Fujifilm X100S First Look: Digital Photography Review

Hi DPReview,

I am still looking forward to your review after this preview. I hope to see your review within the near future. Thx.

0 upvotes

Hey dp preview. Now would be a good time for your valued review before we get to do a side by side comparison with the X200s full frame model with its new thermal imaging feature and titanium body!

1 upvote

Are the x100 and x100s so identical that the top and bottom of the special edition black x100 could easily be transferred to a new x100s?

0 upvotes

For going beyond the hype, this is probably the must useful page on the net for comparing different cameras in terms of their potential. It doesn't say anything about cameras' handling qualities, features or performance with different lenses, but it does provide you with a "level playing field" for rating the images' quality before those factors are considered. I'm in love with my new stalwart, the Fujifilm X110S, and by using the comparison feature I found that it is indeed better than the Fuji X100 which I bought and then sold a few thousand frames later; but it's not as good as my Olympus OM-D which I've tended to take for granted and neglect;, but it's far better than my Panasonic Lumix FZ200 which is the most versatile non-interchangeable-lens camera that I own,with which I have produced some absolutely studding photos.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

X100s: I don't like the RAWs' look, sorry, still not like a standard Bayer system. D7100 now is the best under FF camera re IQ. Let's wait for the Nikon A.

0 upvotes

D7100 best under FF camera re IQ. Would like to see your source.

1 upvote

As much as I like the X100/s concept, I have to agree. I've been studied like crazy samples and stuff for my next upgrade, and I also been blown away by what the D7100 can produce. I would rate it as the best DX camera, and not only IQ wise.
But the truth is the X100s and D7100 are not really competing.

0 upvotes

Wait till the Nikon A bests all

0 upvotes

As with everything else, there is no "magic bullet" in cameras. You choose your camera depending on your needs and priorities. The x100s is great for street photography and for people who travel a lot.

0 upvotes

Dude, i am not waiting for ANY Nikon whatsoever.

0 upvotes

Just a shame the price puts it out of my reach, $1,959.00(NZ)

0 upvotes

Hi, I’ve been trying out the new x100s over the past week and have posted many pictures – http://www.dwwphotography.blogspot.com.au – so you can check them out. Great review – thanks, cheers, David

1 upvote

Very impressive, but too limited for most due to fixed FL.

0 upvotes

I actually think it's a great travel camera where you're in the "thick of it". I needed anything longer surprisingly rarely when I was on a trip to Spain and only had the X100 with me. But sure, when you do need tele and can't move, there is no option for this at all. I felt like this with something like 1-2 shots in 10.

0 upvotes

Interestingly the inspiration for this camera was the small 35 fixed lens rangefinders of the 60's and 70's that were prized by amateurs with a fat wallet. They took great photos and were very pocketable and encouraged off the cuff shooting.
Same thing here. Great camera with good all-round ability at a price for the more prosperous hobbyist.

2 upvotes

Yeah, my Fujica 35 Auto-M and 35 EE are brilliant! Ultra sharp lenses, quiet as mice and recently just found on ebay adapter lenses and finders, still new in the box never touched! With cases. Fujica adapter lenses have always been of high quality I heard, lets see how this find pans out.

0 upvotes

If you can tone done the color noise and reduce the sharpness on the OMD they would all four shown there look about the same. OMD is impressive.

0 upvotes

It'll be interesting if DPreview were to include sigmas DP merills in these comparison test. I bet it can easily wipe most cameras at iso200

3 upvotes

The X100s looks like a nice camera, but it is not in the same league as the Sony RX1. Check out the somewhat sloppy "crazy comparison" that Steve Huff did on his website:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/03/21/crazy-comparison-leica-m-sony-rx1-and-fuji-x100s/

The RX1 is more expensive and out of the price range of most potential buyers, but considering what you get, it is not unreasonably priced.

0 upvotes

One thing you don't get is a viewfinder that lets you work in the sun.

