A camera I would love to own

The X100 is a camera every photo enthusiast would probably love to own.

And if it cost around $500, then they couldn't build them fast enough. But unfortunately it will cost twice that much, so many of us will have to start saving for one.

I think it was genius to make this a fixed prime lens camera. Just by doing this, the camera becomes a closed system with no worries about buying more lenses. And the market is now opened to everyone no matter which brand of DSLR they also own.

This is a beautiful retro camera with cutting edge technology. Something really hard for us gearheads to resist. I started lusting after one right after it was first announced.

http://marty4650.blogspot.com/2010/09/finally-camera-that-will-excite-you.html

And the styling is inspired too. It looks more like a Leica than some Leicas do! If the fit and finish are as good as the photos seem to indicate, then it may well be worth the high price.

Congratulations on getting your own forum here. I think while the number of owners of this camera may be small, the impact of this camera will be huge.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1

Just as I predicted, there are already strong rumours of a X100-ish body with zoom and/or interchangeable lenses. Early adopters be warned; your X100 will NOT hold any kind of value. I know this applies to most camera bodies, but as this little toy is going to be so expensive in the first place, your wallet will bear the brunt, especially when the 'new' models start rolling off the production line....

Regardless of the re-sale value, the X100 wil be my daily camera until it breaks.

....if we can name another APS-C camera of this quality for $500, then indeed the X100 is overpriced. As I don't believe there is one, then the X100 is properly priced.

The zoom/interchangeable version, if it comes true, will necessarily be even more expensive. The lens will necessarily protrude from the body more than the current pancake lens, making it less compact. Then, if interchangeable, there are all those lenses to buy...more expense. I already have a DSLR with lots of lenses for nature photography and such. Oh, and no zoom - no interchangeability - no worries about sensor dust. I think this little jewel is destined to be a classic.

DekHog said:

Just as I predicted, there are already strong rumors of a X100-ish body with zoom and/or interchangeable lenses. Early adopters be warned; your X100 will NOT hold any kind of value. I know this applies to most camera bodies, but as this little toy is going to be so expensive in the first place, your wallet will bear the brunt, especially when the 'new' models start rolling off the production line....

Click to expand...

--
Prentis
http://prentis.smugmug.com

Does anyone need another version of the LX5/S95/XZ-1?

The X100 only has two real competitors. The $2000 Leica X1 and the Sigma DP2. And of those three, I think the Fuji is the best choice.

People who want zoom lenses can find plenty of cameras with them. This camera will appeal to someone who wants a body optimized for a single, general purpose focal length.

Having a fixed lens can be a blessing. You won't have to worry about dust, you won't need to spend a fortune for more lenses, and you won't ever outgrow your camera bag.

It's a nice camera for a minimalist who wants high quality results.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1

Exactly. I dont mind the fixed lens, I'd love it if there was a built-in teleconverter that could take the lens from 23mm to 46mm with no loss in quality. That'd increase the size, price and weight a bit but it'd make this camera a good portrait camera as well.

I fully agree Marty.

This is the kind of camera I've wanted ever since digital cameras became available.

For me, less is often more. The fixed focal length avoids many problems and gives me one less thing to worry about when composing my shots.

Fuji has a reputation for making superb lenses and the focal length is pretty much what I'd choose if I only had one lens. I do a heck of a lot of shooting with a bright 35mm equiv on my Nikons.

The solid build, OVF+EVF, abundance of manual controls and classic styling make the X-100 irresistible for me.

I have an Oly EP-2 (great quality but I don't much like the handling) and a high-end Nikon DSLR system, but I can see me using the X-100 in an awful lot of day-to-day situations.

I'm also a former Leica M6 film user and I miss the sheer build quality, bright OVF and compactness of such a camera. The M9 is just too expensive for me though.

Strictly speaking there are things that I should spend the money on before another camera but I will 100% be getting one.

The X-100 is a real triumph of imagination for Fujifilm and I for one will be rewarding their initiative with my hard-earned cash.

--
Concatenation : the process of glueing one cat's nose to another cat's tail.

Marty4650 said:

The X100 is a camera every photo enthusiast would probably love to own.

Click to expand...

