Dan Nikon: Wow, this has made a huge difference. I am getting focus hits in low light on par with my D700 now. The MF focus ring which I almost never use is actually usable. This is by far the best update they have done. It makes what I consider the best digital reportage camera even better. Thanks Fuji!!
Depends on how you use it, I don't try to focus with it, just fine tune it.
Wow, this has made a huge difference. I am getting focus hits in low light on par with my D700 now. The MF focus ring which I almost never use is actually usable. This is by far the best update they have done. It makes what I consider the best digital reportage camera even better. Thanks Fuji!!
Nice, but a 14-24 Nikkor is certainly no slouch!
gipper51: It's a sad day to see the company that was synonymous with photography in such a state. Few companies in history have had as much impact on their industry as Kodak. It's a shame.
Why, that they are getting out of the digital rat race? They are applying their strengths to their business model, and they make incredible films. I just got done printing an entire edition of 10 x 10's and 15 x 15's made on TMX, awesome stuff that digital can NOT touch when printed in a real darkroom.
Interesting that you left out the most important and best part, Kodak is still going to make film, a niche that serves them and Ilford well and keeps us real fine art photographers set with all the options we need to stay in business. Not that many on this site would care, but many of us pros use fillm along side of digital and will continue to do so. As cited in the BJP:
Disagree, HDR is garbage that does not have any place in photojournalism, this is a sad day for real photography.
Lea5: It is the end, but there will be an new beginning.
It reminds me of another one big company, Francke & Heidecke who produced the Rolleiflex. They went out of business in 2009. Another company bought them and will produce new cameras in the future. I think with Kodak it will be the same. I guess the Company will be split, the filmline will completely die and the new owner will focus on competitive digital cameras.
Actually it will hopefully be the other way around, Kodak will get out of the rat race printer and digital business and realize a much more realistic and streamlined film business, which happens to be profitable now. Ilford does not even make color film or film for the motion picture industry and they showed a profit in the past two years.
Peiasdf: Maybe if those old guard film shooters stopped buying film and moved to digital years ago, the shock might have jolted Kodak to refocus and it would have survived as a company.
Something for the "film is superior to digital" and "I am young, I am hip and I shoot film" crowd to think about.
I'm glad you wrote this twice, because I could not believe how lame it was the first time I read it. Just because a craftsman who works with wood used particle board on one side of a desk does not mean he never uses oak again, get it?
For example, in 1994, I helped lead a larger midwest newspaper to go fully digital in using a pair of then cutting edge Kodak / AP NC2000 digital cameras based on the Nikon N90 body with a 1.3 megapixel, less than DX sized sensor. Since then, some 18 years later, I have shot close to a million digital images.
But I never left film, never will, use it more and more every day actually and now shoot only about 20% of my work on digital per year.
So in short, what you wrote up above is digital fan boy garbage.
Maxfield_photo: This is heartbreaking news. Every photographer here, whether they know it or not, and whether they admit it or not has had their craft profoundly influenced by Kodak. We owe them a lot.
It is ironic that they invented the beast that eventually killed them, but what is truly sad is that young photographers, just a few years from now, will not be able to experience the joy of shooting a roll of Kodak film. Here's hoping for a miracle.
It is heartbreaking Max, but there will be Kodak film in black and white around for a number of years, there is a lot of existing stock and some deep pockets around that will do like I have and buy it up and store it sub-zero. Compared to my relatively dinky stash of 3,000 rolls, I have friends who are going to be storing many times that amount. Add to that the fact that the film division of Kodak is the most profitable, it could very well be spun off to a more manageable and profit realistic venture that could be around for many years. This could be the beginning of what really matters to many...
Gregm61: Sad, but hardly suprising. They did it to themselves by keeping their head in the sand and not shifting to digital imaging soon enough. They could have disappeared 5 years ago and I never would have known it. I think 2004 was the last year I bought a roll of film of any brand.
T3, you need to broaden your horizons then in terms of what kids you talk to, I get SO many young photo enthusiasts who come up and talk to me about the cameras I use and say they love shooting film because it gets them away from what has been rammed down their throats since birth as being the second coming, digital and the internet. I also teach workshops based around real photography in real darkrooms using real film, more than have of those who participate are younger than 30 and up to 25% are younger than 25. Seems like you need to get out more...in the real world, not the garbage internet one.
Solarcoaster: All together now,
"FILM IS DEAD!!!"
Glad you got that out of your system, because obviously, film is far from dead.
mister_roboto: I've still got an old roll of Tech-pan in the fridge... I think I may bust that sucker out finally.
I have about 400 rolls of TP in 120 and 35mm, last batch, awesome stuff.
The Film division of Kodak is still profitable, like Ilford's. So hopefully it will remain in production via either a streamlined Kodak or another buyer takes it over. I spent a couple grand on Tmax 100 and Tri-X and related chemistry a couple months ago just in case. The day I can no longer shoot film is the day I get out of photography, but I don't see that happening since film use is a nice niche now...
Nice lens but, these photos have Canon 85 1.2L for thousands cheaper written all over them. At least you have a feel for the lens. I think it is dubbed the 95 for reasons other than the aperture though, 95% of the photos one sees from this hidden gem are cr@p with a slightly unique twist.