3 upvotes

That's right. The EVF gets uncannily dim in bright sunlight, and if you crank up the LCD-EVF brightness and also use the sunlight mode, it eats the battery in no time. Let's hope there's a firmware update for that. Apart from that, pictures are beautiful. Sorry for naysayers, you have to use it to believe it. I owned the X100 and liked its IQ, but so far, this one seems much better.

0 upvotes

I agree that the X100s may have some usability advantages, but purely in terms of image quality, it is no match for the RX1. It all depends on your standards and priorities. BTW, I have had only a few instances when the RX1's LCD could not be used outdoors.

0 upvotes

Doesn't seem to fair too well. Already ISO3200 is all fuzzy, even in RAW-format. Again, Olympus OM-D E-M5 is surprisingly strong and beats other brands.

0 upvotes

It seems that the OM-D files are a bit oversharpened, including the noise at high ISOs. Looks great at first sight, but at the expense of detail. Different brands make different choices. In real life, it doesn't matter: they all take great pictures. Just choose the one that handles best for you.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

given he fact only has smaller sensor, it is surprisingly close

3 upvotes

You could sharpen the Fuji more or the Oly less. Either way superb performance from both cameras.

1 upvote

Has anyone yet figured out how many angels can dance on the head of a pixel?

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

255, i thought everyone knew that...

2 upvotes

Hmmm, still glad I bought my Olympus OMD.

0 upvotes

Why not just process the images using the Fuji software or both Adobe and Fuji for comparison sake. It would be nice to see just what quality the camera is capable of and not, "this is the quality you can get from a software that is not up to scratch with that particular file". Particularly with Fuji's unique sensor.

Yes, it may mean using the default application for all the camera tests, but that is the true quality of that camera. This image comparison leaves me with the question "but what is the quality really like?"

1 upvote

I will never EVER again use a camera manufacturer's software. These guys should stick to hardware and let Adobe, DxO and Capture One etc. worry about the software.

Yuck!

1 upvote

Is it just me, or does the RX-1 look a little soft over the Martini bottle.

0 upvotes

The problem with these DPR comparisons is where, exactly, the camera is focused. For some cameras, it may be in front of or behind where it is for other cameras. Look around the frame, and you will see places where the RX1 is extremely sharp. It is also possible, but unlikely, that the RX1 lens used in this test is de-centered.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

That's because they don't approve alcoholic beverages at Sony.

0 upvotes

@Robgo2, wait, are you telling me that for $2800 Sony fudged the QC? I would be one annoyed fanboy. They don't mention where they do focus but it does seem that MF vs. AF would introduce awhile 'nother level of debate.

1 upvote

While I certainly enjoy my Fuji"film" X100, there are a few minor things I'd love to see Fuji fix. 1st, the exposure compensation dial on top is far too easy to turn, and I end up using it unintentionally. Second, the lens shade requires a threaded adapter, and they are both really expensive. This is just dumb. Hey they put a threaded shutter release for a standard old-fashioned cable release, why not a lens that can accept a polarizer without an adapter??

0 upvotes

in RAW3200 I still prefer the 2007 Nikon D3... I know it is FX versus DX, but already 6 years old technology. Still quit a capable Nikon sensor compared to todays Fuji.

0 upvotes

If interested in some real life samples here are my early thoughts about the X100s www.foto24.dk/?page_id=1675

0 upvotes

Until iso3200, Canon G15 Raw is the sharpest. G15 jpeg still look good compare to the rest. (looking at the queen)

0 upvotes

WHAT?

3 upvotes

Since when is an excessive amount of noise reduction acceptable in RAW files?

3 upvotes

When the output is this stellar who cares how the little dots present, not me. In the days of film, there was probably someone somewhere concerned that their roll had less regular emulsion particles than most - with no internet they just couldn't get an audience.

Back to the good old days I say.

ps. ...the x-trans pixels could be little fuzzy images of the Road Runner and I'd still want one.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

I also find the noise reduction heavy-handed. Does anyone know if in-camera noise reduction settings (I've heard -1 to -2 recommended) are applied to the RAW? I know this wouldn't be the case with Nikon, but I'm a Fuji noob.

0 upvotes

Since the Canon 5D Mark II. I agree. The new Fuji has an excessive amount of n/r baked into the raw images. Not good.

0 upvotes

At low ISOs this is probably not a significant factor, but at higher ISOs, it is. Much detail is lost due to NR. My guess is that Fuji felt this was necessary, because noise levels were otherwise unacceptable.

0 upvotes

If I'm not mistaken, DPR shoots RAW files in the studio scene with standard conversion parameters; i.e., no effort is made to optimise the image output, in order, I assume, to have a fair and even comparison. Only that this is not an even comparison. Wouldn't it be better to try and optimise RAW files (up to a "standard" degree) in order for the readers to be able to see what the camera actually CAN do? In X100S camera's case, the RAW is a bit soft; increasing sharpness a bit would help us see what's possible.

0 upvotes

Is it just me, or does the OMD beat all 3 of the others in this test in terms of sharpness? What am I missing? There's definitely more dynamic range in the X100s that I can see, compared to the OMD.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

6 upvotes

The Olympus beats the X100s

4 upvotes

Just apply some contrast and/or levels in post and the X100s will match the Olympus. Otherwise, the Oly can't go in your pocket and has no OVF. The X100s can't change lenses. What matters more to you?

1 upvote

Move the cursor over the patch of quilt to the immediate left of the queen of heart card. Compare that with the Pentax K5 IIs.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

You may be correct, but haven't we learned by now that sharpness is not the same as resolution? It's easy to bump sharpness, but that comes at a cost.

0 upvotes

Download the Raw ISO 200 JPEGs. The Martini bottle, below the cap is the royal crest, between "By Appointment To Her Majesty The Queen" and "Suppliers of Martini Vermouth"

OM-D is notably beating the X100s (and X-Pro 1) here. To really see what's happening you need to zoom in many times perhaps 10X so you can see what's really happening. There are too many differences to list, but the most obvious are:

The actual text is well defined versus soft.
The lions face, mane and crown is distinct versus mush.
The shield rendering is distinct versus mush.
The small lion on top has a distinct tail versus mush.
The White on Red letting is much better.

Anyone with eyes will see these stark differences if they choose to..

Corner softness (at F8?) is playing a part (the image is distorted and soft here), but it is the random mush that gets rendered when the contrast drops that is proving to be a signature for this sensor. Nowhere close to the hyped FF quality, and being bested by μ4/3 here.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Compare the text underneath the Baileys bottle and the focus test lines a bit to the left or the Kodak Grayscale.

These are most likely artefacts which are easy to correct from RAW.

0 upvotes

100S raws look extremely soft and smeared.

5 upvotes

RAWs look very soft, lots of NR going on, or problems with demosaicing, even at base ISO.

0 upvotes

How come not available in black?

0 upvotes

Any money it's not available in black for a very simple reason - in a few months they will release a "special edition" black version for twice the price, as they did for the original x100!!!

0 upvotes

It was not twice the price. Only 200$ more.

2 upvotes

It was only $200 more which I happily paid.

0 upvotes

Cant wait to get my hands on mine - ordered as soon as it was announced - I love the retro style of the original - Andrella there are some good image samples here taken with the X100S
http://leoedwardsphotography.com/fuji-x100s-sublime/
Looks like the focusing issues have been sorted based on the subject of the pictures!

0 upvotes

I have browsed a lot the web since then and found out lots of other pictures made by Fuji X100S. Some of them were great some mediocre. Some of them looked better than those from X100 but some of them looked pale. This made me to conclude that this is rather a person behind the camera than a camera itself that makes such images. After a long (but pleasant must admit) consideration I have ordered X100s! I'll share my thoughts on this when I get it.

0 upvotes

@Andrella Me too. It was the non-technical reviews of David Hobby and Zack Arias that put me over the edge. I wanted small, sexy and fun with good-enough image quality.
I carry my D800 and 35mm prime everywhere i go. It is never more than arm's-length away and I'm getting tired of the size of the camera and huge files for every day use.

0 upvotes

New X100s Sample Pictures.
I have just got an e-mail from What Digital camera where they announced their first sample pictures of the X100s. I've read lots of reviews about this camera and was thinking to get one when it comes on sale but...
The pictures shown are not of a good quality IMO. I am just curious whether this is the camera or a person behind it who does not know how to properly use it? Just want to hear other photographer's opinion and owners of the current X100 model.
IMHO the pictures look overexposed and there is lack of details overall.
The gallery is here:
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/galleries/sample-images/fujfilm/34937/1/fujifilm-x100s-sample-image-gallery.html

1 upvote

Hi i have had a look at all the shots nothing wrong with them the detail is excellent .The thumbnails dont look great you have to actually click on eack shot and then click on it again to open up the full file.The amount of detail is fantastic and better than my nikon D300 i will be getting one:))

0 upvotes

The only image with noticeable clipped highlights I see is the one shot through a dark ark - which is understandable considering difficult light conditions (half image is very dark, the other half is very bright). For this image, it would be very interesting to see the work of DR expander. And comparison with normal mode of, say, Canon 650D or Sony NEX-7.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Hi Andrella

here are some more images from the x100s and a review. Look like the focusing issues are sorted based on the subject matter

http://leoedwardsphotography.com/fuji-x100s-sublime/

0 upvotes

Phase Detect Autofocus -
"All SLRs by necessity use this approach, with a dedicated autofocus sensor."

Have you tried the autofocus on the 60D with live-view on the articulated screen??? Compare that to any M43 camera and the 60D snale is virtually unusable indoors.
So your comment assumes that DSLR users 'may not' shoot by live view, which is pretty strange assumption these days. It actually means that they just 'can't' because the camera is too slow with live view.

0 upvotes

Unless you put it in what Canon calls "quick focus", in which case the mirror flips down to get focus using the AF sensor. Its not as fast as shooting normally with the VF, but it makes liveview usable indoors.

0 upvotes

the previous x100 had awesome picture quality with funky quirks like jacked up many turns manual focusing.

the x100s fixes all the quirks and improves on the picture quality too.

cool retro looks with substances and brains? that's like a supermodel with a phd. LOL.

sold!

i just plunked down a wad of cash to pre-order this camera on b & h.

hope it comes soon.

hope it lives up to the hype.

discuss! :-)

2 upvotes

I'd much rather have a camera like this with a 45mm/50mm equivalent lens on it. Less distortion, more natural look to the photos. Recently, the attitude has been adopted also with the RX1, that if you want 50mm-equivalent all you have to do is crop your photos, especially with it's resolution. But I beg to differ: what is being overlooked is that with digital technology we can do panorama now... so why not have a wide-angle mode too, where only two images are stitched together? The advantages would be obvious: you have your wide-angle view, yet the less distortion of a 50mm lens.

For this reason, I'm eyeing the X-E1 with the 35mm f1.4 lens.

1 upvote

Hi Tim.. my first post here, but composition is completely different as between a 28mm shot taken 3 meters away and cropping a 100mm taken from farther back.
A bit like walking towards the subject versus zooming into it. If you are shooting against a white background no big difference, but on any other scenario it will be noticeable.
Imagine 3 persons, one directly in front of you (subject) and two towards the back and sides of the subject a couple of meters. As you move towards the subject with a wide lens the other 2 will be in frame, whereas if you zoom from afar the other 2 may be out of frame. Does this make sense?
Cheers

1 upvote

Timmbits has a valid point. I come fom a Contax/Zeiss G2, for which the lenses remain unsurpassed. The 35mm construct created inherent problems, but the 45mm inherent construct eliminated them. Below 45mm, all lenses produce distortion and other limitations. In digital, these can be "processed" away, but always at the expense of IQ. If the digital image starts with a lense that is almost perfect (like the CZ G2), the less "processing" needed, and the greater the overall IQ. The difference in view between 45 and 35 is slight, so it is easy to capture the view of 35 simply by taking 1 or 2 steps backwards, and avoid the inherent distortion of 35mm. In RF format, this issue is personal: but I prefer a lense with no distortions, particularly when taking portraits. After 20 years, I await still the day when I can have a digital equivalent of my G2. Fuji may be on track, but still no FF imager yet, so I surmise the day is yet a long way off.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