In film days, many of the camera companies made cameras that were identical in concept. While we may have shot with system cameras to put bread on the table, when the working day was over, these were the cameras we carried. On the first page of the preview, there is a shot of the X100 with two of these. http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmx100/

Marty4650 said:

And if it cost around $500, then they couldn't build them fast enough. But unfortunately it will cost twice that much, so many of us will have to start saving for one.

Click to expand...

For a superb 35mm equivalent Fujinon lens that is promised, an APS sensor specifically customized to it, a fine, well designed and built camera behind it, the price seems to be very fair, considering that the much less featured Leica X1 is $800US more, and a 35mm f/2.0 Sumicron for the big Leicas is $3k. You may recall that in the first half dozen years of the digital era, all the companies made high-end compact "bridge cameras" that were in the same price range. While they had 2/3" sensors, this one has an APS-C sensor that is some 6.4× the area.

Marty4650 said:

I think it was genius to make this a fixed prime lens camera. Just by doing this, the camera becomes a closed system with no worries about buying more lenses. And the market is now opened to everyone no matter which brand of DSLR they also own.

Click to expand...

And that is key—it is not intended to replace a dSLR, but to supplement it. Who wants to lug a big camera and three or four lenses to a restaurant, even on a big occasion? The X100 is fully capable of producing fine image quality, while being small and unobtrusive.

Marty4650 said:

This is a beautiful retro camera with cutting edge technology. Something really hard for us gearheads to resist. I started lusting after one right after it was first announced.

http://marty4650.blogspot.com/2010/09/finally-camera-that-will-excite-you.html

Click to expand...

I am not a gearhead, but as a photographer, I was immediately drawn to it. I have memories of a superb Konica S3 that was identical in concept. I carried it everywhere and a number of my most favorite images were shot with it. In the early days of digital, I used Nikon's "bridge" cameras, the classic 990, then the 5000 and 8400. Great cameras for the street and people shooting. However, beyond ISO200 quality quickly declined. The APS-C sensor was the perfect choice. My main system is a D700, so I have full frame covered. The APS-C allows for a smaller, lighter camera while still producing image quality that will certainly be good enough. The sensor size seems to be the perfect choice.

Marty4650 said:

And the styling is inspired too. It looks more like a Leica than some Leicas do! If the fit and finish are as good as the photos seem to indicate, then it may well be worth the high price.

Click to expand...

All who have actually held one, have commented that it is a camera with high-quality construction.

--
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/

DekHog said:

Just as I predicted, there are already strong rumours of a X100-ish body with zoom and/or interchangeable lenses. Early adopters be warned; your X100 will NOT hold any kind of value. I know this applies to most camera bodies, but as this little toy is going to be so expensive in the first place, your wallet will bear the brunt, especially when the 'new' models start rolling off the production line....

Click to expand...

I can think of no reason why I would be concerned. It is a camera that if it lives up to potential, would do the job as well as I would want for the rest of my life. While the price of digital cameras is well above film cameras, the payback is very quick. No film, no processing, print only what you really want and no time running back and forth to the lab.

I do not want a zoom version. I greatly like the concept of a lens and sensor customized for each other. I have a Nikon D700 and Fuji FinePix 3D stereo camera for zoom.

I want a completely self-contained camera that is light and portable—carry everywhere—with an ideal focal length prime for people and street shooting, that is capable of really good image quality. Why would I worry about what I can get from it in a couple of years? It is the camera I have been looking for since 2005 when the major camera makers abandoned the high-end compact "bridge" cameras.

--
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/

I also had a Konica S3, which I loved dearly.

And I also used a Canonet 17, and an Olympus RC. Many of us used these cameras which were relatively compact and had fast aperture fixed lenses

But then those mercury batteries got hard to find, and the selenium metering sensors started to wear out, and digital photography became so much more cheaper and easier to use.

The Fuji X100 really is ideal for people who loved those cameras.

And the price is high, but not as high as you think. Not once you consider how much inflation we have had in the past 40 years. Today, $1200 has the same purchasing power that $170 had in 1965. And it wasn't that unusual to spend $170 for a nice camera back then.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1

"get their own forum here" - they co-opted ours.

I don't object to that fact, but I'd like it to remain clear that there were plenty of dedicated Fuji users long before this beast arrived...

