captura: Maybe the X100S and T should compared to their APS-C rivals, the Ricoh GR and the Nikon Coolpix 'A.'
Yes and no. In scoring terms they are. But everyone I know who shoots with a GR (or GRD) would never contemplate buying a 35mm equiv camera, while nobody I know with an X100 series considered a 28mm equiv. camera.
Although the principle: large sensor, small(ish) camera with prime lens is similar, the practicalities of the two are rather different.
I specifically called-out the GR as a (for many people) better option than the X100+wide-angle converter, but without accessories, I'd argue each camera is a poor substitute for the other.
mgatov: How is this better than the older Sony RX-1?
Captura - absolutely. I gave the RX1 a Gold award for precisely that reason. Its lens and image quality are better than the X100T's, but the question I answered was 'how is this better than the older Sony RX-1?'
MarkMonckton: DPreview gave the X100s 81% Gold Award.X100T 81% Silver Award?????
The guidelines may not be clear to you, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Here's [an introduction to the scoring system](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained), which should provide some insight.
The scores are based on a 30-point, analysis against each camera's immediate peers, with multiple reviewers having input to try to maximise consistency. It's not perfect, but we don't simply pick a number to stick at the end.
We do, after extensive use of the camera and its peers, pick an award (and explain the logic behind that decision, so that individual readers can decide whether they agree).
A scoring system will always be a much more blunt instrument than the full conclusion which, in turn, is less nuanced than the full review, but we do our best to make it meaningful and consistent.
You're right. *Shallower* would have been more accurate.
FodgeandDurn: Apologies for putting this here instead of the 'report issues' button wherever that is - the intro says this has a "23mm f/2 lens". This actually got me excited, but unfortunately it is an error. If you've divided 35 x 1.5 to give some 35mm equivalence wouldn't it be 50mm equiv?
@tkblslc - 135 film is used as a common reference point, since a lot of people either shot with it or have become used to it being a reference point. It shouldn't be taken to mean that it's an *optimal* format, it's just the best understood one.
In this instance, it's also directly relevant, since the X100T has a full-frame competitor, the RX1(R).
Lou P Dargent - no, the light is not 'concentrated.'
Have a look at the diagram at [the top of this page](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/2):
Let's assume that's a 23mm lens. On a larger format, you'll see more light and a wider field-of-view. On a smaller format you'll see the same light intensity (light per unit area), but you'll only 'see' the central portion of that light.
If you then made an APS-C (or whatever format) version of that lens, you'd just crop off the outer cone of light (so it would no longer work on a larger format), but you wouldn't concentrate the light. Capturing all the light from the outer cone would either mean using a wider-angle lens (a 23mm *equivalent*, rather than a 23mm), or adding an extra, concentrating lens to condense the light down (which is what a SpeedBooster is).
deluk: Is the image on page 4, Classic Chrome or Provia? Typo?
The camera insists that's Classic Chrome. Provia would be more punchy. I'd like to get an example with more blue sky in it, but that's been something of a rarity in Seattle of late.
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: Typo mistake on conclusion page/image quality, the word form should be from: I've rarely found myself thinking 'I think this image would benefit form Vivid mode,...
Only seven pages long review? Where are the 30-40 pages review we use to have? Or is there nothing more to say about today's cameras?
And also, this is only the second review in the last 50 news. Should DPR change it's name to: DPnews?
But good concise review nonetheless.
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: thanks for pointing that out. Rather hard to spot and immune to spellcheckers.
The idea was to concentrate our reviewing efforts on what is different about this camera, compared to its predecessor. The aim was to speed up the review process (hence I've managed to publish two reviews in a week). Unfortunately, it took longer than planned for the X100T to reach the front of the queue.
dynaxx: First para' typo "Its classic look ..... were justified ..." Need a proof reader ?
Argh! My fault.
Embarrassingly, that error has been 'live' since September and you're the first person to highlight it.
pppp: "But there's currently nothing to touch it in terms of the size/price/image quality balance"
YES, there is the Ricoh GR APS-C !
I don't consider 28 and 35mm equiv cameras to be interchangeable (I know several wide-angle shooters who wouldn't look at a 35mm equiv model, while I *personally* wouldn't ever buy a 28mm fixed camera).
As has been pointed out, I explicitly call out the Ricoh GR in the conclusion as being worth serious consideration if you're after a 28mm equiv camera. (I'd recommend it over the X100T+WA converter, unless you need great out-of-camera JPEGs or Wi-Fi).
bigdaddave: I cannot believe the 'Cons' section doesn't mention the elephant in the room - IT ONLY HAS ONE FOCAL LENGTH
In the days when even a compact camera the size of a pack of cigs has a reasonable zoom this 1950's throwback might appeal to the well-heeled but as an actual tool it's far far too limited
But DP love Fuji so they've overlooked the obvious again
Maybe we should have written 'Anyone needing to zoom' in our 'Not so good for:' box on the conclusion page.
Oh, hang on a second, we *did*.
Other than it focusing faster, having a really clever viewfinder, being smaller, offering better battery life, having Wi-Fi and nicer JPEGs, and being cheaper (despite the RX1 being two and a half years old and sold at what looks like end-of-life pricing), not much.
@ProfHankD - reviews are, by definition, subjective. You can't be surprised when the written conclusion and award (which is based on the reviewer's perspective), are subjective. The key thing is that we state *why* we've drawn conclusions, so that you can check whether you agree with them.
AlexisH: "16MP beginning to look low by contemporary standards"
This is beginning to be tiresome. We've been subject to megapixel wars for years and now that companies are finally focusing on developing interesting products (like this X100T), do we really need to prod them to get back to cramming megapixels on sensors?
Guess what: if I have the option of buying a 10MP camera or a 40MP one, I'll buy the 10MP one, all other things being equal. The only thing that would make me buy the 40MP one is if it could generate 10-20MP RAW files besides 40MP ones. Canon does this, but they're the only ones AFAIK.
The latest 24MP sensor from Sony is almost identical to the performance of their 16MP at pixel level (which means its better at a whole-image level). At which point, why wouldn't you want more detail, given how cheap and available storage is becoming?
It is a 23mm F2 lens, which when used on APS-C is *equivalent* to a 34.5mm F3 on full frame, in terms of light gathering and depth of field.
The reason the light meter works is because the ISO standard is a hack to ensure it does (it's essentially 'whatever it takes to make the JPEG look right).
Note that I'm not saying this *is* an F3 lens, just that it is [*equivalent to it*](http://bit.my/equivap) in terms of aperture size and, theregore, light gathering.
bigdaddave - it's a very good camera, if you want the sort of camera it is.
It's a terrible washer dryer, now you mention it, but I'm probably not going to include that as a con.
xpanded: "...size/price/image quality balance it offers and the style with which it does so."
You must be very stylish. Both the Nikon Coolpix A and Ricoh GR give much better IQ than the X-Trans sensor. They are both smaller, cheaper and sporting much better lenses.
The only thing the X100 has going for it is the hybrid viewfinder.
And yes, I will upgrade my X100 when Fuji dumps the X-Trans sensor.
I disagree with the assessment 'much better IQ.' The Fujifilm's JPEGs are generally better and I wouldn't agree the X-Trans design is significantly behind Bayer sensors of the same pixel count.
It's not just style and the viewfinder that the X100 offers. It it's better featured (better in-cam Raw conversion, DR modes and Wi-FI) but is also a very different creature. A 28mm equiv F2.8 is no substitute for a 35mm equiv F2. And vice versa.
Would I prefer a 24MP Bayer X100? Possibly, but the X100T actually *exists* so I reviewed that, and it's very, very good.
Which is why I conceded that for a lot of X100 buyers, it'll be their second camera. It's also why I invoked the GRD series - which remained popular with keen photographers when zoom alternatives were readily available.
Ultimately, it is perfectly practical (and enjoyable) to use a small prime lens camera as a general purpose camera, but that doesn't mean I believe a majority of people will do so.
It was bigdaddave's '*far far too limited*' comment I was taking issue with.
Almost all of the world's most-used cameras today have prime lenses. And what's a smartphone if not a 'general purpose camera?'
Ok, I'm being a little facetious. A lot of people are likely to buy an X100 series camera as their second camera. But let's not forget that cameras such as the [Olympus 35RC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_35RC) sold pretty well as recently as the 70's. You'd be surprised at how versatile they are.
steelski: Controls and handling page seems broken. Otherwise a nice short review.
That should now work. Sorry about that.