@alzurzin. The whole point of making and buying small cameras with large sensors is to have them with you everywhere and always - and in 90% of being outdoors or traveling people shoot landscapes or on-street portraits with quite a bit of background. In all these cases one needs wide angle lens. If you want standard studio portrait, just buy a regular DSLR - why bother with compromises of a small camera?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

You've obviously never shot with a 35mm lens. Photos look natural and there is no distortion unless you are trying to do a tight portrait, which you just shouldn't do on 35mm. 50mm is cool, but often feels like tunnel vision.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

JackM you seem to have never seen images from Cartier-Bresson, who was a 50mm addict. A tunnel vision with a 50mm !

0 upvotes

agreed Sad Joe, this new fuji is on my wishlist...the thing is that nikon/canon manufacture dependable work horse system camera. They do the job accurately again and again. When I shoot for money I use them and when I shoot for myself well this new fuji will fit the bill most admirably!

0 upvotes

Almost 3 years on and the lazy giants Canon & Nikon have nothing like as interesting a products as the X range. Shame on them ! Only Sony have picked up the fight - but at far far too high a price point. Rock on Fuji - keep up the good work !

8 upvotes

Actually the single thing stopping me from buying a X100s is the X-Trans sensor. I don't need that much complication with 0 benefits and poor support. I wish it had a standard sensor like the X100

1 upvote

@d3xm: yet tests and comparisons show that the X-trans delivers better dynamic range and more sharpness under scrutiny in real shooting situations.

2 upvotes

I'd like to buy this camera, selling my X10 and X100 to do so. But I won't if I can't use RAW with Apple's Aperture. What's the deal with Fuji and RAW files now?

0 upvotes

I use LR4 and PS5 for my X10 Adobe camera raw also handles Fuji's RAW files nicely. So no problem whatsoever. Not sure is Apple is still behind the curve though. You'd think they are up to date by now.

0 upvotes

If it ain't offered in all black for the same price, fuggedaboudit.

0 upvotes

I've been using all-black cameras for several decades. But I got one of the very first X100 cameras -- which meant silver & black. And to tell you the truth, I'm fine with that. I use the X100 solo, and people notice it, but not in the same way they notice my M9...They notice it, then stop noticing it. On outings with friends, some just assumed it was an old 35mm fixed lens RF.

I also use the X100 to supplement my M9 (provides always-ready 35mm FOV). I have an X10 in all black, but that's a smaller camera (and I don't much like the looks of the silver & black X10) and people just see that as another P&S.

So I have my marker in at my local camera store for both an X100s (silver & black) and an X20 (all black).

0 upvotes

I find it has a nicer retro look to it with the silver bands.

0 upvotes

Why do you think Fuji is using a LCD-viewfinder instead of a OLED? Is it because it costs less, or is the LCD better in any way?

0 upvotes

That's something what makes me scratch my head too.

0 upvotes

Since it was one of the issues on X100, I think it might be about battery saving. Look:

Depending on the content displayed (like other light producing technologies--e.g., plasma screens--OLEDs use the most power when displaying a white image, while light blocking technologies such as LCDs use maximum power to display black images).
http://www.lcdtv.net/guide/lcd-vs-oled

People photograph bright images more often than dark images, right?

0 upvotes

Well, since there are plenty of OLEDs who are thinner and simpler to implement than LCDs, I doubt that;s the case. However, LCDs are far more reflective as a result have greater outdoor visibility compared to OLEDs. If OLEDs want to have that kind of outdoor visibility, it will require much more power for back lighting.

