FLASH! X100 genre erodes DSLR dominance

Started May 25, 2011 | Discussions thread
theswede
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,936Gear list
Like?
Re: let me try to respond
In reply to antoineb, May 29, 2011

antoineb wrote:

So you don't want to agree we like convenience?

Yes, we do. But we mean different things when we say "convenience". All convenience is tradeoffs; you always give something up to make something else easier. In the case of photography, the end result is a photograph which matches your needs.

Of course it's not an objective measure. But surely, the right number of manual controls for key parameters (Aperture, Shutter, Exposure compensation, ISO, Metering, AF) seems like a good start - or do you disagree here also?

Depends entirely on my needs. For me, those match up pretty well. Zoom, for example, does not.

As for "excellent IQ" - which has nothing to do with "convenience" - many cameras have it these days.

It most definitely does. One of the parameters being traded is image quality. Smaller, more compact lenses generally mean lower IQ, as does smaller sensors, smaller maximum apertures, smaller image processors, lower power consumption etc. Image quality is definitely tied to convenience - usually it inverse.

An old 12mp APS-C sensor (probably the one found on say the Nikon D90, ie made by Sony) is a bit behind what the best can deliver nowadays.

It would be. Luckily that's not what we're talking about.

I'm afraid you make a confusion between "convenient", and "to your taste".

No; you're the one doing that. What YOU find convenient is not necessarily what others, or I, find convenient. Amusing you explain why YOU find it convenient after accusing me of being confused.

The FZ-18 is, really is, in many ways, a very convenient camera (the manual controls could be a bit better, but they're better than on later iterations of the product). A view camera is very in-convenient, but delivers superb IQ.

In may ways, yes. Not in the ways I need, but apparently in the ways you need. For me it would be a bit better than useless, but not that much better. I'd either need a DSLR for the convenience of speed and excellent lenses, or the convenience of portable IQ it does not deliver.

I think a lot of current (or older) DSLRs can do what the X100 can do, for less money or even much less money - they won't be as small and light though (but you say you don't care).

The whole point of the X100 is that it delivers what it does in a small and light package. To me, that is convenience. Thus, a DSLR is in no way a replacement for an X100. It's a better system for some things, but for what I want an X100 for, they're useless. Completely and utterly useless. It doesn't get much more inconvenient than useless.

A Sony NEX or a Panasonic G series also can do the same thing the X100 can do - though manual controls are inferior in the case of the NEX, but on the other hand they give you the option to exchange lenses.

Which matters not at all to me, thus not increasing my convenience. On the other hand, they are not as handy to use, which lessens their convenience. Once again, for me, for the task of walkaround.

Don't worry i don't have a camp: I am very happy that you should be happy with your X100, and find that it was worth the price. I personally, like it (I've played with one in a store) but while I like the BODY and the controls, I like the rest less (especially the slow performance and quirky menus), and so for this price, as far as I'm concerned, it's a no-no. I'll keep looking and either one day buy one when the price will have dropped - or buy a comparable product made by people who have a longer history of better cameras, starting with Canon or Nikon (or Panasonic).

I really hope there will be a lot of competitors in the class. Hopefully it's the first of many in an entirely new segment.

As for the lenses "uniquely matched to the sensor", I'm not sure. It's true that even my humble FZ-18 outperforms many photographic devices, even much more expensive ones, on macro for example. But at the same time, match a good prime on any DSLR and you've got very low distorsion and f1.8 or f1.4 so f2 is really nothing to write home about.

The missing ingredient is proximity to the sensor. A classic DSLR has the sensor far from the rear lense element which means light is not sharply angled when it reaches the sensor. Therefore it can get much better IQ with a simpler, cheaper and more general microlense solution. Once the sensor is closer to the lense things change radically. This is why F2 is really, really fast for such a big sensor in such a small camera.

Conclusion: indeed the X100 doesn't seduce me, at least not at this price. But I'm someone who loves photography, and could afford a D7000 and the 85mm f1.4 and a couple other lenses etc. So the X100 targets people who love photography, and who have enough money, and who are ready to overpay - but normally when I overpay, I do so for a strong, reputable brand, and Fuji isn't one of these.

It fits a niche. If you're not in that niche, it obviously won't seduce you. Me, I've been unable to take the kind of pictures I want with a convenient camera until now (and now I'm learning it's hard even with a tool which can do it). It's taken a DSLR, and that's that, meaning I've either used a camera I can bring and not taken the kind of pictures I like, or lugged a huge camera and been able to take them - but that has been fairly seldom.

But again: happy shooting with your X100, and glad you like it.

Thank you.

Jesper

 theswede's gear list:theswede's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D Sony SLT-A37 Sony 50mm F1.4 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow