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 19,040 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 9 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 3,120 posts
    Seen 20 hours 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 3,120 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Doesn't appear to have IS - is that right?
  • smoothpete 15 Dec 2010 14:18:21 31,471 posts
    Seen 10 seconds 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 13,173 posts
    Seen 2 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 31,471 posts
    Seen 10 seconds 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 31,471 posts
    Seen 10 seconds 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 22,419 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 3,476 posts
    Seen 1 week 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 3,120 posts
    Seen 20 hours 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 31,471 posts
    Seen 10 seconds 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 3,120 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Yup, I have a 6 month rule, which did for my macro, my 55-250 and my 10-22!
  • kalel 15 Dec 2010 15:30:10 86,812 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    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 3,120 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Really? Lenses only drop a certain amount though surely?
  • kalel 15 Dec 2010 17:10:19 86,812 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    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 3,120 posts
    Seen 20 hours 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 31,471 posts
    Seen 10 seconds 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 19,040 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Have you seen any reviews or uk prices Pete?

    Paintings & Photographs

  • smoothpete 21 Dec 2010 15:28:44 31,471 posts
    Seen 10 seconds ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    No and no. Shiny thing look nice. ;)
  • Lukus 21 Dec 2010 15:30:33 19,040 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 9 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 31,471 posts
    Seen 10 seconds 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 31,471 posts
    Seen 10 seconds 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 3,120 posts
    Seen 20 hours 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 3,120 posts
    Seen 20 hours 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