0 upvotes

I believe it have be because this devices are designed to last longer as a pro camera, like the body is. So it makes sense to use LCD that last longer. OLED is brighter at the beginning but looses the quality over time. I believe OLED is best for mobile devices as you are expected to change it in 2-4 years, but on a pro level camera LCDs last longer.
Also on a camera like this the consistency is important. if you are used to capture the same image you see in your viewfinder and be satisfied, you shouldn't have to change your expectations.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

When you have your eye so close to the LCD with no intruding light, the advantages of an OLED, namely a much wider viewing angle of up to 170 degrees or so, and better performance when the sun is hitting it, are irrelevant.

0 upvotes

I have read some desires of a 50mm lens on this camera via internet. why? this 23mm lens in this multiplication factor, equivalent to a 35mm one FF, optimal focal length for this type of camera and historically proven. For a fixed lens, obviously. A RX1 have a 35mm lens, so this is equivalent to.

1 upvote

What do you mean by "historically" ?

0 upvotes

A 35mm lens is a reasonable wide angle without it being too much so. For portrait, you want a minimum of 70mm equivalent. A 50mm is in the sweet spot, between the two: it offers an image "distortion" not as pronounced and closer to the human eye's perception. It is not wide angle, but not too narrow either. That makes it very versatile with more pleasing results, without the need to crop, if you enjoy making the effort to frame right in the first place.
For those who decide that they do not want wide angle for the type of photography they do, a 50mm is far nicer to have.
In reference to "history", you will note that in the mass market, cheap point and shoots had a wider angle 35mm lens, and as you went higher end, the interchangeable lens cameras were mostly paired with 50mm lenses. Just check the used market as testament to this.
Perhaps this camera feeds the nostalgia of a WW-II/Vietnam war photo-journalists' camera. But that's not what the rest of us want a camera for.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting

1 upvote

What seems to be logic for a fixed lens camera : it should be equiped with the most versatile lens. And 35mm is really interesting of course, but less versatile than 50m, which was the choice for Cartier-Bresson for instance.

0 upvotes

Why have they just brought out the X-E1 and not included this new sensor? I don't want one now ..... why buy an out of date model? Not a very smart move Fuji ...... and the X-E1 has only just gone on sale ............

1 upvote

Perhaps they have plans for a higher-resolution phase-detection sensor for the next generation XE1's replacement? That's why I'm holding off on buying one... I want to see what comes out next.

0 upvotes

this looks to shame the overhyped Sony RX1.

2 upvotes

For the price, yes.
But the senor in RX1 is full frame.
There is always a price premier for a first one.

4 upvotes

it's fullframe but the lens equivalent pretty much cancels that out. I mean if that is the only justification for the steep price, I don't think the RX1 is worth than what it is actually being sold at especially with the caveats that comes with the X100s. 36MP might give you something to consider but how much cropping or printing does one actually need?

0 upvotes

The RX1 isn't 36mp... but yes the X100 also has a viewfinder, and nifty hybrid optical and electronic one for that and at less than half the price. What you get with the RX1 is shallower dof and probably better ISO performace, and shooting at 2.8 on FF will be close enough to what the 23mm at F/2 can get

0 upvotes

RX1 has a 35mm f/2.0 lens, with a FF 24MP sensor.
With a lens like that on FF my guess would be that it's equivalent to having maybe an f/1.2 or f/1.0 on an APSC?
And the FF sensor gives you better dynamic range, less noise, and more depth of field control.
Is it worth the price? I don't think so. I want to buy an RX1 for a thousand bucks.
But then again, I can justify $7,000 for a racing bicycle while others are struggling to understand why a mountainbike costs $700. So I also have to be understanding that to some photographers, it may be cost-justifiable.

2 upvotes

Well that is no surprise. Sony alway smart paying the right people to hype their product up.

0 upvotes

Do you still have to pay an exorbitant fee for a filter holder?

0 upvotes

Probably, buy who buys the overpriced official one anyway?

0 upvotes

The X100s still has the built in ND filter of the original X100.
This has been missed of the spec chart.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x100s/features/page_05.html

How could they make it better? F/1.8 lens, weather sealed, full frame (of course), 2 models 35mm and 50mm equiv.