--
Matt Fahrner
http://boinkphoto.com

$800 would have been properly priced. $1200 is not I'm sorry to say...

--
Matt Fahrner
http://boinkphoto.com

I was going to say you were wrong, but using this:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation

Remarkably you seem to be right. I still have my Canonet (though I didn't buy in in 1965!).

I still think it's too expensive - it doesn't pass the "wife test".

--
Matt Fahrner
http://boinkphoto.com

I just wish it had a 50mm equiv lens, not 35mm equiv lens (and it was $400 cheaper)!

--
Matt Fahrner
http://boinkphoto.com

Marty,

Not only that, but those lovely cameras ate film, which then needed to be processed and printed—also costing the time and money running back and forth to the lab. In terms of film costs, this camera will pay for itself in just a few months, considering I was shooting 20,000–50,000 exposures per year. (Luckily I was not paying for the film and I was doing most of the processing myself—and being paid to do so.)

However, now I am no longer a full time working shooter, so it is meaningful.

People fail to realize just how much the cost of photography has gone down. I am currently processing a shoot from last weekend, that was done under mixed light. Not only that, but the dynamic range varied greatly in different parts of the picture. I have done similar prints from film, but getting it right took a whole workday, and a box or two of colour paper and the chemicals to process it. Now I do a layer with each light-source balanced and smoothly mask them together.

Same with dynamic range. Areas hit by sunlight through the windows are balanced by those with reflected ambient light, with contrast control on both. Total time—fifteen minutes max. They look like they were shot under ideal lighting conditions.

People cry about the cost of printing. There are excellent printers for a whole lot less than setting up a colour darkroom and require only a fraction of the real estate. Even with a top notch colour analyzer, it normally took a few prints to get colour, exposure with dodging and burning to the level of a commercially salable print. My monitor is calibrated, my paper comes with an ideal profile, and I can nail it the first print—every time! Even when doing snapshot sized prints for a give-away to friends, each one is of a quality equal to the prints in my portfolio.

Even if I do not make a cent of income from my X100, it still will have paid for itself in savings.

Marty4650 said:

I also had a Konica S3, which I loved dearly.

And I also used a Canonet 17, and an Olympus RC. Many of us used these cameras which were relatively compact and had fast aperture fixed lenses

But then those mercury batteries got hard to find, and the selenium metering sensors started to wear out, and digital photography became so much more cheaper and easier to use.

The Fuji X100 really is ideal for people who loved those cameras.

And the price is high, but not as high as you think. Not once you consider how much inflation we have had in the past 40 years. Today, $1200 has the same purchasing power that $170 had in 1965. And it wasn't that unusual to spend $170 for a nice camera back then.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1

Click to expand...

--
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/

$400 is the early adopter premium . It'll be $800 before the end of 2011, I am fairly sure. But hey, mine's still preordered and by the time it falls to $800, I'd have taken $400 worth of enjoyment out of it

boinkphoto said:

$800 would have been properly priced. $1200 is not I'm sorry to say...

Click to expand...

boinkphoto said:

I still think it's too expensive - it doesn't pass the "wife test".

Click to expand...

Let's see, Matt. We'll make a list.

Here, you're unhappy with the price.

You're also unhappy that it's a 35mm equiv focal length. You wish it was 50.

You're also still waiting to see "the vaunted DR" ... "looking say at the sailboats, those whites look pretty darn clipped", you say.

You also seem a bit annoyed that some folks are forgetting this forum used to be for Fuji DSLRs, although you write, "I'm happy to see the X100 here".

Well that's one positive note. I am happy that you are happy.

boinkphoto said:

$800 would have been properly priced. $1200 is not I'm sorry to say...

--
Matt Fahrner
http://boinkphoto.com

Click to expand...

Based upon what market analysis? I'm thinking you just pulled a number out of the air that you like, and have decided that is the reasonable price. I'm not saying you're incorrect; but I say the price is fair at $1200. Both opinions are equally valid on this one.

My prediction is it will sell for sub $1000 within 6 months. I would have bought one of these months ago but I've lost interest now.
--
Olympus EP-2, 7-14, 20mm, 40-150, 50mm Takumar, Leica 28mm Summicron ASPH.