That is true. Barney may have been tanked up when he was writing the Df preview.

The Nikon DF is not a camera. It is a perverted marketing joke from the "Company formally known as Nikon"

yep, Fuji are lying and i love it, and the only in depth test is on the mrs......you should try it on yours.

CliveRowland - it shows in depth tests and actual usage, when you need to set longer exposure times to a given ISO, or - more annoyingly - set higher ISO for given exposure times, what ends in a worse image quality than that advertised by "quick" reviews that do not take this into account (people compare ISO 1600 vs ISO1600 while to be fair and informative they should compare it vs 3200 or even 6400 (depending on a camera model) ).

[edit]Though I completely agree that there's more to a camera than just high ISO performance.

Always glad if I can be of help.......:)

Strange - my X-trans is at least on par with my Canon 5DII in regard of details...and has better DR.

If that´s mediocre these days - wow, what camera you are using is better than?

@Collie Camp. Really? Well maybe! According to DXO Canon Mark II had DR of Evs of 11.9 but then the little Fuji XF1 and a Canon G11 have 11.1. Original X100 has Evs 12.4. Interestingly the Fuji S3 Pro of 2004 has an EVs of 13.5!
I would believe this as the Dr of my 2003 Fuji S2 Pro exceeds anything I currently have (X100/50D/5D). I still look at the prints from that and go wow (as I do from the Sigma SD14 that replaced it). OK maybe not so much resolution and detail but the tonal qualities produced by a good CCD (or Foveon) sensor are superior to a CMOS. The CMOS gives us a better usability when you take into account low light.
Also let me tell you there is no substitute for cubes or in this case sensor size. No way my X100 out guns my Full Frame 5d Mk1. Although it has a good go at it at higher ISOs.

@Collie Camp.
Yes I mentioned the XF-1 and G11 as an illustration that a small sensored camera can have good Dr too. I have used images from my old G11 for calendar shots.
Interesting you say the 5D MKII has ugly shadow noise as that is my complaint about Canons ASP-C sensors and why I use the 5DMK1 for real estate work (as I often need to lighten the shadows quite a bit).

and everyone would say that the world is full of hipsters excluding himself.

I can remember when being "hip" was cool. Now you're labeled a hipster for shooting with a X100s? I guess its cool to be a hipster too!

Why would it matter to you of a certain "style" of
people like this camera? This would mot influence my choice.

So it's OK to have images of Nikon cameras and random COLOR cityscapes in your Flickr photostream, but when Fujifilm X100 users have similar they should be mocked as "hipsters"?

Lol. How does that work exactly? Are gear photos allowed for certain brands and not others? And when does a cityscape become interesting and cease to be "random"?

I do. Been using one lens pretty much on all my DSLRs.

A small zoom would answer both these requests, make interchangeable lenses unnecessary and still give the advantage of a dust-free sensor.

I do too. For general photography, using only one focal length has only the arbitrary limitations you've placed on it and quite literally the creative possibilities with a slightly wide normal lens are limitless.

And you get a very sharp lens with a bright f2 aperture. Besides, what could be more rewarding and more retro than zooming with your feet?

Just look at the fact that smartphones are replacing digital compacts, and the fact that most all of smartphones have a fixed focal lens (with digital zoom).

Also worth noting is that I believe smartphone's fixed focal lens is great, it is silently teaching people about photography without them even realizing.

If you don't like then don't buy it and get one where you can change lenses. Some people like it this way. How hard is it to understand?

Yeah well, Henri Cartier Bresson and Ralph Gibson barely changed lenses. Much of his career Helmut Newton shot with a Rolleiflex. Nobody on the board here makes pics of that quality.
35 mm equivalent is fine for many walkaround applications. It is not for photographing wildlife.
As an aside, my own favourite camera is still the Rolleiflex.

Anonymous designer in Japan? ROFL. One of the things you find out, if you take the time, is that the 35mm lens FOV works out pretty well in a wide variety of situations for many photographers. That isn't a designer's decision, it's decades of photographic practice. My default lens on an M6 was a C/V 35mm. On the M8 a 25mm, and on the M9 a 35mm. The X100/X100S just leveraged what many, many photographers figured out a long time ago.

To be truthful, if you can't take an X100/X100S (or any other camera with a single lens) out for a week-long trip and not end up with dozens of good photographs, you aint much of a photographer.

White Shadow, by your definitions of "casual" and "professional"...many of the greatest photographers of all time, past and current, would "merely" be casual shooters. That SHOULD give you pause, to say the least. Stop judging the quality of photographers and photographs by how big their camera is. If you look around, you'll find quite a few FF 35mm digital and medium format digital shooters who LOVE cameras such as the x100s. The camera is capable of making iconic images, are we?

Casual, but with style ;)
And it's not about how bit - it's about how versatile and well-developed.

Ummm...

1. I could afford a Leica, but I wanted an X-pro1 instead.

2. What is your definition of versatile? My 5DII wasn't nearly as versatile sitting in my camera bag vs. my X-pro1 which is always with me due to form factor and weight.