But basically this camera looks totally awesome!

4 upvotes

Also this preview doesn't mention that the sensor is backside illuminated (BSI).

1 upvote

Update: the X100s does NOT have a BSI sensor. That information was based on an incorrect press release.

0 upvotes

I use Micro 4/3 with Panasonic Lumix, but I liked all the Fuji's cameras I had.

I am glad to see they are improving. Maybe someday I will buy one like a second option, but I will go for one with interchangeable lenses, maybe a X-Pro1S.

I like the Fuji sensor technology. Hope someday Fuji launch a Micro 4/3 system.

Well done Fuji.

2 upvotes

"Hope someday Fuji launch a Micro 4/3 system." WHY??? to have more noise, less depth of field control? Why would anyone want to have worse IQ? For a smaller camera, ok, maybe... but Samsung and Sony prove to us that you can have and APSC mirrorless camera as small as any MFT!

3 upvotes

+ it would be ripped apart from the current m43 players anyway. I mean just look at how well Olympus and Panasonic compete against these APS-C supposedly superior mirrorless cameras. You can only imagine how even more embarrassing their performance would be if they used a similarly small sensor.

0 upvotes

I want it but I would prefer an interchangeable lens version of this camera.
Please put this AF and shutter unit into the X-E1.

1 upvote

It's distinctly tricky to put a lens shutter into the body of an interchangeable lens camera.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting

6 upvotes

The compact Kodak Retina series cameras used a leaf shutter in the camera with an interchangeable lens system with lenses from 28mm to 135mm, so the technology issues have been dealt with before. Tricky perhaps, but possible. Not likely with the current design lenses for the X-E1, however.

0 upvotes

Only thing I care about that nobody mentioned on this one: Sticky Aperture Fix, and Manual Focus. They both sucked big time on the X100

0 upvotes

Did you miss the part about digital split image, focus peaking, and shorter but more precise throw on the focusing ring?

As to SAB, that's already been addressed in the later-production X100.

7 upvotes

All the new additions look pretty nice. Having an aspect ratio of 1:1 (square) is pretty cool!

However, not enough upgrade for me to move to the S from my regular old x100.

Where is the Full-Frame sensor?? That would be a Killer upgrade!

0 upvotes

This new X100s looks like a step ahead from the current one at least on paper but they could have changed at least the clunky menu dial/button and used the button on the XE1 or the X-Pro 1 instead.
The current X100 is a camera that you have to own to really appreciate. Reading the specs and reviews on sites like this and forming your opinion is unfair at best. It's a quirky camera specially before the firmware update but once you get over that and learn how to use it, it's a great camera specially in the IQ department and with this new S version it's a big improvement specially in autofocus speed.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

If this new x100s sells for the same recommended price as the old x100, its going to be a steal. I really like how Fuji is developing these X cameras, its a development rather than a replacement strategy.

In a single prime scenario, I'd be a 50mm man, though this 35mm x100s looks very impressive on paper - and the other x series models before it have either delivered or have been rectified under warranty.

Well done again Fujifilm, any ex Kodak/Agfa people at Nikon and Canon are likely to be feeling a little 'déjà vu'.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting

4 upvotes

so is the all BLACK X100s going to be another limited, over priced deal?

0 upvotes

Do you have one?

0 upvotes

Highly likely. No idea why Fuji does this silly "limited edition" pricing strategy. If anything, the "limited edition" should be the nostalgic silver/black combo.

1 upvote

Limited edition would have to be more than all black to raise an eyebrow... copper highlights perhaps, or titanium sheet metal instead of steel.

0 upvotes

Love my X100 - and will upgrade to this in due course. The slides said faster than any m4/3rds and larger sensor camera to focus... if that's true, this will be a killer camera, although I'd be surprised if the existing lens focusing motors could deliver that speed - have the lens motors been replaced?

Fantastic, hugely welcome move by Fuji - this looks like a camera design which will mature rather than be senselessly tweaked.

0 upvotes

Studio scene comparison (RAW)

Comments