong with the lens, except its size?

    Getting more and more interested in a relatively cheap (sub 400£/600€) compact. Can't decide between the Samsung NX100 + fixed 20mm/2.8 and the Sony NEX-5. The latter has a much better/bigger sensor but has this noob friendly "intelligent" interface that I think will piss me off constantly when using it.
  • smoothpete 15 Dec 2010 14:46:03 31,826 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    valli wrote:
    That "L" sort of gave it away. :) What's wrong with the lens, except its size?
    Nothing, it's fantastic. It's just huge.
  • mal 15 Dec 2010 14:50:43 22,830 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Nth wrote:
    Doesn't appear to have IS - is that right?
    Right. To a certain extent they're right when they say a bright lens at 35mm doesn't need much IS, but it's still nic to have.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • ram 15 Dec 2010 15:04:09 3,488 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    smoothpete wrote:
    I might flog my 24-70 2.8L and buy this, if it's any good. I never use that lens anymore.

    you're a mental!
  • Nth 15 Dec 2010 15:07:04 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    ram wrote:
    smoothpete wrote:
    I might flog my 24-70 2.8L and buy this, if it's any good. I never use that lens anymore.

    you're a mental!
    It's amazing how you change though, if you'd told me even 6 months ago I'd end up being blissfully happy with just a 35mm and 50mm prime I'd have laughed in your face.
  • smoothpete 15 Dec 2010 15:11:08 31,826 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    ram wrote:
    smoothpete wrote:
    I might flog my 24-70 2.8L and buy this, if it's any good. I never use that lens anymore.

    you're a mental!
    What's the point of keeping it though? I don't think I've used it for a year. A grand's worth of lens sat gathering dust
  • Nth 15 Dec 2010 15:28:12 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Yup, I have a 6 month rule, which did for my macro, my 55-250 and my 10-22!
  • Deleted user 15 December 2010 15:30:10
    I’ve got lenses I keep meaning to sell because I don’t use them, but most of them have lost so much value in being second-hand that it seems like there’s more value in keeping them, just in case one day they become useful again.
  • Nth 15 Dec 2010 17:01:38 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Really? Lenses only drop a certain amount though surely?
  • Deleted user 15 December 2010 17:10:19
    Depends on the popularity/rareness of the lens. Expensive ones probably hold their value better, but I reckon you’ll still lose about 30% of what you paid.

    Probably worth it if you’re sure you’ll never use it again, but if you think it might become useful again in years to come, or maybe on a holiday, or if you need to do a wedding etc etc, it might be better value to keep it.

    As for cheap lenses, it’s barely worth the effort of selling them. I’ve got a kit 18-55 lens which I think is about £300 new, but I couldn’t get more then £50 for it so just held onto it.
  • Deleted user 15 December 2010 19:17:08
    Pro lenses (like the L smoothpete wants to dump) stay usually pretty expensive as there's always a demand. Other crap brands like Tamron, Sigma, etc - don't bother. High quality 3rd party are another matter: take a look on Ebay at Leica, Carl Zeiss, Voigtländer, etc.

    With a bit of luck you can find rare originals that become cult lenses: a mate bought a Nikkor 45mm pancake based on the Tessar design - which is a rather poor lens construction AFAIK - yet it costs more now than 10 years ago. Still, nowhere near a Noct Nikkor... look it up on trading sites. :-|
  • Nth 15 Dec 2010 21:47:22 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Do what I do, buy them used then virtually all the depreciation has already happened :)
  • smoothpete 21 Dec 2010 15:25:32 31,826 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Right I'm pretty much set on getting one of these when they come out. I can't quite get my head around how the viewfinder works, but assuming it doesn't annoy me then I'm gonna take the plunge.
  • Lukus 21 Dec 2010 15:26:39 19,468 posts
    Seen 42 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Have you seen any reviews or uk prices Pete?

    Paintings & Photographs

  • smoothpete 21 Dec 2010 15:28:44 31,826 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    No and no. Shiny thing look nice. ;)
  • Lukus 21 Dec 2010 15:30:33 19,468 posts
    Seen 42 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    :D Sometimes you just have to go with your gut. Does sound good though.

    Paintings & Photographs

  • Deleted user 21 December 2010 15:54:51
    smoothpete, you can always attach a old school rangefinder to the flash shoe and fire away. :)
  • smoothpete 21 Dec 2010 15:59:49 31,826 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    How does the manual focussing work on the X100, anyone know? I'm struggling through various articles but the whole viewfinder thing is confusing me

    I nearly bought one of those little rangefinders, they're really cool. My local shop had an old Zeiss one
  • Deleted user 21 December 2010 16:11:42
    They're lovely aren't they? Mine is unfortunately off by 2-3m and I can't seem to be able to turn the correction screw on it.

    No idea how it works, I think I saw a diagram with a rangefinder like optical view that had a transparent prism to super impose a digital display onto it. If that is so, it'll probably get a set of three lamps (too close, spot on, too far) like most DSLRs.

    Just speculation mind you - want to know more about this little darling myself!
  • smoothpete 21 Dec 2010 16:18:21 31,826 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    It can flip between an optical view to a digital view. And it can overlay a settings read out over the optical view (I believe). I just need to be able to manually focus using the optical view, that's one of my priorities
  • Nth 21 Dec 2010 16:19:51 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    smoothpete wrote:
    Right I'm pretty much set on getting one of these when they come out. I can't quite get my head around how the viewfinder works, but assuming it doesn't annoy me then I'm gonna take the plunge.
    I bet they drop by a couple of hundred after 3 months. And I bet they have one huge WTF? idiotic annoyance like most cameras.
  • Deleted user 21 December 2010 16:25:34
    But how can you focus visually if the camera doesn't have a "thru the lens" optical view? IE no mirror/prism?
  • Nth 28 Dec 2010 20:06:54 3,126 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    More viewfinder info here:

    http://gizmodo.com/5719703/fujifilm-x100s-hybrid-viewfinder-combines-optical-clarity-with-lcd-data-overload
  • Page

    of 8 First / Last

Log in or register to reply