3. I hardly consider what I do "casual." There are many pros using the X-system.

ya gotta love the condescending remarks of some as to what others should be using, and thinking about what they're using.

A midget can be a terrific lover, or so I'm told.

no idea what that means :)

Name three. Then i will counter.

The focusing system is probably superior, but anything else? The price differential is huge.

Hybrid OVF/EVF Eye level viewfinder, significantly better high ISO ability and overall better IQ, better AF system including PDAF for low-light shooting and robust AF tracking, build quality and...it looks better.

But for many, it's the lack of VF that makes the EOS M a bit less user-friendly.

If you have to ask, then photography is not for you.

But here are a few things: dynamic range. low light performance, focus speed, features, basicly everything except the canon logo.

Also think about WHY you got the Eos M for ONLY 299$.... the answer: Because Canon made a BIG mistake in development and NOBODY wants it, the X100S does not meet supply and demand, there is to much demand and not enough supply & for a good reason.

EOS M - even at it's rock-bottom price it's poor value for money.

> EOS M - even at it's rock-bottom price it's poor value for money.

Let's not get carried away. The EOS M has excellent IQ, the same the T4i or 60D and it's an excellent video camera, offering much of the same capabilities of the Canon APS-C bodies.

If you look at it in terms of digital cameras and depreciation of value perhaps, but the same can be said for all cameras. But for someone who is creating works of value with an EOS M, it's impossible to say it's a poor value for the money.

The Fuji X100S is NOT better than your EOS M I. The M I is the BEST camera in the world and you are a GENIUS for buying one!

I will match my work against yours any time, and by the way I generally use an iPhone. :) You geek types are funny. Photography is not about specs. If you want to pay $1300 for that camera go right ahead. I don't think you know much about the EOS M. Maybe you read a review somewhere. Better image quality?

I never said it was the best camera available. I do think that $1300 is an excessive price for what you're getting here. "Retro cool" does not justify a $1000 price differential.

As a user of both, IQ-wise Fuji wins hands down - esp in term of noise and DR. Canon is seriously stuck with an old sensor. Even 70D doesn't bring much improvement - and 70D sensor is the one will be used with the M2...

I gifted my in-laws an EOS M and the 22, great little combo and awesome at $299 (should have bought one for myself)!

That said:

Controls: Fuji's external controls are excellent to use. I actually liked the EOS-M's on-screen system, it was pretty well-done, but it can't match external controls.
IQ: Canon's IQ is pretty good, Fuji's is superior.
JPEGS: Fuji is the *only* company that produces JPEGs I actually enjoy out of a camera.
Viewfinder: There isn't one on the EOS M.

Since "Better" is subjective, you cannot disprove me :)

what you're paying for on the X100s:
- solid build quality
- optical viewfinder with hud
- tactile control
- no low pass filter, higher lp/mm
- 1/4000s flash sync speed
- hybrid AF that works
- 6 fps
- fantastic Manual Focus assist
- built-in ND filter
if you take videos and pictures on auto using the back lcd and don't need any of those special features then you're better off paying less with the EOS M with its buttons and touchscreen.

you can't argue with a guy who shoots primarily on his cell phone and calls everyone else geeks.

after all....one minute he's ordering a pizza with his camera and the next he's taking snaps of the pepperoni with instagram. Just try competing with that. C'mon!

Yeah well, Henri Cartier Bresson and Ralph Gibson barely changed lenses. Much of his career Helmut Newton shot with a Rolleiflex. Nobody on the board here makes pics of that quality.
35 mmequivalent is fine for many walkaround applications. It is not for photographing wildlife.

I'm sure he got some good street and general purpose photography at 35mm, which is mostly what HCB did with that focal length, right? There's more to travel photography than just street though. Anyway, if the original poster is happy with just one focal length, fine with me. I can't imagine doing it though. I need more focal lengths than that just to photograph my front yard.

Wow, biggles, I'm honestly sorry that you chose to insult me without knowing anything about me or the quality of my photography from Europe or elsewhere using my X. I'm still shocked that you were able to figure out all the great shots I missed from where you were sitting while I was traveling through Europe. You're on a public forum; please learn to be kind.

Wow biggles, what a statement.... Hope you don't confuse your need of lenses whith creativity. ;)

Actually, Biggles266, I think we have identified the party lacking "imagination or creativity". A good photographer could, if he or she chose to, launch a travel assignment with a single camera and a single lens -- and come back with 8 to 14 compelling, publication-worthy photographs that told the story. I'm not saying that is the best premise for an assignment, but a good photographer could do it.

No matter what you are carrying, you pass up thousands of compelling images every day. If you shot them all, no matter what camera you were carrying, your hands would be flying like a wind-up drummer boy. If anything, the single lens experiment, which some have had to do for class assignments way back when, is a true test of imagination and creativity.

grandma used to say "35mm face to face with a lion aint a good idea"

Why do photogs get hung up on the FF thing?