Keith Pulver: Dear Dan Nikon and foto2021,
Sorry if I have somehow offended you by offering my opinion of this camera. I admit I was plain HOT for this jewel when I first saw it - it reminded me of my beloved old Leica II - but glad I waited.
I still stand by my opinion (even though I learn my living in SW not photography). This, and all digital cameras, are essentially computers that record images. Granted the photographers vision is the essential ingredient but as I stated in my earlier post - pilot, soldier or photographer should not have to loose focus of the vision in order to focus on system operations. Fuji knows this very well and could have avoided all the hassles with a little quality design before development and quality process during development.
I am happy to hear you have developed "work arounds" that allow you to produce you vision using the Fuji, but no one should be forced to adapt to the technology, rather the technology should adapt to humanity.
Hi Keith, sorry about the toasting,
I just get perturbed at how these things get out of control to the point that the negative statements take a camera and camera maker to task when ultimately, no camera maker ever wants to miss the mark on a product. And to that end, not even icons like the M6, F-1, F2,3,4,5 & 6 are without critics as well, but they did have a fair "Shakedown-time" in respect to their now digital counterparts.
Maybe the internet perhaps prematurely affects companies that by all accounts, are trying to do right with their customers and with somewhat unfair consequences.dpreview is great in some ways and flat out destructive in others in terms of perceptions and customer relations....it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt and in a round about way, it could end up being the customer who is actually satisfied with the product.
Quite a few X100 users find it excellent as is for their needs and are committed to it being more patient in waiting for fixes...
Keith Pulver: The modern digital camera computer is a combination of glass, sensor and UI-WX. The Fuji was intended to be a high-end luxury, travel-street camera...and it is...but only in physical appearance.
As a S/W Designer and a Certified S/W Quality Auditor I can say this camera would never have passed an aircraft flight-certification, a satellite-camera certification or a weapons certification. This Fuji and most cameras are still in the "Control-Alt-Delete while hopping on one foot" mode - with too many features and not nearly enough UI-UX designed in from the beginning.
Computers ought allow the user, be they pilot or soldier or photographer to "focus on the target and not on the system."
Maybe we are all so intrigued by the very notion of digital photography and digital darkrooms that we have failed to demand "Best Practice for Best Price" from the manufacturers who seem to respond simply to "more features" much like a fast-food chain promising more calories instead of a better life..
...So in short, if you are an actual photographer, one with talent for seeing the world through the camera rather than the world AS a camera, then the X100 might be for you. Don't expect this to be the jack of all trades, it is not nor was it designed to be.
If Fuji does not come out with another firmware update, I will say the camera is darn near perfect for what I need it to do. This is not really a camera for the masses or even most amateurs, dilettantes as it requires you to know what the heck you are doing. This is instead a camera for professionals or amateurs who can operate in that rarified level of making the camera a subconsciously resting tool in their hand as they keep seeing the world in front of them unfold and make brilliant imagery because of it.
This is not a camera for pixel peepers, Internet Gear Review Heros or Software Developers, this is a camera for photographers, period. Trust me, if you are a talented photojournalist, you will want this camera....
OK, I guess it's time for an actual photographer to chime in rather than the legions of "People With Cameras" who think or say they are or the ones who outright admit they are not photographers by saying they are a software developer as is the case here.
As a full time, professional , non-wedding shooting photographer, read, REAL photographer, I have owned and used the Fuji X100 since May 24th. In that time I have shot over 6,000 photographs with it in light from full sunlight in snow to low light in dark rooms. With the exception of a couple of now very minor issues of menu diving for things I change on an occasion, the camera has performed flawlessly and certainly beyond the expectations I had in reading all the tech-head-test garbage on this and other sites.
I don't use manual focus ever, I simply use AF-S with the smaller and more precise box and then lock it with the rear button. The jpeg output and AWB are outstanding, the photographs I make with it, perfect.....
opticaloptimum: The sad thing is that software cannot fix the X100's main weakness: that the lens is very soft when wide open, especially when focussed close. This is stated clearly in the DPReview review and is evident in the review's photo of a little girl, whose face is not sharp even though in the centre of the picture. What is the point of having a f2.0 lens if it cannot take sharp pictures? The main use of f2.0 for me would be portraits where the face is sharp but the background is out of focus. In my opinion the X100 fails in this respect. It seems that Fuji gave keeping the lens small priority over being sharp.
It would seem you don't even own the camera, ok...well what you have to say really makes no sense...
I have owned the X100 for exactly one month to date. I have had it in tow on 6 assignments in everything from starlight to Dutch Master's light. The lens is sharp at F/2, no question, in the majority of the center. In fact it is actually decent in the corners if the object falls within the focal plane due to curvature of field. Even the starlight shots showed comparable sharpness and coma to a good full frame lens from Nikon or Canon, with good contrast too. It's No Leica or Nikon 35 1.4, but it is *very* good, better than any point and shoot lens for sure.
Buy the camera, shoot some kick A$$ pictures that show talent more than sharp bricks. You know, the kind where the light is striking. Then and only then will you see what any lens is capable of...
The MF ring speed is still slow, but the AF is much improved in low light. Between that and the ISO consistency from mode to mode, I am pretty happy. Now put Auto-ISO on the ISO menu and this thing will be darn near perfect...