But I'm not dismissing the Fuji, my latest camera acquisition is an X-E1. But I don't agree at all that the X system is "retro done right" or that the Nikon Df is silly, as was mentioned in the Df Preview.

In a camera preview, that kind of hyperbole doesn't inform users because it carries with it certain assumptions about photographer's needs, i.e. camera size vs performance, convenience vs versatility, things that might be priorities for the preview author but are not necessarily priorities for Nikon DSLR or DSLR users in general.

With a pre-production camera without any ability to shoot images it's probably better to stick to specs and features and let readers decide if those things meets their needs.

I have zero issues with the Fujifilm X cameras, I'm a big fan.

For many people, convenience is a major consideration when choosing a camera. How many are willing to carry a FF DSLR with them everywhere they go?

> How many are willing to carry a FF DSLR with them everywhere they go?

How many readers of the X100s preview want to read about how great the D800 is, how its AF performs? Just like how many readers of a FF DSLR preview are interested in how the X100s EVF benefits manual focus?

For many this website has become a bit too focused on mirrorless as a panacea to the point that even specific FF DSLR Previews often feature these kinds of crowbarred mirrorless comparisons related to size and convenience. Every DSLR users is fully aware of their size/weight and view it as a benefit that improves handling and ergonomics, not something they need constant reminders of previews and reviews.

I am a pro shooter who uses a Nikon D800 and D600 for my pro work. I love using the X100s for a lot of reasons besides convenience. I love the IQ; it has a different feel to me than my Nikons which isn't better or worse--just different, which I appreciate. For walking around Manhattan doing street shooting, there ain't nothin' better, in my opinion. And it's just a hell of a lot of fun to use. On my website, most of the shots are taken with my Nikons, but there are more than a few that came from my X100s.

It's just B.S.

Current Fuji quality is so good, why would somebody pay more for a larger, heavier camera when larger, heavier cameras are already available? The whole point of the X100, right down to the fixed lens is the smallest possible package for the level of quality.

Come on now Abrasive....if Fuji released a full frame version of the X100, or even better an XPro1...it would sell like hotcakes. Why do you think the Sony A7 was such a big deal.....(hint, it's the full frame sensor).

I have an X100. It's not quite there in terms of pure resolution but there is a very distinct look about the files, which lends itself perfectly to event shooting. Especially wide open at 2.0.
I shoot for personal uses - PM if you'd like an example.

I really never use DxO mark. I'm a strong believer of the fact that any modern camera is more than up to most tasks.

DxO might work for pure resolution seekers. I'm not one of them. I have 2x 16mp cameras, one more on the way. All three with different sensor formats. More than enough, as most pics are posted on websites.

And I simply do not understand why the d800 trumphs eg a Leica S. Doesn't correspond to what I actually see.

Trust me - you would love the X100 even with that score.

Does Car and Driver magazine deduct points off it's Dodge minivan review because it's corner handling was sub par to a Ferrari Enzo?

@ Cane: Yes, they do. All reviewers tend to use comparative associations with products above and below the subject of their review. I have seen reviews of family cars that make direct reference to performance against what could be called "super cars".

I thought the images were outstanding. And now you tell me it only gets a 73 from DxO. Hey, the numbers don't lie. And here I was, thinking the images looked great.

so true. i´m waiting for the speed too - can´t be so hard to make them as fast as a good dslr.

You may need to revisit the definition of jealousy, because I don't think it means what you think it means.

Too much simplification. There is at least a third group who like the X100S but I do not own it. At least I belong to this group. The camera is nicely built and styled, has good optics and a good sensor. OTOH I simply have no (read: too limited) use for it. Although 35mm was and is a focal length I like, about 40% of my photos are taken around 35mm. But then, there are 60% of my shots better made with significantly longer or shorter lenses. So for me, interchangeable lenses are a must.

Would you honestly expect people who dislike a camera to own it? I'm not a big fan of Canon's cameras. Not surprisingly, I don't own any either (any more).

Lol, I have used the X100 long enough that it was sent back right where it came from.

Talking about the X100s, there are so many Fuji jpg shooters (dpreview: "Excellent JPEG image quality - little need to shoot Raw except to correct WB" which is a dumb statement to say) because the raw files are not artifact free.

Keep shooting jpg...

>Keep shooting jpg...

I will!

I have no problems with the x-trans RAWs and use them all the time:

Apple Aperture, Capture One and Lightroom 5 - all good.

Regarding the price: the lens alone is worth the money, but you get a great sensor and a hybrid finder for free ;)

Problem with Lightroom is that it actually gives results that are sub-pair to Bayer sensors.

Well, Lightroom may be the worst of the bunch, but it´s not as bad as everyone says nowadays. Maybe they did some more tweaking.

Aperture, Capture One and PhotoNinja are a little bit better.

My RAWs are at least as sharp as my 5D Raws.

moimoi said:"Lol, I have used the X100 long enough that it was sent back right where it came from."

So you bought a camera that you hadn't tried, and found that you didn't like it. Blame the camera? No - blame yourself. Lol.